Scholarlink

<p>Although collision-like causes are fundamental in philosophical and psychological theories of causation, humans conceptualize many events as causes that lack direct contact. Here we argue that how people think and talk about different causes is deeply connected, and investigate how children learn this mapping. If Andy hits Suzy with his bike, Suzy falls into a fence and it breaks, Andy ‘caused’ the fence to break but Suzy ‘broke’ it. If Suzy forgets sunscreen and gets sunburned, the absence of sunscreen ‘caused’ Suzy’s sunburn, but the sun ‘burned’ her skin. We tested 691 children and 270 adults. Four-year-old children mapped ‘caused’ to distal causes and ‘broke’ to proximal causes (Experiment 1). Although 4-year-old children did not map ‘caused’ to absences until later (Experiment 2), they already referred to absences when asked ‘why’ an outcome occurred (Experiment 3). Our findings highlight the role of semantics and pragmatics in developing these mappings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How children map causal verbs to different causes across development

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月5日

查看全文
  • David Rose,
  • Siying Zhang,
  • Shaun Nichols,
  • Ellen M. Markman,
  • Tobias Gerstenberg

摘要

Although collision-like causes are fundamental in philosophical and psychological theories of causation, humans conceptualize many events as causes that lack direct contact. Here we argue that how people think and talk about different causes is deeply connected, and investigate how children learn this mapping. If Andy hits Suzy with his bike, Suzy falls into a fence and it breaks, Andy ‘caused’ the fence to break but Suzy ‘broke’ it. If Suzy forgets sunscreen and gets sunburned, the absence of sunscreen ‘caused’ Suzy’s sunburn, but the sun ‘burned’ her skin. We tested 691 children and 270 adults. Four-year-old children mapped ‘caused’ to distal causes and ‘broke’ to proximal causes (Experiment 1). Although 4-year-old children did not map ‘caused’ to absences until later (Experiment 2), they already referred to absences when asked ‘why’ an outcome occurred (Experiment 3). Our findings highlight the role of semantics and pragmatics in developing these mappings.