intentional communication

Question 1

intentional communication

Answer 1

• Intentional communication - communication that has a discernable topic. It is oriented to real or conceptual objects or events.
  
  • Pre-intentional is expressive e.g., crying, laughing, babbling.
  • Intentional is denotative, or about something e.g., words, pointing, reaching arms up to be picked up.

Question 2

communication development in first year

Answer 2

• Vocal:
  
  • Production
  • Non-speech vocal communication e.g., cries, laughter, squeals
  • Speech and speech-like vocalisations e.g., babbling, first words
  • Perception
  • Phonemic discriminations
  • Manual gestures:
  • Production of intentional gestures e.g., pointing, begging, requests to be picked up

Question 3

figure from Adamson and Bakeman, 1991

Answer 3

· Depicts changes in the relationships between infant and mother in relation to objects, all embedded in a cultural surround.
· Left - the baby is not really separate from the mother over the first 2 months of life, as they are depicted as overlapping circles. Objects exist in environment, but not pulled into the relationship.
· Middle - infant and mother are separate but with lines of communication between them which represents the early dyadic focus of communication in mother-infant dyads from 2-6 months.
· Right - 6+ months, both infants and mothers now engage with objects during communication.

Question 4

schematic of experimental arrangement

Answer 4

· Unpublished experiment - infant sat in high chair next to mother in chair, with 2 dolls, that can be animated from a separate control room, sat 2.5 metres in front of her
· 6 months - when one of the dolls is animated, the child looks at the doll, then looks at the mother but makes no attempt to communicate about the events - passively take in the doll
· 12 months - child points to dolls before experimenter is even out of the room - experimenter saids bye, the child waves back - when animated the child pulls arms in, and then makes a big pointing gesture with a smile.

Question 5

pointing to request (protoimperative)

Answer 5

1. Reaches for apple
   
   2. Turned to mother and vocalised - displays a putative attention-getting signal
   3. Monitored mother
   4. When mother turned to look, baby turned and pointed at apple in request to retrieve apple
      * Choose auditory and visual signals, and altered gaze from the referent to the recipient.
      Babies of this age will persist in or repeat their signals if the recipient is unresponsive and eve

Question 6

pointing to comment (protodeclarative)

Answer 6

• Pointing to n unknown referent in the distance - which is an apparent protodeclarative gesture.

Question 7

protoimperative (request)

Answer 7

• goal = delivery of food/object
• means = social partner
• reinforcer = delivery of item
  cognitive prerequisites = expectation that social partner will deliver requested items, based on past experiences; means-ends reasoning

Question 8

protodeclaratives - lean interpretation

Answer 8

• goal = affective response from caregiver e.g., smiling
• reinforcer = emotional signal e.g., smile
• cognitive prerequisites = expectation that social partner will exhibit positive emotion, based on past experience; means-ends reasoning

Question 9

protodeclaratives - rich interpretation

Answer 9

• goal = joint attention to distal object
• reinforcer = successful joint attachment
• cognitive prerequisite = ability to represent others as beings with attentional foci; i.e., at least second order representational thought

Question 10

three categorical perspectives on pointing

Answer 10

1. Nativist (maturational, motivational)
   
   2. Cognitive (computational, representational)
   3. Social learning (operant)

Question 11

butterworth and pointing - a nativist theory

Answer 11

• “human index-finger pointing is biologically based and species specific” (Butterworth, 2003, p.391)
  
  • i.e., pointing is an evolutionary adaptation for definite reference in humans and is a functional precursor to linguistic reference. Before we can identify topics with words, we use gestures

Question 12

butterworth and antithesis

Answer 12

• Darwin (1872) = opposite postures signal opposite emotions
• Butterworth (2001) = index-finger point is the postural antithesis of the pincer grip (precision)
• whole-hand point is the postural antithesis of the power grip (power)

Question 13

critique of the nativist view

Answer 13

1. Depends on rearing history - Leavens and Hopkins (1999) - showed that while institutionalised chimpanzees prefer to point with their whole hands, in contrast, language-trained or home-reared chimpanzees point preferentially with their index fingers.
   
   2. Pointing with the whole hand is a widespread human behaviour too
      Apes point with their index fingers, too, despite anatomical differences

Question 14

the cognitive or representational view

Answer 14

• “[Imperative and declarative pointing with gaze alternation, social referencing, and imitation of actions] can . . . Be seen to rely on the understanding of others as intentional agents, each of whom has their own intentional and attentional agenda” (Tomasello, 1995, p. 112)

Question 15

Liszkowski et al (2004)

Answer 15

• The researchers reasoned that if the babies were satisfied with the experimenters response, they would be less likely to repeat their pointing.

Question 16

mean number of points per trial

Answer 16

• suggests that infants at 12 months of age do understand something about attention and the independent attentional perspective of others when sharing attention and interest

Question 17

leaner interpretations of declaratives moore

Answer 17

• E.g., Moore and Corkum, 1994, Moore and D’Entremont, 2001
  
  • “the infant may understand that the point will tend to lead to an adult head turn and an interesting subsequent response from the adult (Moore & Corkum, 1994, p. 362, emphasis added)
  • Experimental prediction based on Learning Models: pointing infants will expect both adult head turns and infant-directed affective responses.
  • “In the conditions not involving joint attention, infants repeated their point more often. . . . so they were persisting in their pointing behavior hoping eventually to obtain the desired response” (Liszkowski, Carpenter, Henning, Striano, & Tomasello, 2004, p. 305)
  • My conclusion: The findings data are consistent with both learning and representational accounts.
  • However, Moore and Corkum, in 1994, suggested that pointing babies could learn, through simple operant conditioning, to expect exactly what Liszkowski et al. later found in 2004: an adult head turn and an interesting subsequent response from an adult.
  • Thus, Liszkowski’s findings do not really challenge a learning based theoretical interpretation.

Question 18

protoimperative (request)

Answer 18

• goal = delivery of food/object
• means = social partner
• reinforcer = delivery of item
• cognitive prerequisites = expectation that social partner will deliver requested items, based on past experience; means-ends reasoning

Question 19

the learning perspective

Answer 19

• “According to this view, babies exhibit protodeclarative pointing because their caregivers reliably respond with intense bursts of positive emotion to the babies’ communicative efforts, such as smiling and verbalising with very high pitch contours (motherese) . . . If the early motivations for the babies’ pointing behaviour in both protoimperative and protodeclarative contexts is the mainpulation of the behaviour of their social partners (delivery of objects in protoimperative pointing and elicitation of emotional engagement in protodeclarative pointing), then there is no compelling logical basis to postulate fundamentally different psychological processes underlying the two kinds of pointing”
  
  • Leavens, Russell and Hopkins, 2005

Question 20

schemantic of experimental arrangement

Answer 20

· - 160ms prior to doll activation - 12 month old looking straight ahead, mother looking at baby
· 0ms - doll is activated, baby is still looking ahead, mother at baby
· 720ms after doll activation - both baby and mother looking at doll
· 2.80s after doll activation - baby still looking at doll, beginning to lift right arm, mother watching baby
· 4.80s after doll activation - baby’s right arm is fully retracted towards her mid-section, looking at doll, mother at baby
· 6s after doll activation - baby looking at doll, right hand begins a rapid forward extensions, mother looking at baby
· 6.32s after doll activation - baby pointing at doll, big smile, mother looking at baby
· 6.40s after doll activation - point has reached maximum extension, mother is looking at doll following babys point - classic joint extension
· 7.12s after doll activation - arm is retracted and resting on high chair, not looking at doll, mother looking at baby
· 7.68s after doll activation - mother and baby looking at each other smiling - this is the goal of pointing, the intense positive effect.
· 18.80s after doll activation - baby looks at mother who is looking at doll.

Question 21

putting the “joy” into joint attention

Answer 21

· Babies (9-18) - express positive emotion during joint object play with their mother (Adamson and Bakeman, 1985).
· Babies (20-22) - express more positive emotion during joint attention than when requesting objects (Kasari, Sigman, Mundy and Yirmiya, 1990).
· Babies (8-18) - parents synchronise their own smiles with their own pointing gestures when they point for their babies (Leavens, Sansone, Burfield, Lightfoot, O’Hara and Todd, 2014).