Vol. 25 No. 1 (2022)
Articles

THE SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF BULGARIAN BILINGUAL CHILDREN - THEORY OF MIND PERSPECTIVE

Download PDF
  • Hristo Kyuchukov
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7546/PsyRB.2022.25.01.04

Published 06/10/2022

Keywords

  • Theory of Mind,
  • bilingualism,
  • wh-questions,
  • evidentiality,
  • Romani,
  • Turkish,
  • Bulgarian
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Kyuchukov, H. (2022). THE SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF BULGARIAN BILINGUAL CHILDREN - THEORY OF MIND PERSPECTIVE. Psychological Research (in the Balkans), 25(1). https://doi.org/10.7546/PsyRB.2022.25.01.04

Copyright (c) 2022 Psychological Research (in the Balkans)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Background
The paper presents a study with 120 minority bilingual children from Bulgaria. 60 Roma-Bulgarian and 60 Turkish- Bulgarian children between the age of 3;6-5;0 years old  are tested with two classical Theory of Mind tests, with two non-verbal Theory of Mind test, wh- questions using the mental state verb “to say”, and evidentiality test in both mother tongue L1 (Turkish and Romani) and in L2 (Bulgarian). The Turkish children live in a small town and the Roma children in a village.

Hypotheses
The hypotheses are that the knowledge of grammatical categories can help the children to understand the Theory of Mind and the residence facilitates the development of Theory of Mind in children.

Results
The results from the tests showed that in some Theory of Mind tests the Turkish children are better and in other test the Roma children performance is better. The knowledge of the grammatical categories does not influence the understanding of Theory of Mind task. The residence is not a factor facilitating the Theory of Mind of Bulgarian minority bilingual children.

The results from the tests showed that in some Theory of Mind tests the Turkish children are better and in other test the Roma children performance is better. The knowledge of the grammatical categories does not influence the understanding of Theory of Mind task. The residence is not a factor facilitating the Theory of Mind of Bulgarian minority bilingual children.

Conclusions
The hypotheses that the knowledge of some grammatical categories could be a factor which helps Bulgarian bilingual children better to understand the Theory of Mind is partly fulfilled. The second hypotheses regarding the structure of the languages which the bilingual children use and how much they facilitates the early understanding of the False Belief tasks is also partly answers. The last hypothesis that the residence of the children is a factor for understanding of the Theory of Mind task is not confirmed. Both group of bilingual children bilingual show similar trends and that does not depend on their place of residence.

Download PDF

References

  1. Alshahrani, A. (2017). Effect of bilingualism on the development of cognitive processes among children. Arab World English Journal, 8 (4), 451-466, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no4.31
  2. Anderson, J. et al. (2017). The language and social background questionnaire: assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behaviour Research Methods, 50, DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9
  3. Astington, J. (ed.) (2000). Minds in the Making. Malden: Blackwell Publisher.
  4. Astington, J. (1993). The child’s discovery of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  5. Astington, J. and Baird, J. (2005). Why language matters for Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Bartsch, K. and H. Wellman (1995). Children talk about the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Berguno, G. & Bowler, D. (2004). Communicative Interactions, Knowledge of a Second Language, and Theory of Mind in Young Children, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165:3, 293-309, DOI: 10.3200/GNTP.165.3.293-309
  8. de Preez, P. (1991). A science of mind. London: Academic Press.
  9. de Villiers, J. and de Villiers, P. (2000 Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In P. Mitchell & K. J. Riggs (Eds.), Children's reasoning and the mind (pp. 191-228). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
  10. de Villiers, J. & Pyers, J. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal
  11. study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037-1060.
  12. Doherty, M. (2009). Theory of Mind. How children understand the Others’ Thoughts and Feelings. Hove: Psychology Press.
  13. Dunn, J. (1995). Mindreading and Social Relationship. In: Bennett, M. (ed.) Developmental Psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, pp. 55-71.
  14. Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  15. Ekiert, Monika. (2005). The bilingual brain. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 3(2). Retrieved April 6, 2020 from
  16. http://journals.tclibrary.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/31.
  17. Goetz, P. (2003). The effect of bilingualism on the theory of mind development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6 (1), 1-15.
  18. Carpendale, J. and Ch. Lewis (2006). How children develop social understanding. Malden: Blackwell.
  19. Carpendale, J. and U. Muller (eds) (2004). Social interaction and the development of knowledge. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  20. Carpendale, J., Ch. Lewis and U. Muller (2018). The development of children’s thinking. Its social and communicative foundations. London: SAGE Publications
  21. Cho, I. (2020). The Relationship between Theory of Mind and Executive Function: Are They Two Facets of the Same Process or Two Distinct Processes?. Electronic Thesis and Disser tation Repositor y. 6810. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/6810
  22. Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (5-25). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  23. Kobayashi, Ch. et al. (2006). Cultural and linguistic influence on neural bases of ‘Theory of Mind’: An fMRI study with Japanese bilinguals. Brain and Language, 98 (2), 210-220.
  24. Kyuchukov, H. (2020). Are the Mental State Verbs Important for Roma Children’s Understanding of False Belief Task. Psycholinguistics, 27(1), pp. 181-194.
  25. Kyuchukov, H. (2010). Cognitive Development and Theory of Mind in Bilingual Children. In: B. Bokus (ed.) Studies in the Psychology of Language and Communication. Warsaw: Matrix, pp. 211-225.
  26. Kyuchukov, H. and de Villiers, J. (2009). Theory of Mind and Evidentiality in Romani-Bulgarian Bilingual children. Psychology of Language and Communication, 13(2), pp. 21-34.
  27. Kyuchukov, H. (2016). Bilingualism and cross-cultural study of language and cognitive development. Psycholinguistics/ Психолингвистика, 20 (1), pp. 154-161
  28. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Kegan Paul.
  29. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgement and reasoning in the child. London: Kegan Paul.
  30. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Kegan Paul
  31. Perner, J. (1995). Theory of Mind. In: Bennett, M. (ed.) Developmental Psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, pp. 205-230.
  32. Perner, J. and M. Aichhorn (2008). Theory of mind, language and temporoparietal junction mystery. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 123-126
  33. Sabourin, L. et al. (2016). Language processing in bilinguals. Evidence from lexical organization and cognitive control. EUROSLA Yearbook, 16 (1), 1-24 https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.16.01sab
  34. Schroeder, S. (2018). Do bilinguals have an advantage in Theory of Mind? A meta-analyses. Frontiers in Communication, 3:36 doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00036