Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T07:43:11.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incomplete language-of-thought in infancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Jean-Rémy Hochmann Open the ORCID record for Jean-Rémy Hochmann [Opens in a new window]
Jean-Rémy Hochmann*
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR5229 – Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod, Bron, France. hochmann@isc.cnrs.fr https://sites.google.com/site/jrhochmann/ Université Lyon 1 Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The view that infants possess a full-fledged propositional language-of-thought (LoT) is appealing, providing a unifying account for infants’ precocious reasoning skills in many domains. However, careful appraisal of empirical evidence suggests that there is still no convincing evidence that infants possess discrete representations of abstract relations, suggesting that infants’ LoT remains incomplete. Parallel arguments hold for perception.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e278
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & He, Z. (2010). False-belief understanding in infants. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 110–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Martín, A., Téglás, E., Vorobyova, L., Cetnarski, R., & Bonatti, L. L. (2018). Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6381), 1263–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2010). Twelve- to 14-month-old infants can predict single-event probability with large set sizes. Developmental Science, 13(5), 798–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelmann, J. M., Haux, L. M., Völter, C., Schleihauf, H., Call, J., Rakoczy, H., & Herrmann, E. (2022). Do chimpanzees reason logically?. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13861Google ScholarPubMed
Goupil, N., Papeo, L., & Hochmann, J. R. (2022). Visual perception grounding of social cognition in preverbal infants. Infancy, 27(2), 210–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochmann, J.-R. (2022). Representations of abstract relations in infancy. Open Mind, 6, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochmann, J.-R., & Papeo, L. (2021). How can it be both abstract and perceptual? Comment on Hafri, A., & Firestone, C. (2021), The perception of relations, Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://psyarxiv.com/hm49pGoogle Scholar
Hochmann, J. R., & Toro, J. M. (2021). Negative mental representations in infancy. Cognition, 213, 104599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochmann, J. R., Tuerk, A. S., Sanborn, S., Zhu, R., Long, R., Dempster, M., & Carey, S. (2017). Children's representation of abstract relations in relational/array match-to-sample tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 99, 17–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kominsky, J. F., & Scholl, B. J. (2020). Retinotopic adaptation reveals distinct categories of causal perception. Cognition, 203, 104339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science (New York, N.Y.), 354(6308), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality?. Cognition, 25(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papeo, L. (2020). Twos in human visual perception. Cortex, 132, 473–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, L. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Preverbal infants expect members of social groups to act alike. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(41), E3965–E3972.Google ScholarPubMed
Premack, D. (1983). The codes of man and beasts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochat, P., Striano, T., & Morgan, R. (2004). Who is doing what to whom? Young infants’ developing sense of social causality in animated displays. Perception, 33(3), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2015). Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. Science (New York, N.Y.), 348(6230), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatone, D., Geraci, A., & Csibra, G. (2015). Giving and taking: Representational building blocks of active resource-transfer events in human infants. Cognition, 137, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Téglás, E., Girotto, V., Gonzalez, M., & Bonatti, L. L. (2007). Intuitions of probabilities shape expectations about the future at 12 months and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(48), 19156–19159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. K., Oden, D. L., & Boysen, S. T. (1997). Language-naive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23(1), 31.Google Scholar