Theory of Mind & Linguistic Acquisition, Article Writing Example

Abstract

Theory of mind (ToM) is a conceptual theory that is credited with enabling individuals to anticipate the mental states of others, including theirbeliefs, desires, emotions, intentions, and additional emotive circumstances (Flavell, 2004).  Linguistic acquisition is a natural development that begins to develop in children from birth and enables communication.  The cognitive domains necessary to comprehend language is also required in order for the formation of ToM to develop.  The interpretations made through ToM presumptions can contain the discernmentof another’s false belief.  In this context,the individual must be aware that the literal interpretation could be an inaccurate symbol ormanufactured belief.  This understanding requires a certain level of cognitive development in the child since the intention may be to signify something else and the child must be able to correctly process idiomatic expressions in order to accurately make ToM determinations(Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).  This paper explores the relationship between ToM and linguistic acquisition in normally developing children as well as those with various disabilities to ascertain the degree of cognitive development necessary in order to make ToM determinations.  Exploration of this relationship reveals that linguistic and cognitive development are both essential in the construct of ToM perceptions in early childhood.

Theory of Mind & Language

Theory of mind (ToM) is a relatively new fieldthat studies the nature of cognitive development in regards to human comprehension of the introspective or conceptual environment of others(Garfield, Peterson, & Perry, 2001). The inception of the ToM theory over the past two decades has inspired a theoretical social cognitive competence under intensive examination, garnering a traditional definition as the understanding ofanother person’s belief (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).Essentially, the ToM concept illustrates the cognitive capacity of an individual to comprehend and attribute mental states to the self as well as others (Goldman, 2012).  The ToM concept includes elements of cognitive development that consists of personal individual “…beliefs, desires, emotions, thoughts, perceptions, intentions, and other mental states” (Flavell, 2004, p. 274).

Linguistic acquisition is vital to all aspects of life andcommunicative abilities affect how ToM is conceptualized(Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012; Nettle & Romaine, 2000; Skotko, 1997).  Although language development in early childhood is a perpetual process that begins at birth, the development of ToM requires the formation of specific cognitive domains that will enable the child to form the conceptual framework necessary to make such determinations (Ananthaswamy, 2009; Astington & Edward, 2010; Otto, 2010).  Furthermore, association of the physical or emotional states attributed to ToM requires the attainment of semantic in addition to syntactic properties of sentential accompaniments in order to assist the expansion of the representational elements inclusive in ToM (Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2003).

Empirical research has proven that in early childhood, linguistic acquisition is the foundation for cognitive learning (Ball, 2010).  Comprehensive linguistic input is essential to the child’s ability to acquire language competency.  Other factors include cognitive development, personality, self-confidence, motivation, and the language competencies of those in the child’s home environment (Morrison, 2009).

The broad connotationsfor the ToM concept has madeexplorationof particular interest within a wide range of disciplines, including developmental, social, clinical, comparative, cultural, and cognitive psychology, as well as philosophic, psychiatric, neuropsychology, educational professions,and numerous other fields of research (Flavell, 2004).  This area is of particular interest to early childhood researchers because it illuminates various aspects of the cognitive development of children(Blijd-Hoogewys, van Geert, Serra, & Minderaa., 2008).  Examination of ToM provides a comprehensive understanding of the development of early childhood thought process as well as their facility to construct symbolic exemplifications that allow them to preserve images (Leslie, 1987).

Research Questions

The requisite of cognitive knowledge for both linguistic acquisition as well as the construct of ToM concepts has inspired the research question: Is linguistic acquisition necessary for the development of ToM?  In addition, age is a primary factor in both linguistic acquisition and ToM development in childrensince it is presumed that both occur during the same period in early childhood (Astington & Edward, 2010; Otto, 2010).  This element prompts examination of ToM through an additional research question: Must children develop linguistic representations of the relative concepts in order to perceive these dynamics through ToM?  In other words, is it necessary for children to be able to identify the perceived states of others that they interpret though ToM?

Research Methodology

This article will seek to answer the research questions by searching multiple databases including EbscoHost, Google Scholar, JStor, Muse, ProQuest, Sage, and WorldCat, using the specific keywords ‘linguistic acquisition’ and ‘theory of mind.’ From these databases, articles exploring the relationship between ToM and cognition of symbolic speech were collected, specificallyresearch that concentrated on children with disabilities such as hearing, Autistic spectrum, or other disorders.  This research examination employed archival techniques, which relies on the grounds established through existing studies.  In this capacity, the research is both qualitative and quantitative, since it is based on the methods applied in the relevant studies, which includes both methodologies(Yoshikawa, Weisner, Kalil, & Way, 2008).

The data compiled from the empirical analysis in existing studies will be based on the instrumentation applied and will consist of observations as well as examinations conducted in thereferenced studies (Lieberman, 2012).  The research procedure methods will be determined by the methods indicated in the relevant research materials and the data will be analyzed in accordance with the techniques performed in the context of the studies examined.  The conclusions will be indicated based on the details represented in the compiled detailsrepresentingrelevant knowledge content with a bearing on the salience of the primary analyses established on the circumstance of these references.

The strength in archival research is in that if there is a wealth of available research, the archival design enables researchers to incorporate as little or as much research and widen or narrow their foci according to what they are trying to determine as well as the availability of relevant data.  However, the limitation is that the available research may not completely coalesce with the intentions of the study being conducted.  Archival research encompasses conclusions drawn through analysis ofcurrent information resources including both public and private records to exploit the plethora of knowledge, which is the principle strength of this research method since it enables the considerationof trends from a temporal perspective (Newman, 2011).  However, this is also the major limitation of this research method since it only draws upon available knowledge, so if there is only a small amount of data existing, the research findings will be limited in this manner leaving the examiner with little control over the outcomes (Newman, 2011).

Literature Review

This Literature Reviewwill present current theories that determine the extent of the relationship between linguistic acquisition and ToM development in children.  This literature review will first discuss the relevant elements of ToM as well as the patterns oflinguistic acquisition independently.  The literature review will also examine how language affects the formation of ToM concepts.  Examination of the development of ToM in children with various disabilities that hinder linguistic development will also be reviewed to present a comprehensive perspective of the correlation between ToM and linguistic acquisition.

Illuminating the Concept of Theory of Mind

The term ‘ToM’ isgenerally used toindicate whatever understanding guides propositional viewpointattribution as well asprovide an explanation andprediction of behavior by means of inner states and processes (Ahmed & Miller, 2011).  Some researchers have indicated that ToM acquisition occurs through the development of socialand linguistic interchanges, but does not precede them as an autonomousbody of knowledge (Garfield, Peterson, & Perry, 2001).Existing analyses on ToMserves as a conceptual framework that analyzes the capacity of an individual to imagine or form opinions in regards to the cognitive states of other people (Marraffa, n.d.).  The individual’s capacity to characterize mental statuses, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, to the self in addition to others helps comprehend predictive behavior, thus transforming understanding of social patterns (Al-Hilawani, Easterbrooks, & Marchant, 2002).

Researchers speculate that ToM develops in early childhood through language as children listen to people discuss theiremotions and beliefs (Ananthaswamy, 2009).The representations established through ToM describethat individual’s ability to includevariousperceptions and be cognizant of the possibility that they or others can have contrived opinions (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).  In early childhood, this is demonstrated when children are able to describe actions with words.At the onset of linguistic cognitive development, the “mental organ” is not yet in collaboration with other cognitive systems that facilitate responses such as motor control, perception, and reasoning (Pinker, 1995).

Theindividual must distinguish that the precisedefinitive expression could be a false representation orcontrived belief when the speaker’s purpose is to indicate something else (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).  According to this interpretation, ToM must exist despite the individual’s ability to correctly interpret idiomatic expressions (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).  This correlates with the hypotheses that an affirmative or ‘yes’ bias exists as a predeterminedresponses in three to five year old toddlers that have developed ToM capabilities (Moriguchi, Okanda, & Itakura, 2008).

It is the common interpretation that youth with ToMcapabilitiescomprehend that people may hold erroneous interpretations, permitting the child to resiststrange or incorrectrecommendations, even when they come from adults (Moriguchi, Okanda, & Itakura, 2008).  Presence of ToM is demonstrated in pre-linguistic children that have the ability to attempt the retrieval of a hidden item from a parent’s closed hand.  Children that are developing ToM abilities will also attempt retrieval even though the parent has visibly switched the object to another hand.

Patterns of Linguistic Acquisition

Languageis a symbolic system of communication that encompassesinternal as well as external entities (Malle, 2002). Regardless of the nature of interactions, communication is essential to pass on knowledge, give directives, and survive, which is why all children must learn to use some form of communication.  An essentialelement of language is that it proposes options in its representational repertoire (Malle, 2002).  The first words children speak are in the language of their parents, primarily disregarding the individuals who voice a different language and this is the foundation that they establish their basis for linguistic development (Ball, 2010).

Linguistic diversity has an amazing persuasion on a student’s talent to learn in schoolroom sceneries, which can become often harmful or damaging concerning the student when the educator has not received appropriate teaching courses to compliment the requirements of these children, as is primarily the illustration in local school environments(Otto, 2010).  There are many elements that influence language acquisition in early childhood that the school practitioner must recognize, including the temperaments of the student, the societal background, and the superiority or aptitude of the linguistic contributionpresented, all of which are significantelements in the facility to integrate the independent language (Otto, 2010).

Comprehensive verbal contribution is vital to the student’s capacity to acquire the new language(Garfield, Peterson, & Perry, 2001).  Linguistic and ethnic diversity influencesstudent’scapacity to learn from an instructor that is lacking in appropriate pedagogical educational methodologiesthat typically includestechniques to accommodate the needs of allindividuals in public school settings (Otto, 2010). Additionally, a varietyof characteristics within the learner’ssurroundingsinfluencetheir aptitude to cultivate literacy skills that the teacher must consider(Ball, 2010).  This includes the specificpersonalities of each student, the dynamics of the educational setting, and the qualitative elements of the linguistic input received within the home(Crim, et al., 2008).

In early childhood, reading provides linguistic input that encourages students to actively think about as well as internalize language, which teaches them how to correlate sequences and follow plots or recurring themes throughout the story line.  Through this type of linguistic input, children learn how to ponder relevant elements of the story, like mood, and determine what may come next in the story.  This also gives children the confidence to explore their thoughts and ideas about the story to piece together their own meanings.

Linguist Naom Chomsky is the main theorist associated with the nativist linguistic developmentalperspective on, which accentuatesinstinctive linguistic abilities as the principalinfluentialaspect to language development in children (Morrison, 2009).  This perspective of linguistic acquisition encourages educators to employ a curriculum that will allow numerous opportunities for children to explore language and explore various aspects of their growing knowledge and keep their language acquisition device (LAD) active (Morrison, 2009; Myers-Scotton, 1993).

The cognitive development perspective is based on the theories of Jean Piaget and speculates that linguistic acquisition comes with maturation and cognitive development, which is the foundation for teaching language  (Ball, 2010).  This perspective of linguistic development encourages early childhood educators to pay close attention to the cognitive developmental stages of their students and encourage stimulatory activities as precursors to the onset of linguistic development (Hill, 2007).  These stages of cognitive development cannot be rushed or induced through the accomplishment of any specific tasks, but will develop only as the child’s experiential knowledge allows. In facilitating cognitive development, ritualized dialogue is an effective scaffolding technique in which the teacher provides all the dialogue, converses with the student, or allows the student to carry the dialogue, according to the age, linguistic capabilities, and experience of the student.

The behaviorist perspective highlights the role of “nature” and the stimuli, responses, and reinforcements that occur in the child’s environment based on B.F. Skinner and his theory of ‘operant conditioning’ along with the notion that children are ‘blank slates’ before they are taught through various situations and learn language through imitative speech (Decker, Decker, Freeman, & Knopf, 2009).  This perspective encourages teachers to focus on the types of stimuli and reinforcements regarding language that children encounter and would encourage them to communicate verbally.

The interactionist perspective is based on the sociocultural interactions that help children develop their linguistic capacities and is based on the theories of Lev Vygotsky, whose premise contends that language development in early childhood is formed through social interactions with those in their surroundings that create a language acquisition support system (LASS) (Giorgis & Glazer, 2008).  This theory requires the adult to create conditions for effective development and to be aware of the child’s zone of proximal development and know what the child can accomplish on their own and what will require scaffolding from the supervising adult.

The meaning of language is singularly founded on the identity of the sender, which is developed through interpersonal communication (Borchers, 1999).  The interpersonal communication we share with family, friends, colleagues, and others we associate with helps us develop our identity, and this identity plays a part in determining what slang we use and the meanings associated with its usage (Borchers, 1999).  Interpersonal communication is spurned by three basic interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection (Borchers, 1999).

Linguistic & ToM Development in Children with Disabilities

The relationship between mental-state language and ToM in primary school children remains in alignment with research indicating that the social use of language is one of the most powerful cognitive tools to understand others’ minds (Gallese, 2007; Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012). The linguistic, metacognitive and cognitive measures are used to evaluate their verbal ability, use of mental-state terms, perception of metacognitive language, grasp of second-order false beliefs, and emotion, which are relative to comprehension analyses acknowledging various brain areas related to ToM and therefore vital to student’s efficient navigation of the social world (Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012; Liu, Sabbagh, Gehring, & Wellman, 2009).  Children can be assessed and given a verbal score, with the overall results indicating that “mentalizing” only occurred with non-decomposable idiomatic expression, particularly from the second-order competences (Gobbini, Koralek, Bryan, Montgomery, & Haxby, 2007, p. 1803; Moriguchi, Okanda, & Itakura, 2008).

Children with intellectual disabilities will display significant limitations in the areas of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior.  Adaptive behavior includes conceptual, social, and practical adaptive abilities in addition to the student’s intellectual capacities. When dealing with students that are intellectually disabled, teachers need to focus on memory, motivation, and their ability to problem solve.

When determining the presence or extent of cognition in children demonstrating ToM characteristics, various testing methods can be employed to examine the relationship between executive function and ToM, adding new information to an unexplored area of research with the preliminary observation that ToM predicts prospective memory in young children (Ford, Driscoll, Shum, & Macaulay, 2012).  The relation between children’s ToM and their social interactions during the transition to primary school between age five to seven, which is the first stages of developing autonomy as well as the stage that most children develop an increased awareness that mental states are internal, subjective experiences distinct from behaviors and contexts associated with them (Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin, & Banerjee, 2012; Gonzalez-Mena, 2009; Olson, Lopez-Duran, Lunkenheimer, Chang, & Sameroff, 2011).  There is strong evidence that exposure to mental state language, such as references to beliefs, desires, emotions, and other expressions, directly predicts children’s later ToM understanding (Remmel & Peters, 2009).

The critical factor in ToM development is not general conversational exposure to language about mental states and different perspectives but the acquisition of certain syntactic forms (Remmel & Peters, 2009).  The acquisition of complement syntax where a proposition is embedded under a mental state or communication verb is necessary to represent false beliefs (Pinker, 2004). In support of this hypothesis, two studies found that training on complement syntax improved children’s performance on false belief tasks (Remmel & Peters, 2009).  A number of other studies have found evidence that false belief performance is relative to language ability more generally and not mastery of complement syntax specifically (Remmel & Peters, 2009).

The Cognition Hypothesis claims that tasks should be designed and sequenced for learners on the basis of increases in their cognitive complexity, and that these design and sequencing decisions should be the basis of the task-based syllabus (Robinson, 2007).  This theory specifies six dimensions where task complexity can be increased while simultaneously directing cognitive resources to the available and specific L2 linguistic means to meet task demands. Complex tasks on these dimensions require:

• reference to events happening in the past, elsewhere (There-and-Then tasks) which implicates and directs learner resources to e.g., the L2 means of encoding past time reference, and deictic expressions;
• distinguishing between, and selectively referring to one or more among many elements or objects which implicates and directs attentional resources to, e.g., the L2 use of complex pre- and post-modification of noun phrases;
• taking multiple, different perspectives on an event which implicates, e.g., the L2 use of first, second, third person pronominal reference and selection from event construal options available in L2 lexicalization patterns; and a further three dimensions which involve increasingly complex reasoning about;
• spatial location; causality; and other people’s intentions in performing social actions (Robinson, 2007).

Of these six dimensions, the latter intentional reasoning dimension is operationalized as the basis for increasing the complexity of task demands in the present study (Robinson, 2007).Language used to refer to psychological states emerges in a predictable developmental sequence, with physiological terms such as, sleepy; desire words such as, want; and emotion words such as, happy being the earliest and most common psychological state terms to occur in children’s speech (Robinson, 2007).  Around the age of three years, children begin also to refer to cognitive states of others (Robinson, 2007).

For the majority of deaf children, namely those with hearing parents, language deficits often exist for those learning American Sign Language (ASL) (Schick, De Villiers, De Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007).  Even with language delays deaf children with hearing parents (DoH) are actively sociable (Schick, De Villiers, De Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007).  However, deaf children who have deaf parents (DoD) that provide natural access and exposure to ASL demonstrate developmental benchmarks in language acquisition similar to typically developing hearing children (Schick, De Villiers, De Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007).

In other research, it was determined that children with cochlear implants (CIs)did not typically demonstrate significant, if any, linguistic developmental delays relative to the children with normal hearing,advanced relative to the late-signing deaf children withhearing parents, and at least comparable to the nativesigningdeaf children(Remmel & Peters, 2009). This level of theory of mindperformance demands an explanation, given that previousstudies found that deaf children with hearingparents (whether oral or signing, and whetherimplanted or not) were quite delayed relative to bothchildren with normal hearing and native-signing deaf children(Remmel & Peters, 2009).The most obvious explanation is that the CI childrenin this study had better language skills for their agethan the deaf children of hearing parents in previousstudies.

For instance, the four previous studies thathave examined theory of mind in children with CIsfound that both falsebelief performance and language skills were considerablydelayed relative to hearing norms. In this study,however, the CI children showed good open-set spokenword recognition, excellent comprehension ofcomplement syntax, and virtually no delay in averageperformance on standardized measures of receptiveand expressive language(Remmel & Peters, 2009). Although we cannot claimthat their spoken language skills were exactly equivalentto those of their hearing peers, they were clearlyable to communicate effectively using spoken language,and most of them were functioning in fullymainstream educational settings without pull-out academicservices(Remmel & Peters, 2009).

Essentially, children with disabilities can develop in the same accord as typically developing children, so their cognition, linguistic acquisition, and ToM development can also develop at the average rate without any hindrances given appropriate linguistic input. When dealing with developmentally or cognitively challenged students, it is very important to first determine what their capabilities and levels of development are, as you may not be able to simply select materials according to their age and run with it.  Appropriate assessments should be made to gain knowledge of each student’s abilities and if they will benefit from the curricular agenda even if the student body is not disabled.

Language & Theory of Mind

There are numerous factors that affect language acquisition, which must be considered by the teacher, such as the individual traits of the learner, the social setting, and the quantity and quality of the linguistic input the pupil receives, all of which are influential factors in the pupil’s ability to assimilate the target language (Otto, 2010).  The roots of this cognitive capacity can be traced to the first year of life, however, throughout the early years, children become more aware of their own minds and the minds of others, as well as how to mediate between the two (Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2003).  Crucial changes in ToM understanding occur at age four when children begin to be able to accurately interpret the contents of other minds, especially belief states (Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2003).

The ability to conceptualize on the level of ToM develops at around four years of age for the average childand is a vital element in the creation of beliefs, aims, and wishes to other people, particularly in an effort to foretell their actions (Marraffa, n.d.).Extensive research indicates that ToM improves considerably during the preschool years, demonstrating that children’s yes bias may result from a less-developed ToM since young children that understand another person’s false belief reduce the yes bias because of this comprehension, enabling the child to comprehend idioms (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008; Flavell, 2004; Moriguchi, Okanda, & Itakura, 2008).  The evaluated allegorical developmental vicissitudes that occur with ToM competence in children aged five to seven years to perform five ToM tasks consisting of “an appearance–reality task, three false-belief tasks and a second-order false-belief task and listened to decomposable and non-decomposable idiomatic expressions inserted in context, before performing a multiple choice task” (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008, p. 78).

The concept of ToM within the context of prospective memory denotes the act of remembering to perform premeditated actions at a designated future time, and how inhibition and false-belief performances relative to ToM affect children’s ability to successfully implement tasks associated with these executive functions (Ford, Driscoll, Shum, & Macaulay, 2012).  Executive function involves the organization of undertakings by carrying out higher-order cognitive actions to engage in goal-oriented behaviors, such as planning and sequencing, which are commonly considered tasks beyond the cognitive capabilities of early childhood (Ahmed & Miller, 2011; Bull, Phillips, & Conway, 2007).

Positive teacher-student interactions is vital to the child’s ability to establish a caring, nurturing relationship since building this attachment is important to their development of self-esteem, their perceptions of their value and self-worth, and their desire for future learning as well as cognitive development.  Strong, healthy bonds between teachers and students facilitate extended peer exchanges, the ability to interpret emotional signals, and socially competent behaviors.  The security created within the learning environment supports all phases of psychological development

Children develop socio-cognitive skills vital for future ToM comprehension, including recognizing deliberate actions, partaking in imaginary play, the ability to focus on multiple tasks, and imitation all within the first and second years of life and this longitudinal investigation tracked the subjects for several years, collecting data at three specific temporal intervals to assess the children on their ToM, pro-social behaviors, and verbal ability as well as aggregate data on peer nominations (Blijd-Hoogewys, van Geert, Serra, & Minderaa., 2008; Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin, & Banerjee, 2012).  In addition, ancillary links between early ToM cognizance and successively lower peer rejection with higher acceptance improved pro-social behavior coincides with established analyses delineating that after age four, language is able to influence reasoning once the child has mastered syntactic complementation, as though adjusting the language structures involved in complementation enabled new ways of reasoning about other minds (Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin, & Banerjee, 2012; de Villiers, 2007).  Overall, children generalize along some dimensions but not others according to their ToM development.

Discussion

The results of this research has numerous implications for teaching practices within early childhood education since, during the preschool period, core developments in ToM are formed along with self-regulation schemes that have been correlated to their performance in false belief activities, with executive function enabling the anticipation of false belief comprehension. Emotional and behavioural self-regulation were found to be insignificant to the model although adverse parenting contributed to specific differences in children’s emerging ToM(Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin, & Banerjee, 2012; Jahromi & Stifter, 2008).  Moreover, improved practices in linguistic instruction, since it is known that children do not maintain both literal and figurative meanings as different from the expression itself until age six or seven, making them able to comprehend non-decomposable idioms (Caillies & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, 2008).

Additionally, it has been established that preschool-age children who manifested high levels of aggressive peer interactions also showed lower levels of self-regulation and ToM understanding, therefore, encouraging self-help skills, providing instances for children to exert their control by providing choices, and establishing firm boundaries and limits will diminish confrontations and power struggles within classroom settings as well as in the home as ToM understanding is inextricably tied to children’s participation in social exchanges with other people (Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin, & Banerjee, 2012; Gonzalez-Mena, 2009; Olson, Lopez-Duran, Lunkenheimer, Chang, & Sameroff, 2011).   The results of this research has numerous implications for early childhood education in that it has the potential tofacilitate development of ToM in educational contexts and provides a contribution to research on the relationship between development of ToM and linguistic ability, as related to competence in specific types of lexicon (Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012; Keysers & Gazzola, 2007).

When teachers are adequately taught and conscientious of the factors that influence language acquisition, they will be initially successful and supportive in helping the child have an effective learning experience so the student is able to become eloquent in their modern language terminology.  However, traditional differences are also an empowered persuasive component in today’s schoolrooms and instructors must be mindful of their individual cultural standards, which may affect their educational approach, as well as the traditions that are significant to their student’s familial contexts.

Learning how to manage their environment helps the child develop a healthy autonomy gained through comprehension of the numerous concepts they are confronted with every day.  Designing the input according to the child’s cognitive level, age, and abilities will ensure the child is able to successfully acclimate themselves to the new language and retain the knowledge being taught in the lesson.  These three factors, along with continued opportunities for development in their mother tongue, are vital to the successful development of bilingualism in children of diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Parallels between children’s use of perceptual state language and their capacity to perform ToM projects were modest, whereas associations between children’s conception of abstract language and ToM abilities were high, illustrating the explicit dependence of ToM knowledge on the individual’s familiarity with others inner life as well as their ability to reflect upon the states of others and is connected to activity in the temporoparietal junction of the brain (Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012; Keysers & Gazzola, 2007).

Additionally, regression analyses indicated that understanding of metacognitive language was key to children’s performance in false belief tasks among others when verbal ability and age were delimited (Grazzani & Ornaghi, 2012).  This incorporates the nature–nurture dichotomy, which references the factor that nativism or poverty-of-the-stimulus influences can be argued withoutevidence of negative language acquisition (Pinker, 2004). This argument assumes that the student’s linguistic input is comprised of sentences and non-sentences classified as signals  (Pinker, 2004).

The parameters of communication generally specify the ability to accurately convey messages to others through audio, physical, or other means.  Humans have the ability to coherently express our thoughts, ideas, and opinions, which is vital to any and all relationships we have (Hybels &Weaver, 2007).  There are thousands of different dialects that comprise human language and these are represented in many different forms of communication (Skotko, 1997).  People also may communicate using gestures as language, such as winks, handshakes, smiles, and other forms of body language that demonstrates non-verbal communication (Hybels & Weaver, 2007).

Verbal communicative abilities prelude thechildhood development of written communication skills (Balter, 2010).Tailoring the input according to the child’s cognitive level, age, and abilities will ensure the child is able to successfully acclimate themselves to the new language and retain the knowledge being taught in the lesson.  These three factors, along with continued opportunities for development in their mother tongue, are vital to the successful development of bilingualism in children of diverse linguistic backgrounds.  Success in this area also depends on the availability of competent instructors that are able to engage the children and provide a multitude of opportunities for development of language.

Conclusion

Summarily, ToM perspective indicates that the formation of linguistic capabilities determines how language is interpreted (de Villiers, 2007; Lambek, 2010; Wheeler & DeMarree, 2009).  The implications within this research can contribute to the broader understanding of how communication aids in the development of the child’s linguistic skills and illustrates how such development is reliant on the language barriers that may exist in the home.  For this reason, the child must be taught to communicate within the home and school settings concurrently, which is why the child’s language and familial background must be considered when making the decision regarding what communicative approach to use for instructional purposes.

Activities that promote language development includes reading aloud to children, allowing children to dictate their thoughts, ideas, or a story to be read aloud to them, cooperative reading or discussion circles, independent reading and writing, and guided reading to foster print and phonemic awareness (Eliason & Jenkins, 2012).  Furthermore, studying the role of ToM in a greater variety facilitates the understanding between the ability to reason about other people’s beliefs and intentions, which is first-order reasoning using ToM, and reasoning about other people’s beliefs about their own beliefs or intentions, which demonstrates second-order ToM reasoning (Flobbe, Verbrugge, Hendriks, & Krämer, 2008; Ford, Driscoll, Shum, & Macaulay, 2012).

Overall, research indicates that children that do not yet possess linguistic abilities are capable of constructing ToM cognitive paradigms (Skotko, 1997).  Therefore, in answer to the first research question, linguistic acquisition is not necessary for the development of ToM; only cognition of language.  This means that children do not have to be able to speak in order to be capable of expressing ToM concepts (Miller, 2006). This element is demonstrated in children that are younger than a year old that are capable of conceptualizing the emotions of adults with enough aptitude to manipulate their actions.

When examined in this context, since both linguistic acquisition and ToM development in children during the same period in early childhood,age is still considered as a primary factor because of the rate of cognitive development (Astington & Edward, 2010).  This element resolves the second research questionsince cognition denotes the necessity for children to be able to identify the perceived states of others that they interpret though ToM.  In order to make ToM determinations, children must develop linguistic representations of the relative concepts required to perceive these dynamics through ToM.However, this study is limited since the determinations are reliant upon existing empirical data. Further research can be conducted using child subjects and common ToM tests to affirm the assertions made in this study.

References

Ahmed, F. S., & Miller, L. S. (2011). Executive function mechanisms of Theory of Mind. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 41, 667-678. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1087-7

Al-Hilawani, Y. A., Easterbrooks, S. R., & Marchant, G. J. (2002, October). Metacognitive ability from a theory-of-mind perspective: A cross-cultural study of students with and without hearing loss. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 38-47.

Ananthaswamy, A. (2009, June 23). Language may be key to theory of mind. Retrieved from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17352-language-may-be-key-to-theory-of-mind.html#.U5ky9fmuSSo

Astington, J. W., & Edward, M. J. (2010). The development of theory of mind in early childhood. In R. E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, R. D. Peters, & P. D. Zelazo (Eds.), Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development (pp. 1-7). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Astington-EdwardANGxp.pdf

Ball, J. (2010). Educational equity for children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Canada: University of Victoria.

Balter, M. (2010, May 21). Evolution of language: Animal communication helps reveal roots of language. Science, 328, 969-971. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org

Blijd-Hoogewys, E. M., van Geert, P. C., Serra, M., & Minderaa., R. B. (2008). Measuring Theory of Mind in children: Psychometric properties of the ToM storybooks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(10), 1907-1930. doi:10.1007/s10803-008-0585

Borchers, T. (1999). Interpersonal communication. Moorhead State University: Allyn & Bacon. Retrieved from http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/interpersonal/interpersonal.html

Bull, R., Phillips, L. H., & Conway, C. A. (2007). The role of control functions in mentalizing: Dual-task studies of Theory of Mind and executive function. Cognition, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.015

Caillies, S., & Le Sourn-Bissaoui, S. (2008). Children’s understanding of idioms and theory of mind development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 703-711. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00720.x

Caputi, M., Lecce, S., Pagnin, A., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Longitudinal effects of Theory of Mind on later peer relations: The role of prosocial behavior. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 257–270. doi:10.1037/a0025402

Crim, C., Hawkins, J., Thornton, J., Rosof, H., Copley, J., & Thomas, E. (2008). Early childhood educators’ knowledge of early literacy development. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(1), 17-30.

de Villiers, J. (2007, November). The interface of language and Theory of Mind. Lingua, 117(11), 1858-1878. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006

Decker, C., Decker, J., Freeman, N., & Knopf, H. (2009). Planning and administering early childhood programs (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Eliason, C. F., & Jenkins, L. (2012). A practical guide to early childhood curriculum. New Jersey: Pearson.

Flavell, J. H. (2004, July). Theory-of-mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274-290. doi:10.1353/mpq.2004.0018

Flobbe, L., Verbrugge, R., Hendriks, P., & Krämer, I. (2008). Children’s application of Theory of Mind in reasoning and language . Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 17, 417-442. doi:10.1007/s10849-008-9064-7

Ford, R. M., Driscoll, T., Shum, D., & Macaulay, C. E. (2012). Executive and theory-of-mind contributions to event-based prospective memory in children: Exploring the self-projection hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 468-489.

Gallese, V. (2007, April 29). Before and below ‘theory of mind’: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 659-669. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.2002

Garfield, J. L., Peterson, C. C., & Perry, T. (2001). Social cognition, language acquisition and the development of the theory of mind. Mind & Language, 16(5), 494-541.

Giorgis, C., & Glazer, J. (2008). Literature for young children: Supporting emergent literacy, Ages 0-8 (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gobbini, M. I., Koralek, A. C., Bryan, R. E., Montgomery, K. J., & Haxby, J. V. (2007). Two Takes on the Social Brain: A Comparison of Theory of Mind Tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1803–1814.

Goldman, A. I. (2012). Theory of mind. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Cognitive Science.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2009). Child, family, and community: Family-centered early care and education. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Grazzani, I., & Ornaghi, V. (2012). How do use and comprehension of mental-state language relate to theory of mind in middle childhood? Cognitive Development, 27, 99-111. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.03.002

Hale, C. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2003, June). The influence of language on theory of mind: A training study. Developmental Science, 6(3), 346-359.

Hill, S. (2007). Chapter 5- Multiliteracies: Towards the future. In L. Makin, C. J. Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2nd ed., pp. 56-70). Sydney: MacLennan & Petty.

Hybels, S., & Weaver, R. (2007). Communicating Effectively. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Jahromi, L. B., & Stifter, C. A. (2008). Individual differences in preschoolers’ self-regulation and theory of mind. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54(1), 125-150.

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2007, May). Integrating simulation and Theory of Mind: From self to social cognition . TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 194-196.

Lambek, M. (Ed.). (2010). Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press.

Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “Theory of Mind”. Psychological Review, 94(4), 412-426.

Lieberman, D. (2012). Psychology of learning. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.

Liu, D., Sabbagh, M. A., Gehring, W. J., & Wellman, H. M. (2009, March-April). Neural correlates of children’s Theory of Mind development. Child Development, 80(2), 318-326. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01262.x

Malle, B. F. (2002). The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In T. Givón, & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 265-284). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Marraffa, M. (n.d.). Theory of mind. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): http://www.iep.utm.edu/theomind/

Miller, C. A. (2006, May). Developmental relationships between language and theory of mind. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 142-154.

Moriguchi, Y., Okanda, M., & Itakura, S. (2008, November). Young children’s yes bias: How does it relate to verbal ability, inhibitory control, and theory of mind? First Language, 28(4), 431-442. doi:10.1177/0142723708092413

Morrison, G. (2009). Early childhood education,(11th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nettle, D., & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newman, M. (2011). Research methods in psychology. San Diego,CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Olson, S. L., Lopez-Duran, N., Lunkenheimer, E. S., Chang, H., & Sameroff, A. J. (2011, February). Individual differences in the development of early peer aggression: Integrating contributions of self-regulation, theory of mind, and parenting.

Otto, B. (2010). Language development in early childhood (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Pinker. (1995). Language acqisition. In L. R. Gleitman, & M. Liberman (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (2nd ed., pp. 135-182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pinker. (2004). Clarifying the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 949-953. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006439

Remmel, E., & Peters, K. (2009). Theory of mind and language in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 14(2), 218-236. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn036

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193-213.

Schick, B., De Villiers, J., De Villiers, P., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development, 78(2), 376-396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x

Skotko, B. (1997). Something to talk about: Relationship between language and thought from a cross-cultural perspective. Retrieved from Duke University: http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/ca.htm

Wheeler, S. C., & DeMarree, K. G. (2009). Multiple Mechanisms of Prime-to-Behavior Effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 3/4, 566–581. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00187.x

Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T., Kalil, A., & Way, N. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 344-354.