Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind

Chiyoko Kobayashi Frank; Chiyoko Kobayashi Frank

doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.116

AIMS Neuroscience

2018, Volume 5, Issue 2: 116-131. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.116

Previous Article Next Article

Review

Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind

Chiyoko Kobayashi Frank ^{1,2
,
,}

1.
School of Psychology, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
2.
Center for Cognition and Communication, New York, NY, USA

Received: 25 December 2017 Accepted: 16 April 2018 Published: 20 April 2018

Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states to self and others. It has been debated whether or not language capacity precedes ToM in development. Evidence from both neurological and developmental studies suggested that while linguistic capacity is important for ToM understanding, pragmatic component, which is a non-structural part of language, is more important for ToM. Moreover, given that pragmatic component of language is subserved by the right hemisphere of the brain, the evidence also indicates a significant overlap between the neural basis of ToM and that of pragmatic comprehension. The pragmatic theory of ToM, which I aim to revive in this review, firmly links pragmatics to ToM. It regards pragmatic aspects of language and ToM as extensively overlapping functions. I argue that research results from both developmental and neurological studies of ToM are beginning to converge to support this theory. Furthermore, I maintain that the pragmatic theory of ToM provides the best explanation for the seemingly incongruent results from recent child and infant studies on the developmental trajectory of ToM. Lastly, I will discuss whether this theory is in agreement with the domain-specific, the nativist framework, or neither.
- theory of mind,
- pragmatics,
- language,
- right-hemisphere damage,
- brain imaging,
- false-belief,
- domain-specificity
Citation: Chiyoko Kobayashi Frank. Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(2): 116-131. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.116

Related Papers:

Abstract

Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states to self and others. It has been debated whether or not language capacity precedes ToM in development. Evidence from both neurological and developmental studies suggested that while linguistic capacity is important for ToM understanding, pragmatic component, which is a non-structural part of language, is more important for ToM. Moreover, given that pragmatic component of language is subserved by the right hemisphere of the brain, the evidence also indicates a significant overlap between the neural basis of ToM and that of pragmatic comprehension. The pragmatic theory of ToM, which I aim to revive in this review, firmly links pragmatics to ToM. It regards pragmatic aspects of language and ToM as extensively overlapping functions. I argue that research results from both developmental and neurological studies of ToM are beginning to converge to support this theory. Furthermore, I maintain that the pragmatic theory of ToM provides the best explanation for the seemingly incongruent results from recent child and infant studies on the developmental trajectory of ToM. Lastly, I will discuss whether this theory is in agreement with the domain-specific, the nativist framework, or neither.

References

[1]	Dennet DC (1980) The milk of human intentionality (commentary on Searle). Behav Brain Sci 3: 428–430.
[2]	Frith U, Frith CD (2003) Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc London 358: 459–473. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218
[3]	Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1985) Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition 21: 37–46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8
[4]	Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1986) Mechanical, behavioural and Intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. Br J Dev Psychol 4: 113–125. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb01003.x
[5]	Brüne M (2005) "Theory of mind" in schizophrenia: A review of the literature. Schizophrenia Bull 31: 21–42. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi002
[6]	Frith CD (1992) The cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
[7]	Sprong M, Schothorst P, Vos E, et al. (2007) Theory of mind in schizophrenia: Meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 191: 5–13. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.035899
[8]	Washburn D, Wilson G, Rose M, et al. (2016) Theory of mind in social anxiety disorder, depression, and comorbid conditions. J Anxiety Disord 37: 71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.11.004
[9]	Vaskinn A, Antonsen BT, Fretland RA, et al. (2015) Theory of mind in women with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia: Differences in overall ability and error patterns. Front Psychol 6: 1239.
[10]	Ferstl EC, Neumann J, Bogler C, et al. (2008) The extended language network: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Hum Brain Mapp 29: 581–593. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20422
[11]	Grice HP (1969) Utterer's Meaning and Intentions. Philos Rev 78: 147–177. doi: 10.2307/2184179
[12]	Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation, In: Cole P, Morgan JL, eds., Speech Acts, New York, NY: Academic Press, 41–58.
[13]	Grice HP (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[14]	Ruiz-Gurillo L, Alvarado-Ortega MB (2013) The pragmatics of irony and humor, In: Ruiz-Gurillo L, Alvarado-Ortega MB, eds., Irony and humor: From pragmatics to discourse, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 1–14.
[15]	Van Ackeren MJ, Casasanto D, Bekkering H, et al. (2012) Pragmatics in action: Indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Cognit Neurosci J 24: 2237–2247.
[16]	Austin JA (1962) How to do things with words. Analysis 23: 58–64.
[17]	Searle JR (1969) Seech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[18]	Baron-Cohen S (1995) Mindreading: An essay on autism and theory of mind. London, England: MIT Press.
[19]	Fodor JA (1975) The language of thought. New York, NY: Crowell. 22: 69–71.
[20]	Leslie AM, Friedman O, German TP (2004) Core mechanism in "theory of mind". Trends Cognit Sci 8: 528–533. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001
[21]	Astington JW, Jenkins JM (1999) A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Dev Psychol 35: 1311–1320. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1311
[22]	De Villiers JG, De Villiers PA (2000) Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs, In: Mitchell P, Riggs KJ, eds., Children's reasoning and the mind, East Sussex, England: Psychology Press, 191–228.
[23]	Milligan K, Astington JW, Dack LA (2007) Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Dev 78: 622–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x
[24]	Mar RA (2011) The neural basis of social cognition and story comprehension. Ann Rev Psychol 62: 103–134. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406
[25]	Amodio DM, Frith CD (2006) Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 268–277. doi: 10.1038/nrn1884
[26]	Krall SC, Rottschy C, Overwelland E, et al. (2015) The role of the right temporoprietal junction in attention and social interaction as revealed by ALE meta-analysis. Brain Struct Funct 220: 587–604. doi: 10.1007/s00429-014-0803-z
[27]	Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2006) Cultural and linguistic inﬂuence on neural bases of "Theory of Mind": An fMRI study with Japanese bilinguals. Brain Lang 98: 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.013
[28]	Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2007) Children's and adults' neural bases of verbal and nonverbal "Theory of Mind". Neuropsychologia 45: 1522–1532. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.11.017
[29]	Frank CK, Baron-Cohen S, Ganzel BL (2015) Sex differences in the neural basis of false-belief and pragmatic language comprehension. NeuroImage 105: 300–311. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.041
[30]	Saxe R, Wexler A (2005) Making sense of another mind: The role of the right tempro-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia 43: 1391–1399. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.013
[31]	Frith U (2003) Autism: Explaining the enigma. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
[32]	Happé FG (1993) Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition 48: 101–119. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90026-R
[33]	Tager-Flusberg H (2000) Language and Understanding Minds: Connections in autism, In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen DJ, eds., Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism and developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2nd Edition., Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 124–149.
[34]	Corcoran R, Frith CD (2003) Autobiographical memory and theory of mind: Evidence of a relationship in schizophrenia. Psychol Med 33: 897–905. doi: 10.1017/S0033291703007529
[35]	Gavilan IJM, Garcia-Albea RJE (2013) Theory of mind and language comprehension in schizophrenia. Psiothema 25: 440–445.
[36]	Buttelmann D, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2009) Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm. Cognition 112: 337–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.006
[37]	Buttleman D, Over H, Carpenter M, et al. (2014) Eighteen-month olds understand false beliefs in an unexpected contents task. J Exp Child Psychol 119: 120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.10.002
[38]	He Z, Bolz M, Baillargeon R (2012) 2.5-year-olds succeed at a verbal anticipatory-looking false-belief task. Br J Dev Psychol 30: 14–29.
[39]	Onishi KH, Baillargeon R (2005) Do 15-month-old infants understand false belief? Science 308: 255–258. doi: 10.1126/science.1107621
[40]	Wellman HM, Cross D, Watson J (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false-belief. Child Dev 72: 655–684. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00304
[41]	Baillargeon R, Scott RM, He Z (2010) False-belief understanding in infants. Trends Cognit Sci 14: 110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006
[42]	Low J, Perner J (2012) Implicit and explicit theory of mind: State of the art. Br J Dev Psychol 30: 1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02074.x
[43]	Sperber D, Wilson D (2002) Pragmatics, modularity, and mindreading. Mind Lang 17: 3–23. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00186
[44]	Malle BF (2002) The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution, In: Givón T, Malle BF, eds., The evolution of language out of pre-language, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins, 265–284.
[45]	Westra E, Carruthers P (2017) Pragmatic development explains the theory-of-mind scale. Cognition 158: 165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.021
[46]	Leslie AM (1992) Autism and the "theory of mind" module. Cur Dir Psych Sci 1: 18–21. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10767818
[47]	Roth D, Leslie AM (1998) Solving belief problems: Towards a task analysis. Cognition 66: 1–31. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00005-5
[48]	Gopnik A, Wellman HM (1992) Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind Lang 7: 145–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00202.x
[49]	Goldman AI (1989) Interpretation psychologized. Mind Lang 4: 161–185 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00249.x
[50]	Harris PL (1992) From simulation to folk psychology: The case for development. Mind Lang 7: 120–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00201.x
[51]	Cummings L (2013) Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind. Springer Int Publishing 2: 23–56. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-23
[52]	Frank CK (2010) Linguistic effects on the neural basis of theory of mind. Open Neuroimaging J 4: 37–45. doi: 10.2174/1874440001004020037
[53]	Frank CK (2012) Cultural and linguistic influence on developmental neural basis of theory of mind: Whorfian hypothesis revisited. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
[54]	Saxe R (2005) Against simulation: The argument from error. Trends Cogit Sci 9: 174–179. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.012
[55]	Scholl BJ, Leslie AM (1999) Modularity, development and "Theory of Mind". Mind Lang 14: 131–153. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00106
[56]	Zufferey S (2010) Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
[57]	Surian L, Caldi S, Sperber D (2007) Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychol Sci 18: 580–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01943.x
[58]	Helming KA, Strickland B, Jacob P (2016) Solving the puzzle about early belief ascription. Mind Lang 31: 438–469. doi: 10.1111/mila.12114
[59]	Airenti G (2017) Pragmatic Development, In: Cummings L, ed., Research in Pragmatics, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 3–28.
[60]	Malloch SN, Sharp DB, Campbell AM, et al. (1997) Measuring the human voice: Analyzing pitch, timing, loudness and voice quality in mother/infant communication. Proc Inst Acoustics 19: 495–500.
[61]	Trevarthen C, Kokkinaki T, Fiamenghi GA (1999) What infants' imitations communicate: With mothers with fathers and with peers, In: Nadel J, Butterworth G, eds., Imitation in infancy, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 127–185.
[62]	Butterworth GE, Cochran E (1980) Toward a mechanism of joint visual attention in human infancy. Int J Behav Dev 3: 253–272.
[63]	Stern HH (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Can Mod Lang Rev 34: 304–318.
[64]	Bates E, Camaion L, Volterra V (1975) The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 21: 205–226.
[65]	Bruner JS (1975) The ontogenesis of speech acts. J Child Lang 2: 1–19.
[66]	Liszkowsku U, Brown P, Callaghan T, et al. (2012) A prelinguistic gestural universal of human communication. Cognit Sci 36: 698–713. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01228.x
[67]	Friederici AD, Rüschemeyer SA, Hahne A, et al. (2003) The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: Localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cereb Cortex 13: 117–177.
[68]	Martin I, McDonalds S (2005) Exploring the cause of pragmatic deficits following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 19: 712–730. doi: 10.1080/02687030500172203
[69]	Surian L, Siegal M (2001) Sources of performance on theory of mind tasks in the right hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain Lang 78: 224–232. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2465
[70]	Weed E, Mcgregor W, Nielsen JF, et al. (2010) Theory of Mind in adults with right hemisphere data: What's the story? Brain Lang 113: 65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.009
[71]	Weylman ST, Brownell HH, Roman M, et al. (1989) Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain damaged patients: The effect of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain Lang 36: 580–591. doi: 10.1016/0093-934X(89)90087-4
[72]	Brundage S (1996) Comparison of proverb interpretations provided by right-hemisphere damaged adults and adults with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type. Clin Aphasiol 24: 215–231.
[73]	Cutica I, Bucciarelli M, Bara BG (2006) Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain Lang 98: 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.001
[74]	Cheang H, Pell M (2006) A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clin Linguist Phonetics 20: 447–462. doi: 10.1080/02699200500135684
[75]	Winner E, Brownell H, Happe F, et al. (1998) Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain damaged patients. Brain Lang 62: 89–106. doi: 10.1006/brln.1997.1889
[76]	Mcdonald S (2000) Exploring the cognitive basis of right-hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain Lang 75: 82–107. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2342
[77]	Kucharskapietura K, Phillips ML, Germand W, et al. (2003) Perceptions of emotion from faces and voices following unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia 41: 1082–1090. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00294-4
[78]	Parola A, Gabbatore I, Bosco FM, et al. (2016) Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. J Neurolinguistics 39: 10–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.12.003
[79]	Shamaytsoory SG, Tomer R, Berger BD, et al. (2005) Impaired "affective theory of mind" is associated with right ventromedial prefrontal damage. Cognit Behav Neurol 18: 55–62.
[80]	Sidtis DVL, Yang S (2016) Formulaic language performance in left- and right-hemisphere damaged patients: Structured testing. Aphasiology 31: 82–99.
[81]	Heine B, Kuteva T, Kaltenöck G (2014) Discourse, grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Lang Cognit 6: 146–180. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2013.3
[82]	Heine B, Kuteva T, Kaltenöck G, et al. (2015) On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization, In: Oxford Handbooks Online, Oxford, England: OUP.
[83]	Brownell H, Griffin R, Winner E, et al. (2000) Cerebral lateralization and theory of mind, In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen D, eds., Understanding other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 306–333.
[84]	Griffin R, Friedman O, Ween J, et al. (2006) Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: Refining the scope of impairment. Laterality 11: 195–225. doi: 10.1080/13576500500450552
[85]	Siegal M, Carrington J, Radel M (1996) Theory of mind understanding following right hemisphere damage. Brain Lang 53: 40–50. doi: 10.1006/brln.1996.0035
[86]	Weed E (2011) What's left to learn about right hemisphere damage and pragmatic impairment? Aphasiology 25: 872–889. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2010.545423
[87]	Champagne-Lavau M, Joanette Y (2009) Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. J Neurolinguistics 22: 413–426. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.02.002
[88]	Frith CD, Frith U (2006) The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50: 531–534. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001
[89]	Kobayashi C, Glover GH, Temple E (2008) Switching language switches mind: Linguistic effects on developmental neural bases of "Theory of Mind". Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 3: 62–70. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm039
[90]	Ferstl EC, Cramon DYV (2002) What does the frontomedian cortex contribute to language processing: Coherence or theory of mind? Neuroimage 17: 1599–1612. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1247
[91]	Bašnáková J, Weber K, Petersson KM, et al. (2014) Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cereb Cortex 24: 2572–2578. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht112
[92]	Spotorno N, Koun E, Prado J, et al. (2012) Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage 63: 25–39. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.046
[93]	Castelli F, Frith C, Happé F, et al. (2002) Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states of animated shapes. Brain 125: 1839–1849. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf189
[94]	Gallagher HL, Frith CD (2003) Functional imaging of "theory of mind". Trends Cognit Sci 7: 77–83.
[95]	Barrett HC, Kurzban R (2006) Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychol Rev 113: 628–647. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.628
[96]	Fodor JA (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[97]	Scholl BJ, Leslie AM (2001) Minds, modules, and meta-analysis. Child Dev 72: 696–701. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00308
[98]	Carlson SM, Moses LJ, Claxton LJ (2004) Individual differences in executive functioning and theory of mind: An investigation of inhibitory control and planning ability. J Exp Child Psychol 87: 299–319. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.002
[99]	Perner J (1991) Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[100]	Karmiloffsmith A (2015) An alternative to domain-general or domain-specific frameworks for theorizing about human evolution and ontogenesis. AIMS Neurosci 2: 91–104. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.2.91
[101]	Trosborg A (2010) Pragmatics across language and culture. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
[102]	Zhu J, Bao Y (2010) The pragmatic comparison of Chinese and Western "Politeness" in cross-cultural communication. J Lang Teach Res 1: 848–851.
[103]	Wierzbicka A (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
[104]	Wierzbicka A (2010) Cultural scripts and intercultural communication, In: Trosborg A, ed., Pragmatics across language and culture, Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 43–78.
[105]	Liu D, Wellman HM, Tardif T, et al. (2008) Theory of mind development in Chinese children: A meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Dev Psychol 44: 523–531. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.523
[106]	Kobayashi FC, Temple E (2009) Cultural effects on the neural basis of theory of mind. Prog Brain Res 178: 213–223. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17815-9
[107]	Rowley DA, Rogish M, Alexander T, et al. (2017) Cognitive correlates of pragmatic language comprehension in adult traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Inj 31: 1564–1574. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1341645
[108]	Landa R (2007) Early communication development and intervention for children with autism. Dev Disabil Res Rev 13: 16–25.
[109]	Seung HK, Siddiqi S, Elder JH (2006) Intervention outcomes of a bilingual child with autism. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 14: 53–63.
[110]	Thunberg G, Johansson M, Wikholm J (2015) Meeting the communicative rights of people with autism-using pictorial supports during assessment, intervention and hospital care, Chapter 15, Open Access, In: Fizgerald M, ed., Autism spectrum disorder-Recent advances, London, England: In Tech.
[111]	Rhodes M, Wellman H (2013) Constructing a new theory from old ideas and new evidence. Cognit Sci 37: 592–604.
[112]	Ludgren K, Brownell H (2015) Selective training of theory of mind in traumatic brain injury: A series of single subject training studies. Open Behav Sci J 9: 1–11. doi: 10.2174/1874230001509010001
[113]	Wellman H, Liu D (2004) Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Dev 75: 523–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
[114]	Brown JW (1977) Mind, brain and consciousness. New York, NY: Academic Press.
[115]	Brown JW (2015) Microgenetic theory and process thought. New York, NY: Academic Press.
[116]	Siegler R, Stern E (1998) Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A micrognetic analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen 127: 377–397. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.377
[117]	Howlin P (2006) Augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism, In: Charman T, Stone W, eds., Social and communication development in autism spectrum disorders, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 236–266.
[118]	Levinson SC (1984) Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[119]	Blakemore SJ, Decety J (2001) From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nat Rev Neurosci 2: 561–567. doi: 10.1038/35080587
[120]	Iacoboni M, Dapretto M (2006) The mirror neuron system and the consequence of its dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 942–951. doi: 10.1038/nrn2024
[121]	Haugh M (2008) The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature, In: Kecskes I, Mey J, eds., Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 45–86.
[122]	Charman T, Baroncohen S, Swetternham J, et al. (2000) Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognit Dev 15: 481–498. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00037-5
[123]	Rapp AM, Felsenheimer AK, Langohr K, et al. (2018) The comprehension of familiar and novel metaphoric meanings in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Front Psychol 8: 2251. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02251
[124]	Varga E, Simon M, Tényi T, et al. (2013) Irony comprehension and context processing in schizophrenia in remission-a functional MRI study. Brain Lang 126: 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.05.017
[125]	Mo S, Su Y, Chan RC, et al. (2008) Comprehension of metaphor and irony in schizophrenia during remission: The role of theory of mind and IQ. Psychiatry Res 157: 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.04.002
[126]	Wang AT, Lee SS, Sigman M, et al. (2006) Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: The role of prosody and context. Brain 129: 932–943. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl032
[127]	Apperly IA, Butterfill SA (2009) Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief like states? Psychol Rev 116: 953–970. doi: 10.1037/a0016923
[128]	Bloom P, German TP (2000) Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition 77: B25–B31. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00096-2
[129]	Sabbagh MA, Xu F, Carison SM, et al. (2006) The development of executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers. Psychol Sci 17: 74–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01667.x

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)