When Tom Givón asked me a while ago what my chapter would be about, I said, “Roughly, about the relation between language and theory of mind. ” His laconic response was, “Well, they are inseparable. ” So, I thought, there goes my chapter. But not really. There is reason to believe that language and theory of mind have coevolved, given their close relation in development and their tight connection in social behavior. However, they are clearly not inseparable—physiologically, cognitively, or functionally. So the question becomes, “What is the exact relation between language and theory of mind, in evolution, development, and social behavior? ” To answer this question is a daunting task; I will try merely to clear a path toward an answer. I will consider several possible relations between the two faculties, bring conceptual arguments and empirical evidence to bear on them, and end up arguing for an escalation process in which language and theory of mind have fueled each other’s evolution. Language Some Stipulations About Language and Theory of Mind What constitutes genuine language? Modern language is typically described on several

This paper was originally written while the author was at the University of California at Berkeley

Possession of a “theory of mind ” (ToM)—as demonstrated by an understanding of the false beliefs of others— is fundamental in children’s cognitive development. A key question for debate concerns the effect of language input on ToM. In this respect, comparisons of deaf native-signing children who are raised by deaf signing parents with deaf late-signing children who are raised by hearing parents provide a critical test. This article reports on two studies (N � 100 and N � 39) using “thought picture ” measures of ToM that minimize verbal task-performance requirements. These studies demonstrated that even when factors such as syntax ability, mental age in spatial ability, and executive functioning were considered, deaf late signers still showed deficits in ToM understanding relative to deaf native signers or hearing controls. Even though the native signers were significantly younger than a sample of late signers matched for spatial mental age and scores on a test of receptive sign language ability, native signers outperformed late signers on pictorial ToM tasks. The results are discussed in terms of access to conversation and extralinguistic influences on development such as the presence of sibling relationships, and suggest that the expression of a ToM is the end result of social understanding mediated by early conversational experience.

Abstract not found

The role of the theory-of-mind cortical network in the comprehension of narratives