This experiment tested the ability of 81 adult subjects to make a decision on a simple nonverbal false-belief reasoning task while concurrently either shadowing prerecorded spoken dialogue or tapping along with a rhythmic shadowing track. Our results showed that the verbal task, but not tapping, significantly disrupted false-belief reasoning, suggesting that language plays a key role in working theory of mind in adults, even when the false-belief reasoning is nonverbal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstingtonJ.W.BairdJ.A.(Eds.). (2005). Why language matters for theory of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
BloomP.KeilF.C. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind and Language, 16, 351–367.
3.
CarruthersP. (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 657–674.
4.
ClarkA. (1998). Magic words: How language augments human computation. InCarruthersP.BoucherJ. (Eds.), Language and thought (pp. 162–183). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ClementsW.A.PernerJ. (1994). Implicit understanding of belief. Cognitive Development, 9, 377–395.
6.
de VilliersJ.G. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view?InAstingtonJ.W.BairdJ.A. (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 186–219). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
de VilliersJ.G.de VilliersP.A. (2000). Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. InMitchellP.RiggsK. (Eds.), Children's reasoning and the mind (pp. 189–226). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
8.
de VilliersP.A. (2005). The role of language in theory-of-mind development: What deaf children tell us. InAstingtonJ.W.BairdJ.A. (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 266–297). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
FodorJ.A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
10.
HarrisP. (2005). Conversation, pretence and theory of mind. InAstingtonJ.W.BairdJ.A. (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 70–83). New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Hermer-VasquezL.SpelkeE.S.KatsnelsonA.S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3–36.
12.
JackendoffR. (1996). How language helps us think. Pragmatics and Cognition, 4, 1–34.
13.
NelsonK. (2005). Language pathways into the community of minds. InAstingtonJ.W.BairdJ.A. (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 26–49). New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
OnishiK.H.BaillargeonR. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?Science, 308, 255–258.
15.
PernerJ.RuffmanT. (2005). Infants' insight into the mind: How deep?Science, 308, 214–216.
16.
PetersonC.C.SiegalM. (1999). Representing inner worlds: Theory of mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing children. Psychological Science, 10, 126–129.
17.
SegalG. (1998). Representing representations. InCarruthersP.BoucherJ. (Eds.), Language and thought (pp. 146–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
SpelkeE. (2003). What makes humans smart?InGentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (Eds.), Advances in the investigation of language and thought (pp. 277–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Tager-FlusbergH. (1997). The role of theory of mind in language acquisition: Contributions from the study of autism. InAdamsonL.RomskiM.A. (Eds.), Research on communication and language disorders: Contributions to theories of language development (pp. 133–158). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
20.
VarleyR.SiegalM. (2000). Evidence for cognition without grammar from causal reasoning and theory of mind in an agrammatic aphasic patient. Current Biology, 10, 723–726.
21.
VarleyR.SiegalM.WantS.C. (2001). Severe impairment in grammar does not preclude theory of mind. Neurocase, 7, 489–493.
22.
WoolfeT.WantS.C.SiegalM. (2002). Signposts to development: Theory of mind in deaf children. Child Development, 73, 768–778.
