Reasoning about intentionality in preverbal infants

In Peter Carruthers (ed.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York. pp. 254--271 (2005)


Researchers disagree over whether preverbal infants have any true understanding of other minds. There seem to be at least two sources of hesitation among researchers. Some doubt that infants have any concepts as sophisticated as that implied by the term ‘intentionality’. Other researchers simply doubt that infants understand anything in a conceptual way. This chapter provides arguments in favour of infants' abilities in both respects. It describes data from one study in which the method itself was designed to assess conceptual representations abstracted away from perception-action systems.

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,855

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

34 (#339,937)

6 months
1 (#386,001)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

Embodying the False-Belief Tasks.Michael Wilby - 2012 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):519-540.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Don't Preverbal Infants Map Words Onto Referents?Lakshmi J. Gogate - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1106-1107.
The Preverbal Roots of Fictional Thinking.Eli Rozik - 2009 - The European Legacy 14 (3):301-316.