INVESTIGATING RELATION BETWEEN THEORY OF MIND -DESIRE, BELIEF, KNOWLEDGE, EMOTION AND FALSE BELIEF UNDERSTANDING- AND LANGUAGE

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 2023 Sayı: 2, 1 - 17, 23.07.2023

Zehra Ertuğrul Yaşar

https://doi.org/10.55543/insan.1189311

Öz

Although the relationship between language and theory of mind has been examined by many studies, false belief task has often been used as a measure of theory of mind. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between language and different mental states that theory of mind includes. This study was conducted on 70 children aged 36-65 months at Time 1 and 42-71 months at Time 2. Turkish Expressive and Receptive Language Test was used to measure the receptive and expressive aspects of language, and Theory of Mind Scale was used to measure the desire, belief, knowledge, false belief and hidden emotion aspects of the theory of mind. As a result of this study, a relationship was found between receptive/expressive language and theory of mind. When age and Time 1 theory of mind were controlled, it was found that Time 1 language predicted Time 2 theory of mind. However, when age and Time 1 language were controlled, it was found that Time 1 theory of mind did not predict Time 2 language. Thus, it was concluded that theory of mind understanding depends on early language skills in typically develoing Turkish children, but early theory of mind did not significantly predict later language skills. When the relationship between language and theory of mind was examined by task type, it was found that previous language has a significant effect on understanding the later knowledge and false belief. Findings were discussed in terms of language-mind relationship.

Anahtar Kelimeler

theory of mind, language, false belief, emotion, knowledge, desire

Zihin Kuramı- İstek, Kanı, Bilgi, Duygu ve Yanlış Kanı Anlayışı- İle Dil İlişkisinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Birçok çalışma tarafından dil ile zihin kuramı arasındaki ilişki incelenmiş olmasına rağmen zihin kuramı genellikle yanlış kanı atfı görevi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın amacı yanlış kanının yanında zihin kuramının kapsadığı diğer farklı zihinsel durumların da dil ile ilişkisini incelemektir. Bu çalışma 1. ölçümde 36-65 ay, 2. ölçümde 42-71 ay arası olan 70 çocuk üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Alıcı ve ifade edici kelime bilgisinin ölçülmesinde Türkçe İfade Edici ve Alıcı Dil Testi, zihin kuramının istek, kanı, bilgi, yanlış kanı ve duygu yönlerinin ölçülmesinde Zihin Kuramı Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda hem alıcı hem ifade edici kelime bilgisi ile zihin kuramı arasında ilişki bulunmuştur. Bu ilişkinin yönüne bakıldığında yaş ve 1. zaman zihin kuramı kontrol edildiğinde 1. zaman kelime bilgisinin, 2. zaman zihin kuramını yordadığı bulunmuştur. Fakat yaş ve 1. zaman kelime bilgisi kontrol edildiğinde 1. zaman zihin kuramının 2. zaman kelime bilgisini yordamadığı görülmüştür. Böylece Türkçe konuşan ve tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklarda erken dil becerilerinin ileriki zihin kuramı anlayışını desteklediği fakat erken zihin kuramı anlayışının ileriki dil becerilerini anlamlı olarak desteklemediği sonucuna varılmıştır. Alıcı ve ifade edici dilin zihin kuramıyla olan ilişkisi görev bazında incelendiğinde ise önceki dilin, ileriki bilginin ve yanlış kanının anlaşılmasında anlamlı etkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Bulgular dil-zihin ilişkisi açısından tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

zihin kuramı, dil, yanlış kanı, duygu, bilgi, istek

Kaynakça

• Astington, J. W. (2001). The future of theory‐of‐mind research: Understanding motivational states, the role of language, and real‐world consequences. Child Development, 72(3), 685-687.
• Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory-of-mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1311.
• Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?. Cognition, 21(1), 37-46.
• Berument, S. K., ve Güven, A. G. (2013). Türkçe İfade Edici ve Alıcı Dil (TİFALDİ) Testi: I. alıcı dil kelime alt testi standardizasyon ve güvenilirlik geçerlik çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 24(3), 192-201.
• Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Developmental Science, 8(6), 535-543.
• Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (1999). Theory of mind, emotion understanding, language, and family background: Individual differences and interrelations. Child Development, 70(4), 853-865.
• de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2000). Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In P. Mitchell and K. Riggs. (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 189–226). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
• de Villiers, J. & Pyers, J. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037-1060.
• Doenyas C, Yavuz H.M. & Selcuk B. (2018). Not just a sum of its parts: How tasks of the theory of mind scale relate to executive function across time. J Exp Child Psychol., 166, 485-501.
• Etel, E., & Yagmurlu, B. (2015). Social competence, theory of mind, and executive function in institution-reared Turkish children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(6), 519-529.
• Farrar, M. J., Benigno, J. P., Tompkins, V., & Gage, N. A. (2017). Are there different pathways to explicit false belief understanding? General language and complementation in typical and atypical children. Cognitive Development, 43, 49-66.
• Frank CK. (2018). Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind. AIMS Neurosci., 20;5(2), 116-131.
• Gözün Kahraman, Ö. (2012). Zihin kuramına dayalı eğitim programının 48-60 aylık çocukların bilişsel bakış açısı becerileri ve prososyal davranışları üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Karabük Üniversitesi.
• Happé, F. G. (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.
• Hughes, C. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers' strategic behavior predict later understanding of mind?. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1326.
• Jenkins J & Astington J. (1996). Cognitive factors and family structure associated with theory of mind development in young children. Developmental Psychology, 32, 70–78.
• Karakelle, S., ve Ertugrul, Z. (2012). Zihin Kuramı ile Çalışma Belleği, Dil Becerisi ve Yönetici İşlevler Arasındaki Bağlantılar Küçük (36-48 ay) ve Büyük (53-72 ay) Çocuklarda Farklılık Gösterebilir mi?. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 27(70), 1.
• Kaysılı, B. K. (2013). Zihin kuramı: Otizm spektrum bozukluğu olan ve normal gelişen çocukların performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 14(01), 83-103.
• Meinhardt-Injac, B., Daum, M.M. & Meinhardt, G. (2020). Theory of mind development from adolescence to adulthood: Testing the two-component model. Br J Dev Psychol, 38: 289-303.
• Milligan, K., Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2007). Language and theory of mind: Meta‐analysis of the relation between language ability and false‐belief understanding. Child Development, 78(2), 622-646.
• Ögel-Balaban, H., Aksu-Koç, A. ve Alp, İ. E. (2012). Kaynak bellegi ile dildeki kaynak göstergeleri arasindaki iliskinin 3-6 yas çocuklarında incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 27(70), 26.
• Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that…” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(3), 437-471.
• Ruffman, T. (2014). To belief or not belief: Children’s theory of mind. Developmental review, 34(3), 265-293.
• Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. (2002). The relation between children's and mothers’ mental state language and theory‐of‐mind understanding. Child Development, 73(3), 734-751.
• Ruffman, T., Slade, L., Rowlandson, K., Rumsey, C., & Garnham, A. (2003). How language relates to belief, desire, and emotion understanding. Cognitive Development, 18(2), 139-158.
• Schick, B., De Villiers, P., De Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development, 78(2), 376-396.
• Selcuk, B., Brink, K. A., Ekerim, M., & Wellman, H. M. (2018). Sequence of theory‐of‐mind acquisition in Turkish children from diverse social backgrounds. Infant and Child Development, 27(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2098
• Shahaeian, A., Peterson C. C., Slaughter V., & Wellman H. M. (2011). Culture and the sequence of steps in theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1239-1247.
• Shatz, M., Diesendruck, G., Martinez-Beck, I., & Akar, D. (2003). The influence of language and socioeconomic status on children's understanding of false belief. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 717.
• Siu, C. T. S., & Cheung, H. (2022). A longitudinal reciprocal relation between theory of mind and language. Cognitive Development, 62, 101176.
• Slade, L., & Ruffman, T. (2005). How language does (and does not) relate to theory of mind: A longitudinal study of syntax, semantics, working memory and false belief. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 117-141.
• Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. M. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child development, 68(3), 436-455.
• Ünal, E., ve Baturlar, Ö. (2020). Zihinsel durumların dilde ve bilişte temsili. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 123-140.
• Yagmurlu, B., Berument, S. K., & Celimli, S. (2005). The role of institution and home contexts in theory of mind development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 521-537.
• Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1990.
• Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory‐of‐mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523-541.
• Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., & Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequential progressions in a theory of mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child Development, 82, 780–792.
• Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103-128.