Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T10:41:20.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

39 - Domain-Specific Knowledge and Conceptual Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Susan Carey  and
Elizabeth Spelke
Edited by
Jonathan E. Adler  and
Lance J. Rips
Susan Carey
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Elizabeth Spelke
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Jonathan E. Adler
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Lance J. Rips
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

Overview

We argue that human reasoning is guided by a collection of innate domain-specific systems of knowledge. Each system is characterized by a set of core principles that define the entities covered by the domain and support reasoning about those entities. Learning, on this view, consists of an enrichment of the core principles, plus their entrenchment, along with the entrenchment of the ontology they determine. In these domains, then, we would expect cross-cultural universality: cognitive universals akin to language universals.

However, there is one crucial disanalogy to language. The history of science and mathematics demonstrates that conceptual change in cognitive domains is both possible and actual. Conceptual change involves overriding core principles, creating new principles, and creating new ontological types. We sketch one potential mechanism underlying conceptual change and motivate a central empirical problem for cognitive anthropology: To what extent is there cross-cultural universality in the domains covered by innate systems of knowledge?

Domain-Specific Cognition

The notion of domain-specific cognition to be pursued here is articulated most clearly by Chomsky (1980a). Humans are endowed with domain-specific systems of knowledge such as knowledge of language, knowledge of physical objects, and knowledge of number. Each system of knowledge applies to a distinct set of entities and phenomena. For example, knowledge of language applies to sentences and their constituents; knowledge of physical objects applies to macroscopic material bodies and their behavior; knowledge of number applies to sets and to mathematical operations such as addition.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning
Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations
 , pp. 807 - 826
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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.)

References

Astington, J. W., Harris, P. L., & Olson, D. R. (Eds.). (1988). Developing theories of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (1990). Cognitive foundations of natural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1986). Representing the existence and the location of hidden objects: Object permanence in 6- and 8-month-old infants. Cognition, 23, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baillargeon, R., Graber, M., DeVos, J., & Black, J. C. (1990). Why do young infants fail to search for hidden objects?Cognition, 36, 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, W. A. (1973, April). The perception of causality in the infant. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia, PA.
Carbonell, J. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., & Mitchell, T. (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (pp. 371–392). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1988). Conceptual differences between children and adults. Mind and Language, 3, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (Eds.), Epigenesis of mind: Studies in biology and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carey, S., Klatt, L., & Schlaffer, M. (1992). Infants' representations of objects and nonsolid substances. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In Giere, R. N. (Ed.), Cognitive models of science. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 15, 129–186. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980b). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H., & Pérusse, R. (1988). Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 561–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1949). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Estes, D., Wellman, N. M., & Woolley, J. D. (1989). Children's understanding of mental phenomena. In Reese, H. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 41–87). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962). Explanation, reduction, empiricism. In Feigl, H. & Maxwell, G. (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3, 41–87. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1992). A theory of the child's theory of mind. Cognition, 44, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, R. (1990). First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: Number and the animate–inanimate distinction as examples. Cognitive Science, 14, 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, R. (1991). Epigenetic foundations of knowledge structures: Initial and transcendent constructions. In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 293–322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., & Evans, R. (1981). Understanding infinity: A beginning inquiry Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., Spelke, E. S., & Meck, E. (1983). What preschoolers know about animate and inanimate objects. In Rogers, D. & Sloboda, I. A. (Eds.), The acquisition of symbolic skills. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., & Gottfried, G. M. (1994). Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman, eds., 341–365.
Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the nonobvious. Cognition, 38, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 200–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A 90-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1993). Working in a new world: The taxonomic solution. In Horwich, P. & Thomson, J. (Eds.), World changes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1987). Everyday biology and school biology: How do they interact?The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9, 120–128.Google Scholar
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. (1982). The concept of identity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A. eds. (1994). Mapping the Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofsten, C., & Spelke, E. S. (1985). Object perception and object-directed reaching in infancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction: A computational theory. Cognitive Science, 13, 295–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1988). Young children's understanding of the mind–body distinction. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Jammer, M. (1961). Concepts of mass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jeyifous, S. (1986). Atimodemo: Semantic conceptual development among the Yoruba. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. H., & Morton, J. (1991). Biology and cognitive development: The case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kellman, P. J., Gleitman, H., & Spelke, E. S. (1987). Object and observer motion in the perception of objects by infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 586–593.Google ScholarPubMed
Kellman, P. J., & Spelke, E. S. (1983). Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 483–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellman, P. J., Spelke, E. S., & Short, K. (1986). Infant perception of object unity from translatory motion in depth and vertical translation. Child Development, 57, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestenbaum, R., Termine, N., & Spelke, E. S. (1987). Perception of objects and object boundaries by three-month-old infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1983). The nature of mathematical knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D., & Wallace, J. G. (1973). The role of quantification operators in the development of conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). A function for thought experiments. In Kuhn, T. S. (Ed.), The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1982). Commensurability, comparability, communicability PSA, 1982 2 (pp. 669–688). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “Theory of mind.”Psychological Review, 94, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1988). The necessity of illusion: Perception and thought in infancy. In Weiskrantz, L. (Ed.), Thought and language (pp. 185–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1991, April). Infants' understanding of invisible displacement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In Giere, R. N. (Ed.), Cognitive models of science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science,15, 3–44. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA. Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1941). Le development des quantites chez l'enfant. Neufchatel: Delchaux et Niestle.Google Scholar
Premack, D. (1990). The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roan, P. (1976). The evolution of intelligence and access to the cognitive inconscious. Progress in Psychobiology and Physiological Psychology, 6, 245–279.Google Scholar
Shipley, E. F., & Shepperson, B. (1990). Countable entities: Developmental changes. Cognition, 34, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slater, A., Morison, V., Somers, M., Mattock, A., Brown, E., & Taylor, D. (1990). Newborn and older infants' perception of partly occluded objects. Infant Behavior and Development, 13, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C., Grosslight, L., Macklin, D., & Davis, H. (1993). A comparison of IPS and a parallel model-based curriculum in producing conceptual change. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, [city of conference].
Smith, C., Snir, Y., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight and density. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soja, N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological constraints on early word meanings. Cognition, 38, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, G., Johnson, S., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1993). The young child's conception of inheritance. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.
Spelke, E. S. (1988). Where perceiving ends and thinking begins: The apprehension of objects in infancy. In Yonas, A. (Ed.), Perceptual development in infancy. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology,20, 191–234. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (1991). Physical knowledge in infancy: Reflections on Piaget's theory. In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (Eds.), Epigenesis of mind: Studies in biology and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Gestalt relations and object perception in infancy. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S., Hofsten, C., & Kestenbaum, R. (1989). Object perception and object-directed reaching in infancy: Interaction of spatial and kinetic information for object boundaries. Developmental Psychology, 25, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S., & Kestenbaum, R. (1986). Les origines du concept d'objet. Psychologie Francaise, 31, 67–72.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., & Van de Walle, G. (1999). Perceiving and reasoning about objects: Insights from infants. In Eilan, N., Brewer, W., & McCarthy, R. (Eds). Spatial Representation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 132–161.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1994). Epidemiology of representations: The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman, eds., 39–47.
Springer, K. (1992). Children's beliefs about the biological implications of kinship. Child Development, 63, 950–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, K., & Keil, F. C. (1989). On the development of biologically specific beliefs: The case of inheritance. Child Development, 60, 637–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streri, A., & Spelke, E. S. (1988). Haptic perception of objects in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streri, A., & Spelke, E. S. (1989). Effects of motion and figural goodness on haptic object perception in infancy. Child Development, 60, 1111–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streri, A., Spelke, E. S., & Rameix, E. (1992). Modality-specific and amodal aspects of object perception in infancy: The case of active touch. Unpublished manuscript.
Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1988). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tronick, E. (1982). Social interchange in infancy. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Tweney, R. D. (1991). Faraday's notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physics Education, 26, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Walle, G. A., & Spelke, E. S. (1993). Integration of information over time: Infants' perception of partly occluded objects. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Vosniadro, S. (1994). Universal and culture-specific properties of children's mental models of the earth. In Hirschfeld & Gelman, eds., 412–430.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellman, H. M., & Miller, K. F. (1986). The development of understanding of the concept of the number zero, 3–7 year-olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and substance. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.Google Scholar
Wiser (1988). Can models foster conceptual change? The case of heat and temperature. Harvard University: Educational Technology Center Technical Report.
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, F., & Carey, S. (1992). Infants' concept of numerical identity. Paper presented at the Boston University Language Acquisition Conference.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×