28

Cognitive development
beyond infancy
Melissa L. Allen

Introduction emotions, and ideas, and critically to communicate

them to others. Beyond infancy is an exciting time
As children reach their second birthday, their for symbolic development, as children use social cues
conceptual and perceptual abilities continue to to help them connect mental representations with
strengthen, resulting in a rapid increase in the referents –​things that exist in the real world.
development of cognitive skills beyond infancy. In the Western world, one cannot help but be
They transform into talking, willful beings who bombarded by symbolic media. Ittleson (1996, p. 1171)
can constantly surprise parents and educators with captures the preponderance of symbols he faces during a
their depth of knowledge and conventional (and casual morning beautifully:
unconventional) linguistic outbursts. Some of the As I sit here at my breakfast table, my morning news-
most significant cognitive achievements during this paper has printing on it; it has a graph telling me how
time include symbolic understanding across multiple the national budget will be spent, a map trying to tell
domains and extraordinary growth in language me something about the weather; a table of baseball
acquisition. Stemming from these achievements, we statistics, an engineering drawing with which I can
can question whether symbolic understanding is a build a garden chair, photographs of distant places
and people, a caricature expressing what the editor
domain-​general or domain-​specific process, whether
thinks of a political figure … On the wall in front of
pictorial understanding is grounded in intentionality, me hangs … a calendar [and above it] is a clock. All
and whether the abilities that support language this and more, and I haven’t even turned on the TV or
development reflect a dedicated system for language the computer …
learning.
The ability to use symbols is among the most
This entry will review the development of early
significant developmental achievements that is argued
symbolic understanding across the domains of pictures,
to distinguish human beings from other creatures.
gestures, and words. Within pictures, evidence for two
Although the capacity to develop symbolic thought
different routes for linking pictures to referents (use of
might be hard-​wired in humans, symbolic thinking
intentionality vs. a focus on pictorial realism) will be
does not emerge at birth fully fledged. Rather,
discussed. The section on word learning will elaborate on
becoming ‘symbol-​minded’ (see DeLoache, 2004)
the use of lexical constraints and socio-​pragmatic cues
gradually unfolds during the first few years of life, as
to facilitate word–​referent mappings, and the ability of
children acquire experience with different symbolic
children to ‘fast map’ words after limited exposure. Finally,
media and interact with expert symbol users. Three
the evidence concerning whether separate symbolic skills
symbolic areas will be discussed here: pictures, gestures,
arise from the same source will be reviewed.
and words.

Symbolic understanding
Pictures
We live in a culture surrounded by symbols, which
support our ability to interact with others and Very young children (9–​15 months) initially explore
successfully navigate our complex social environment. pictures manually, sometimes confusing them with
Symbols allow us to represent thoughts, feelings, reality. By the time children are 2 years of age,

288
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 Cognitive development beyond infancy  289

however, they no longer grasp at pictures, but instead of pictures. That Warhol print on your wall might
explicitly point to the depictions, reflecting a clearer represent Marilyn Monroe, but it also is an object in its
understanding of the stimuli as two-dimensional. own right, framed and occupying real space; this ‘dual
It is during this time that they are beginning to representation’ seems to be a necessary precursor for
demonstrate the early components of pictorial children’s understanding of how pictures work. They
understanding, including the appreciation that have to get past the fact that pictures can be interesting
pictures are referential. objects in and of themselves, and then to focus on their
In one study, Preissler and Carey (2004) taught 18-​ symbolic capacity.
and 24-​month-​old children a new name (‘whisk’) for Two-​year-​olds are able to treat pictures as objects
a novel picture of a whisk. Children were presented in their own right, or as representations, in different
with the picture they had learned the word for, and contexts. In one study, children were given a new
a real, previously unseen, whisk, and were asked target picture which was either provided with a
to show the experimenter a ‘whisk.’ Both groups of novel name “This is a dax!”, or specifically unlabeled
children selected the real object, or both the picture “Look at this!” (Preissler & Bloom, 2007). When
and the object, but never simply the picture. This asked to “find another one” from an array of a new
shows that the children understood that the purpose picture, an object the new picture represented, and
of a picture is to refer to an object in the real world, the real object the target picture represented, children
and that the label does not simply refer to the picture categorized the picture by its kind category only when
itself. A simplified version of this paradigm in which it was labeled. If the picture was not given a name,
children hear a novel label for a highly iconic color children tended to select another picture as the likely
picture in the context of a more naturalistic picture-​ candidate when asked to “find another one”. Thus,
book interaction reveals that children are beginning they can view pictures as either objects in their own
to understand this referential connection around right (‘belonging’ in a sense, with other pictures) or
15 months, which appears to be a transitional age at as symbols, belonging with the depicted kind, with
which children no longer merely associate words with labeling providing a critical cue for homing in on the
pictures and objects (Ganea et al., 2009). symbolic interpretation.
Several factors influence symbolic understanding At age 2.5, children can use information in a picture
of pictures. For instance, children are more likely to help them find information in a real-​world situation.
to treat highly iconic pictures symbolically, transfer In a classic study, DeLoache and Burns (1994) showed
information learned from iconic pictures to real-​ children pictures of elements in a room, such as a chair,
world exemplars, and recruit verbal labels to sofa, cabinet, etc. They pointed to one of the elements
help them match pictures to objects. They also and told children that Snoopy was hiding in that place
benefit from training with an advanced symbol in his room. They then steered children to a real room
user. Callaghan and Rankin (2002) conducted a that corresponded to the pictures, and asked them
longitudinal study; when children were 28 months to find Snoopy. At 24 months, children consistently
old, they failed a search task which required them to fail this test, but at 30 months they are reliably able to
use pictures containing similar perceptual elements retrieve the toy using the pictorial cue. Of interest is that
(e.g., a single circle, a circle with radiating spikes, children are not able to use scale models of the elements
three circles, or a line) to find their corresponding in a room (rather than pictures) until six months later,
referents (e.g., a plain ball, a ‘spider’ ball with rubber due to the fact that the objects are so interesting in and
legs attached, a collection of three balls, or a wooden of themselves. However, 30-​month-​olds can see the
dowel). The children who received weekly training models as symbols if they think a ‘shrinking machine’
sessions in which they witnessed the experimenter simply reduced the real room to a tiny replica; in this
drawing and highlighting the relation between way, the status of the model is changed to non-​symbolic
pictures and referents showed an increase in picture because children believe the model and the real room
comprehension and production after two months. are the same entity. Judy DeLoache interprets these
A control group, who received parallel sessions studies as substantial evidence for dual representation,
crucially without drawing, did not. Thus, interaction since children need to focus spontaneously on both
with symbolically experienced adults provides an aspects of the picture or model, as a representation and
opportunity for children to implicitly learn the as an object. This paradigm requires children to utilize
communicative-​based rules of symbol usage. information in an on-​line fashion for a problem-​solving
However, the most important principle underlying task, and represents a conceptual leap to becoming a
symbolic representation is appreciating the dual aspect competent symbol user.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 290

290  Part IV: Perceptual and cognitive development

By age 4, children can transfer biological information than the role of the artist in terms of the depicted
learned from a book to real life, and story books have outcome.
even been successfully used as a method for teaching Abundant evidence also exists, however, to show that
natural selection in children as young as 5 (Kelemen, children are very sensitive to the creator’s intention
Emmons, Schillaci, & Ganea, 2014). Although pictorial when deciding what to name, how to categorize, or
understanding continues to develop during the first few even how to value pictures. Two-​and-​a-​half-​year-​olds,
years, children still make some errors when it comes to for instance, can use the gaze of an experimenter to
reasoning about pictures. If 3-​or 4-​year-​olds are asked link a picture to a real-​world referent, even when the
if they could eat a picture of an ice cream cone or smell picture could plausibly refer to more than one object.
a picture of a flower, sometimes they will say “Yes.” They only do so, however, during an intentional act
They can also be confused about the stability of the link of drawing, and not when merely associative cues are
between pictures and real-​world referents, thinking provided. Three-​and 4-​year-​old children can also
that a picture of an array of objects would change if the recognize their own pictures after a delay, even if they
objects themselves changed. Three-​and 4-​year-​olds are indistinguishable to an adult, which suggests that
also act as if changing the features of a photograph they can utilize their own intentions to keep track of
(by putting a sticker on it) changes reality (they expect the identity of their visual depictions. Furthermore,
a corresponding real-​world referent to thenceforth children are sensitive to how a picture was created,
bear the sticker). Even at 6 years of age, some children and are more likely to use shape as a basis for naming
will assert that a photograph portraying an illogical ambiguous pictures if they were created intentionally,
outcome of an event is a true depiction of reality. Thus, rather than accidentally. Thus, young children do
the ability to understand pictures, use them as sources consult intentional cues when analyzing pictures,
of information, and develop a ‘theory of pictures’ but sometimes the iconicity of the picture takes
continues to refine during development (see Freeman & precedence.
Sanger, 1995). The extant literature suggests that one explanation
of these findings comes from the divergence of picture
type. If the pictures are strongly iconic, they prioritize
Intentionality or naïve realism?
resemblance cues over artist intention. However, if
One critical feature that makes pictures so special is pictures are ambiguous, children will evaluate an
that many share a direct and transparent link to the artist’s intentional cues as a basis for naming and
real world. Upon viewing a highly detailed picture of categorizing pictures. Another way to rectify and
the Empire State Building, for instance, you would complement these experimental findings is to look to
instantly be able to name the depiction, without having a population of children who vary in their intention-​
to consult the artist’s intention or mental state. How monitoring ability, specifically, children with autism
children link pictures to their real-​world counterparts spectrum disorder (ASD). The few studies that do
remains a fundamental question to both psychologists exist suggest there are fundamental differences in
and philosophers, as picture interpretation itself symbolic understanding, particularly in minimally
may be a cultural construction. On the one hand, verbal children who rely upon pictorial systems for
some theorists claim that the meaning of a picture communication (Preissler, 2008). They tend not to
is determined by its creator (‘intentional’ theory). generalize labels learned from pictures to real-​world
Alternatively, pictures can be linked to the world by objects, and link pictures to objects based purely
their resemblance to real-​world properties (‘naïve on resemblance, suggesting that they are naïve
realism’ theory). realists when interpreting pictures. It is possible that
Evidence for realism comes from studies that show children with Williams syndrome, who also tend to
that highly iconic pictures (such as color photographs) process visual displays holistically but are considered
increase the imitation of actions seen in a picture book, ‘hyper’ social, display a different route to picture
and facilitate generalization of labels from pictures to interpretation. This burgeoning area is one to target
their real-​world counterparts. If children are faced with in future research as it can inform typical and atypical
situations where resemblance and intention conflict theories of picture development.
(e.g., the artist states he is going to draw a picture of
a bear, but the resultant depiction looks more like a
rabbit), they are guided by resemblance cues when Gestures
naming the depiction and call it, for instance, a ‘rabbit.’
When asked forced-​choice questions, even children Before children begin to produce words, they use
aged 11 seem to think that ‘pretty things make pretty deictic gestures for communication, such as pointing
pictures,’ thus focusing on the referential content rather at a dog. Such gestures have been argued to pave the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 Cognitive development beyond infancy  291

100% objects and events in the environment. Children use

pointing to share interest and attention with others,
Percent of Children 80%
provide help, and support linguistic interactions.
60% Specifically, 3-​and 4-​year-​old children use pointing
to clarify potentially unclear re-​introductions of story
40%
characters, providing non-​redundant information for
20% the conversational partner by combining linguistic
and paralinguistic means (O’Neill & Holmes, 2002).
0% O’Neill (1996) also showed that 2-​year-​olds will
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5–5.0
gesture to solicit help from others. In one study, a toy
Age Group
was placed on a shelf in one of two containers, and
Above chance Chance the key manipulation was whether parents saw or
did not see this event. Children gestured more when
Figure 1.  Percentage of children successfully able to match iconic parents did not witness the event, suggesting they are
signs to pictures of referents. Reprinted from Tolar, T.D., Lederberg, using their parents’ knowledge state to influence their
A.R., Gokhale, S., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The development of the communicative bids and attempt to manipulate the
ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf
behavior of others.
Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 225–​240.
There is a progression from age 3 to 5 years in terms
of how children represent actions in pantomime, such as
way for language production (Liszkowski, 2012), and pretending to brush their teeth (Boyatzis & Watson, 1993).
to provide a means of establishing common ground Whereas the younger children use their own body parts
with another person to influence mental states. From to represent the tool (e.g., using their index finger as the
10 to 24 months, children begin to produce symbolic toothbrush), older children tend to move their fingers as
gestures that carry meaning within their form (e.g., if the tool was there (e.g., moving fingers as if holding the
a child putting her thumb to her mouth to indicate toothbrush). This leap occurs for both the comprehension
‘bottle’). and production of gestures, and suggests that the older
It is not until 26 months that children appreciate children are ‘distancing’ the symbol from the referent and
iconic gestures, which convey attributes associated therefore no longer need to rely upon the physical presence
with an object and can be interpreted without explicit of the tool.
tuition linking them to a referent (e.g., flapping one’s Gestures are also used to support language
arms to indicate a flying bird). Before this, it is argued throughout early development. For instance, hand
that children simply associate iconic gestures with gestures frequently co-​occur with speech during
objects, rather than truly understanding the iconic conversation by children and adults, and even in
relation between the two (Özçalışkan & Goldin-​ adulthood, individuals abstract meaning and benefit
Meadow, 2011). Researchers have argued that icons from the gestures speakers produce. Early gesture
are both distinct from other, more advanced, symbols production has been linked to successful language
and a more primitive form of communication, and acquisition; children’s vocabulary development at age
thus, it is surprising that the ability to understand the 3.5 can be predicted from how many different meanings
meaning of iconic signs develops gradually. In a task they convey in gestures at age 18 months. In addition,
asking 2.5-​to 5-​year-​old children to match iconic signs young children who received parental training that
to pictures of referents, Tolar, Lederberg, Gokhale, and involved modeling and encouraging symbolic sign
Tomasello (2008) found that very few 2.5-​year-​olds use showed an increase in language measures before
passed the task, around half of 3-​year-​olds passed it, age 3. Thus, gesture is intricately linked to verbal
but by 3.5 years, most children succeeded. By 4.5, all language acquisition; however, it is also widely used as a
the children succeeded in the task, and significantly primary mode of communication by hearing-​impaired
outperformed the younger groups (see Figure 1). The individuals.
authors suggest that iconic representation is thus a One of the most interesting and influential set of
cognitively advanced skill not available to younger studies in this domain involves a group of deaf children
language learners. in Nicaragua, who entered a specialized school in 1977.
One of the most ubiquitous gestures that children At the time, there was no national educational system
are able to understand and produce from an early age, for deaf Nicaraguans, and no sign language in use. The
however, is pointing. From 2–​3.5 years of age, pointing most remarkable feat occurred when the first cohort of
is the most frequent gesture children produce in free-​ students entered the school: together they created their
play sessions (Nicoladis, Mayberry, & Genesee, 1999), own language (Senghas & Coppola, 2001), beginning
and builds upon the precursor of joint attention to with home signs they used individually, and refining

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 29

292  Part IV: Perceptual and cognitive development

their language to meet the needs of the wider social objects by kind (e.g., dogs) rather than by thematic
group. Importantly, a second cohort of students learned relationships (e.g., dog and bone), which is referred to as
from their older peers and began to refine the language the taxonomic bias.
further –​breaking signs down into morphological The most studied constraint is the assumption that
components and making the signs more arbitrary, a new word refers to an object that does not already
complex, and ‘language-​like.’ Senghas and Coppola have a name, something known as mutual exclusivity.
(2001) identified that such changes were initiated by For instance, children will call a novel object a ‘dax’
children under the age of 10, suggesting that, as a group, if it is presented alongside a familiar object that
children have the capacity to learn and, critically, to also they already have a label for, such as an apple. This
create language. phenomenon has been repeatedly documented in
toddlers and preschoolers, in bilingual children (where
mutual exclusivity is preserved within L1 and L2, but
Words not across the two languages), and in children with
disabilities such as Williams syndrome and ASD.
Of course, arguably the most significant symbolic Since children can effectively rule out stimuli in the
form is the spoken word, and how children acquire environment, they already have a name for when
the meanings of words has provoked immense they hear new words, mutual exclusivity is one of the
debate. Although it appears effortless for most most important documented biases to facilitate word
typically developing children, becoming proficient acquisition. Taken together, word-​learning constraints
in even one’s native language requires an amalgam of have been argued to be language-​specific, although
processes interacting to support and facilitate lexical there is no consensus on whether they emerge during
development. The philosopher Willard Van Orman the course of language acquisition or are in place at its
Quine (1908–​2000) elegantly outlines the problem of onset.
word acquisition. Suppose you are in a tribal village However, it is possible that these constraints are
and you do not speak a word of the native language. recruited from children’s existing abilities that support
Something that looks like a rabbit runs by through the conceptual development or causal reasoning, and thus
brush and a villager points to the scene and exclaims might not apply only to language learning (Markman,
“gavagai!” Given the numerous possibilities, what do 1992). That children are able to adhere to the principle
you take ‘gavagai’ to refer to? This puzzle, known as of mutual exclusivity when learning new words and also
the indeterminacy of reference, suggests that there new facts supports this claim. An alternative viewpoint
are infinite possibilities. Quine points out that you is that mutual exclusivity, and indeed vocabulary
may take the word to refer to rabbit, but it could also learning in general, arises from general pragmatic
refer to furry, small, the motion of running, or the oft-​ principles about a speaker’s referential intent.
quoted example of ‘undetached’ rabbit parts. It is likely
that you would take the word to refer to rabbit, and Social-​pragmatic accounts
young children also share this intuition. However, how Broadly speaking, the social-​pragmatic approach
children reach this conclusion is a matter of debate. to word learning posits that it is the social-​
One theoretical account claims that children’s word-​ communicative dimension of language scenarios that
learning success is due in part to the employment of focuses the child’s attention on the referent of interest
various constraints and biases, which help to guide in the environment. One account suggests that the
their early lexical acquisition. child enters into a state of joint focus (attention) with
the speaker, and is not as concerned with establishing a
label but with trying to figure out to what it is the adult
Word-​learning constraints and
wants to direct their attention. Joint attention thus
their origins
allows the child to share common ground with their
Word-​learning constraints, such as the whole-​object interaction partner (Tomasello, 2008). Paul Bloom
bias, taxonomic bias, and mutual exclusivity assumption, has a similar take on word learning in terms of focus
form a rough guide for approximating word meanings, on the social dimensions of the language-​learning
and serve to limit the possibilities and give some priority situation, but he advocates more heavily that intention
over others. When a new label is provided in the context reading is key to successful language acquisition, which
of a new object, children assume the word refers to the then results in acts of joint engagement and naming
whole entity (such as a mug), rather than its constituent (Bloom, 2000).
parts (such as the handle), color, substance, or other Pragmatic accounts of word learning maintain that
properties. Children also tend to use labels to categorize the interpretation of novel words relies upon the same

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 Cognitive development beyond infancy  293

social and cognitive skills that children use in other impressive timescale of word learning: children know
(non-​lexical) situations in order to interpret other approximately 60,000 words by the time they enter
people’s verbal and non-​verbal behavior. What is specific high school, produce 300 words by their second
to language contexts is that children also bring to bear birthday, and have been shown to learn a word
the expectation that speakers are utilizing language in a single exposure (termed ‘fast mapping’). In a
conventionally and are expressing their communicative seminal study, and one of the first to document the
intentions. Pragmatic accounts of language learning phenomenon, Carey and Bartlett (1978) asked 3-​and
would predict that individuals with pragmatic 4-​year-​old children to “Bring me the chromium tray,
impairment would show difficulties with word not the blue one, the chromium one.” Children were
acquisition and other aspects of linguistic development, remarkably good at retrieving an olive-​colored tray,
and this is precisely what happens in many individuals even though this novel word was introduced in an
with ASD. To mirror the above argument regarding indirect way. More impressive was the fact that half the
picture interpretation, examining atypical populations children remembered something about the meaning
who differ in pragmatic and intention-​monitoring skills of the word when tested a week later. Children do
can provide the right kind of evidence to bear upon not need an explicit contrast to learn words, and fast
existing theories, and should be evaluated in tandem mapping has been repeatedly documented from the
with empirical studies of typical cases of language age of 2.
development. Recent work on associative learning contests the
interpretation that children are efficient word learners.
Researchers have made the distinction between initial
Fast or slow mapping? fast mapping and subsequent word retention, and
argue that although children are good at the former,
In addition to considering the constraints vs. social-​ they are much less proficient at the latter, which
pragmatic approach for word learning, recent work has arises from a slow associative (Hebbian) process that
debated the time course of word acquisition, specifically requires repetitive learning. Some of the differences
how many exposures children might need to learn a can be attributed to experimental design; many of the
new word, and whether instances of initial referent associative-​learning paradigms require children to
selection equate to real word learning. These questions learn numerous new words, rather than one or two,
are important when we consider the remarkably and having to maintain several new words and novel

Domain-specific

Gestures Words Pictures Models Maps

DEVELOPMENTAL TIME

Domain-general

Symbolic
precursors

Gestures Words Pictures Models Maps

EXPERIENCE WITHIN MODALITY

Figure 2.  Schemata of the domain-​specific and domain-​general accounts of symbolic development.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 294

294  Part IV: Perceptual and cognitive development

the understanding and use of gesture, words, pictures,

models, and maps arise independently. The fact that
these skills surface in a specific temporal sequence (e.g.,
gestures occur before the other skills) supports this
idea. However, a growing body of evidence for domain-​
general symbolic substrates comes from both the onset
and inter-​relatedness of skills across a developmental
trajectory. From this account, it is experience that
mediates the emergence of each of the skills across
different time points, although they all stem from the
same source (see Figure 2).
The capacity of using words and gestures as
symbols appears to emerge in synchrony, but then
specializes over time with particular input (e.g., 18-​
month-​old children are equally likely to interpret
gestures or words as names for object categories, but
at 26 months of age, only the words retain symbolic
power). Brain-​related activity for words and gestures
follows this pattern; in 18-​month-​olds, an N400
mismatch effect was found when words and gestures
preceded pictures, but by 26 months, the effect was
only observed for words (Sheehan, Namy, & Mills,
2007). This suggests both gestures and words emerge
from a single underlying ability (see also Allen,
Mattock, & Silva, 2014 for related evidence involving
Figure 3.  Child interacting with a tablet. words and pictures), but experience is crucial for
fine-​tuning a particular symbolic form. In support
of this, when Namy and Waxman (2002) examined
referents in working memory, map the words to their young children’s production of gestures and words,
appropriate referents, and encode the correct pairs into they found that although children were able to readily
long-​term memory might prove too challenging for produce both forms at 26 months, only the words
younger children in experimental settings. Nonetheless, were referential.
it will be important for researchers to incorporate tests Additional intricate links between language
after a delay to help to explain the discrepant results and and other symbolic domains have been found. For
inform future theory. instance, language appears to moderate symbolic
understanding of pictures and is linked to symbolic
play, suggesting language may provide a base to
Origins of symbolic understanding: scaffold skills in other symbolic domains. It is also
domain-​general vs. domain-​ possible that skills arise in parallel, but then diverge
specific accounts after children reach a certain level of competency
in each. In support of this, a recent study showed
One central question arises when we look at the that language, graphic symbolism, and symbolic
origins of symbolic understanding as a whole: Are such play were inter-​related in 4-​year-​olds, suggesting
skills independent across various domains (domain-​ domain-​general development, but only a year later
specific) or do they instead arise from a common only language retained predictive validity (Kirkham,
source (domain-​general)? For instance, traditional Stewart, & Kidd, 2013). The implication, then, is that
accounts of language development following the work language mediates both play and graphic production,
of Noam Chomsky posit that language arises from a and becomes ‘progressively internalized.’ It will be
specialized mechanism and is unique to humans. The important for future work to document the early
evidence that lends support to this domain-​specific development of symbolic skills across multiple
argument includes homogeneous language learning modalities to determine predictive factors and
across cultures despite significant variation in input and examine the role that core cognitive capacities such
in the learners themselves. A strict, domain-​specific as memory and attention play in terms of symbolic
account of symbolic development would predict that development.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 Cognitive development beyond infancy  295

Conclusions common source. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 14,

187–​192.
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words.
In summary, the post-​infancy period sees the rapid
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
development of language and symbolic understanding Boyatzis, C.J., & Watson, M.W. (1993). Preschool children’s
across multiple domains. Competence in each symbolic symbolic representation of objects through gestures.
area develops gradually, which reflects an interaction Child Development, 64, 729–​735.
between experience with symbolically advanced peers Callaghan, T.C., & Rankin, M.P. (2002). Emergence of
and adults and cognitive maturation. A growing body of graphic symbol functioning and the question of
literature suggests symbolic skills may share a distinct domain specificity: A longitudinal training study.
source, and future work should target both the onset Child Development, 73, 359–​376.
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new
and directionality of influence between symbolic
word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language
substrates. Given the rapid technological advances and Conference, 15, 17–​29.
the introduction of tablet-​style computers, it will be DeLoache, J.S. (2004). Becoming symbol-​minded. Trends in
important going forward to also analyze the benefits of Cognitive Sciences, 8, 66–​70.
learning from such media (see Figure 3). For example, DeLoache, J.S., & Burns, N.M. (1994). Early understanding
many unsubstantiated claims exist about the learning of the representational function of pictures. Cognition,
potential of tablets, and although their dynamic nature 52, 83–​110.
Freeman, N.H., & Sanger, D. (1995). Commonsense
may boost motivation to engage with the device, the
aesthetics of rural children. Visual Arts Research,
effects on learning vocabulary and other symbolic 21, 1–​10.
skills such as picture–​word relations are unclear. It is Ganea, P.A., Allen, M.L., Butler, L., Carey, S., & DeLoache,
also evident that work from atypical populations can J.S. (2009). Toddlers’ referential understanding of
both inform different developmental trajectories and pictures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
complement theories of typical development. 104, 283–​295.
Ittelson, W.H. (1996). Visual perception of markings.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 171–​187.
Kelemen, D., Emmons, N.A., Schillaci, R.S., & Ganea, P.A.
See also (2014). Young children can be taught basic natural
selection using a picture-​storybook intervention.
Constructivist theories; Learning theories; Psychological Science, 25, 893–​902.
Longitudinal and cross-​sectional designs; Cognitive Kirkham, J., Stewart, A., & Kidd, E. (2013). Concurrent and
development during infancy; Memory; Language longitudinal relationships between development in
acquisition; Social development; Joint attention; graphic, language and symbolic play domains from the
Autism; Williams syndrome; Linguistics fourth to the fifth year. Infant and Child Development,
22, 297–​319.
Liszkowski, U. (2012). Deictic and other gestures in
infancy. Acción Psicológica, 7, 21–​33.
Further reading Markman, E.M. (1992). Constraints on word
learning: Speculations about their nature, origins, and
Harris, M. (2013). Language experience and early domain specificity. In M.R. Gunnar & M. Maratsos
language development: From input to uptake. Hove, (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and
UK: Psychology Press. cognition. Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol.
Hostetter, A.B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? 25 (pp. 559–​101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
A meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 297–​315. Namy, L.L., & Waxman, S.R. (2002). Patterns of
Jolley, R.P. (2010). Children and pictures: Drawing and spontaneous production of novel words and gestures
understanding. Oxford, UK: Wiley-​Blackwell. within an experimental setting in children ages 1;6 and
Uttal, D.H., & Yuan, L. (2014). Using 2;2. Journal of Child Language, 29, 911–​921.
symbols: Developmental perspectives. Wiley Nicoladis, E., Mayberry, R.I., & Genesee, F. (1999). Gesture
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5, and early bilingual development. Developmental
295–​304. Psychology, 35, 514–​526.
Waxman, S.R., & Gelman, S.A. (2009). Early word-​learning O’Neill, D.K. (1996). Two‐year‐old children’s sensitivity to a
entails reference, not merely associations. Trends in parent’s knowledge state when making requests. Child
Cognitive Sciences, 13, 258–​263. Development, 67, 659–​677.
O’Neill, D.K., & Holmes, A.C. (2002). Young preschoolers’
ability to reference story characters: The contribution
References of gestures and character speech. First Language, 22,
73–​103.
Allen, M.L., Mattock, K., & Silva, M. (2014). Symbolic Özçalişkan, S., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2011). Is there an
understanding of pictures and written words share a iconic gesture spurt at 26 months? In G. Stam & M.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049
 296

296  Part IV: Perceptual and cognitive development

Ishino (Eds.), Integrating gestures: The interdisciplinary Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (2001). Children creating
nature of gesture (pp. 1163–​174). Amsterdam, language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a
NL: John Benjamins. spatial grammar. Psychological Science, 12, 323–​328.
Preissler, M.A. (2008). Associative learning of pictures Sheehan, E.A., Namy, L.L., & Mills, D.L. (2007).
and words by low-​functioning children with autism. Developmental changes in neural activity to familiar
Autism, 12, 231–​248. words and gestures. Brain and Language, 101, 246–​
Preissler, M.A., & Bloom, P. (2007). Two-​year-​olds 259.
appreciate the dual nature of pictures. Psychological Tolar, T.D., Lederberg, A.R., Gokhale, S., & Tomasello, M.
Science, 18, 1–​2. (2008). The development of the ability to recognize the
Preissler, M.A., & Carey, S. (2004). Do both pictures and meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and
words function as symbols for 18-​and 24-​month-​old Deaf Education, 13, 225–​240.
children? Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication.
185–​212. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Leicester, on 22 Nov 2018 at 11:51:09, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316216491.049