Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.343

CiteScore 2017: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.318

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 43, Issue 3-4


Do Grammatical and Cognitive Phenotypes Illuminate Each Other? Reflections on Un-Cartesian Linguistics and the Language-ToM Interface

Stephanie Durrleman
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education, Université de Genève, 40 Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-09-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0016


  • Astington, Janet W. & Jennifer M. Jenkins. 1999. A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory-of-mind development. Developmental Psychology 35. 1311–1320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baron-Cohen, Simon, Alan Leslie & Uta Frith. 1985. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 21(1). 37–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buttelmann, David, et al. 2017. Great apes distinguish true from false beliefs in an interactive helping task. PLoS ONE 12(4). e0173793. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buttelmann, David, et al. 2009. Do great apes use emotional expressions to infer desires? Developmental Science 12. 688–698.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Call, Josep & Michael Tomasello. 1999. A nonverbal false belief task: The performance of children and great apes. Child Development 70. 381–395.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carruthers, Peter. 2002. The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25. 657–726.Google Scholar

  • Cheney, Dorothy L. & Robert. M. Seyfarth. 1990. How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Chiat, Shulamuth. 1982. If I were you and you were me: The analysis of pronouns in a pronoun reversing child. Journal of Child Language 9. 359–379.Google Scholar

  • De Villiers, Jill. 1995. Steps in the mastery of sentence complements Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar

  • De Villiers, Jill & Jenny Pyers. 1997. Complementing cognition: The relationship between language and theory of mind. In E Hughes, M Hughes & A Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 1, 136–147. Somerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar

  • De Villiers, Jill G. & P A. De Villiers. 2000. Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In P. Mitchell & K. Riggs (eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind, 189–226. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, Daniel. 1978. Beliefs about beliefs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4. 568–570.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, Daniel. C. 1993. Learning and labeling. Mind & Language 8. 540–548.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie, Morgane Burnel & Anne Reboul. 2017. Theory of mind in SLI revisited: Links with syntax, comparisons with ASD. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders.Google Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie, et al. 2016. The language-cognition interface in ASD: Complement sentences and false belief reasoning. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 21. 109–120.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie & Hélène Delage. 2016. Autism Spectrum Disorder and Specific Language Impairment: Overlaps in syntactic profiles. Language Acquisition 23. 4.Google Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie & Julie Franck. 2015. Exploring links between language and cognition in autism spectrum disorders: Complement sentences, false belief, and executive functioning. Journal of Communication Disorders 54. 15–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie & Sandrine Zufferey. 2009. The nature of syntactic impairment in autism. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 34. 57–86.Google Scholar

  • Durrleman, Stephanie & Sandrine Zufferey. 2013. Investigating complex syntax in autism. In Stavrakaki, S. et al. (eds.), Advances in Language Acquisition. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publisher.Google Scholar

  • Feist, Michele I. & Dedre Gentner. 2007. Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes. Memory & Cognition 2007 35(2). 283–296.Google Scholar

  • Fracesca, Happé. 1995. The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development 66(3). 843–855.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gentner, Dedre. 2003. Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 195–235. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.) 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gertner, Yael, Cynthia Fisher & Julie Eisengart. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17. 684–691.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gleitman, Lila R., et al. 2005. Hard words. Journal of Language Learning and Development 1(1). 23–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hendriks, Petra, Jessica Overweg & Catharina Hartman. 2017. Pronouns, perspective shifting and theory of mind in children with ASD. Workshop on Language Abilities in Children with Autism (LACA), University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Heyes, Cecilia. 2014a. False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Development Science 17(5). 647–659.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heyes, Cecilia. 2014b. Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9. 131–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hinzen, Wolfram. 2007. An Essay on Naming and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hinzen, Wolfram. 2012. The philosophical significance of Universal Grammar. Language Sciences 34(5). 635–649.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hinzen, Wolfram. 2013. Narrow syntax and the Language of Thought. Philosophical Psychology 26(1). 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jordan, Rita R. 1989. An experimental comparison of the understanding and use of speaker-addressee personal pronouns in autistic children. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 24. 169–179.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kanner, Leo. 1943. Autistic disturbances of affective contact. The Nervous Child 2. 217–250.Google Scholar

  • Kjelgaard, Margaret & Helen Tager-Flusberg. 2001. An investigation of language impairment in autism: Implications for genetic subgroups. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(2–3). 287–308.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krachun, Carla, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call & Michael Tomasello. 2010. A new change-of-contents false belief test: Children and chimpanzees compared. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 23. 145–165.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Anthony R., Peter Hobson & Shulamuth Chiat. 1994. I, you, me and autism: An experimental study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 24. 155–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lind, Sophie & Dermot Bowler. 2009. Language and theory of mind in autism spectrum disorder: The relationship between complement syntax and false belief task performance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 39(6). 929–937.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meltzoff, Andrew N., Alison Gopnik & Betty M. Repacholi. 1999. Toddlers’ understanding of intentions, desires, and emotions: Explorations of the dark ages. In PD Zelazo, JW Astington & DR Olson (eds.), Developing theories of intention: Social understanding and self control, 17–41. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Carol. A. 2001. False belief understanding in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders 34(1). 73–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, Carol. A. 2004. False belief and sentence complement performance in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39. 191–213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Naigles, Letitia R. 2002. Form is easy, meaning is hard: Resolving a paradox in early child language. Cognition 86. 157–199.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Naigles, Letitia R., Michelle Cheng, Nan Xu Rattanasone, Saime Tek, Meha Khetrapal, Deborah Fein & Katherine Demuth. 2016. “Youre telling me! The prevalence and predictors of pronoun reversals in children with autism spectrum disorders and typical development. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 27. 11–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Naigles, Letitia R. & Saime Tek. 2017. Form is easy, meaning is hard’ revisited: (re) characterizing the strengths and weaknesses of language in children with autism spectrum disorder. WIREs Cognitive Science e1438.Google Scholar

  • Naito, Mika & Kikuo Nagayama. 2004. Autistic children’s use of semantic common sense and theory of mind: A comparison with typical and mentally retarded children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34(5). 507–519.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Noble, Claire H., Caroline F. Rowland & Julian M. Pine. 2011. Comprehension of Argument Structure and Semantic Roles: Evidence from English-Learning Children and the Forced-Choice Pointing Paradigm. Cognitive Science 35(5). 963. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ohta, Masataka. 1987. Cognitive disorders of infantile autism: A study employing the WISC, spatial relationship conceptualization, and gesture imitations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 17(1). 45–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Onishi, Kristine H. & Renée Baillargeon. 2005. Do 15-month-old Infants Understand False Beliefs? Science 308. 255–258.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oshima-Takane, Yuriko. 1992. Analysis of pronominal errors: a case-study. Journal of Child Language 19(1). 111–131.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perner, Josef, Michael Huemer & Brian Leahy. 2015. Mental files and belief: A cognitive theory of how children represent belief and its intensionality. Cognition 145. 77–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pyers, Jennie, Anna Shusterman, Ann Senghas, Elizabeth S. Spelke & Karen Emmorey. 2010. Evidence from an emerging sign language reveals that language supports spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(27). 12116–12120.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, Jenny. A., Mabel L. Rice & Helen Tager-Flusberg. 2004. Tense marking in children with autism. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(03). 429–448.Google Scholar

  • Ruffman, Ted, Lance Slade, Kate Rowlandson, Charlotte Rumsey & Alan Garnham. 2003. How language relates to belief, desire and emotion understanding. Cognitive Development 18. 139–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schick, Brenda, Peter de Villiers, Jill de Villiers & Robert Hoffmeister. 2007. Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development 78(2). 376–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schiff-Myers, Naomi. B. 1983. From pronoun reversals to correct pronoun usage: A case study of a normally developing child. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 48. 385–394.Google Scholar

  • Shield, Aaron, Richard P Meier & Helen Tager-Flusberg. 2015. The use of sign language pronouns by native-signing children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45. 2128–2145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sodian, Beate. 2006. Theory of mind—The case for conceptual development. In W. Schneider et al. (eds.), Young Children’s Cognitive development, 95–130. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Tager-Flusberg, Helen. 1994. Dissociations in form and function in the acquisition of language by autistic children. In H. Tager-Flusberg (ed.), Constraints on language acquisition: Studies of atypical children, 175–194. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Tager-Flusberg, Helen & Robert M. Joseph. 2005. How language facilitates the acquisition of false-belief understanding in children with autism. In J. W. Astington & J. A. Baird (eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind, 298–318. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tuller, Laurie, et al. 2017. The effect of computational complexity on the acquisition of French by children with ASD. In L. R. Naigles (ed.), Innovative investigations of language in autism spectrum disorder, 773 115–140. NY: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

  • Vygotsky, Lev S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).Google Scholar

  • Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86. 332–365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wellman, Henry, David Cross & Julianne Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72. 655–684.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wimmer, Heinz & Josef Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13(1). 103–128.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wolfram, Hinzen & Kristen Schroeder. 2015. Is ‘the first person’ a linguistic concept essentially?. Journal of Consciousness Studies 22. 11–12, 149–179.Google Scholar

  • Yirmiya, Nurit, Erel Osnat, Michal Shaked & Daphna Solomonica-Levi. 1998. Meta-analyses comparing theory of mind abilities of individuals with autism, individuals with mental retardation, and normally developing individuals. Psychological Bulletin 124. 283–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yuan, Sylvia & Cynthia Fisher. 2009. Really? She Blicked the Baby?. Psychological Science 20(5). 619–626.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-09-29

Published in Print: 2017-09-26

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 43, Issue 3-4, Pages 249–260, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0016.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in