hkr.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Lenninger, Sara M
    et al.
    Lunds universitet.
    Sinha, Chris
    Hunan University.
    Sonesson, Göran
    Lunds universitet.
    Editorial introduction: semiotic and cognitive development in human evolution2015In: Cognitive development, ISSN 0885-2014, E-ISSN 1879-226X, Vol. 36, no Oct/Dec, p. 127-129Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Sonesson, Göran
    et al.
    Lunds universitet.
    Lenninger, Sara M
    Lunds universitet.
    The psychological development of semiotic competence: from the window to the movie by way of the mirror2015In: Cognitive development, ISSN 0885-2014, E-ISSN 1879-226X, Vol. 36, no Oct/Dec, p. 191-201Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Psychologists have been interested in the mirror image chiefly as a device permitting the subject to discover his/her self-representation, and semioticians have denied that the mirror image could be a kind of sign. In the present paper, our intention is to develop a framework for realising a detailed comparison between perceptual reality, as seen in a peephole, and mirror images, as well a streaming video and pre-recorded video. In the first section, we introduce the semiotic notion of sign, using precise criteria to assure that the mirror image, as used by adults, functions as a sign. In the second section, experimental studies comparing some constellations of perceptual reality, mirror images, and video strips are scrutinized, and we report briefly the results of a study which we ourselves set up to investigate the capacities of 2 year old children to understand an object choice task conveyed by means in those four kinds of media. The result suggests that continuity, which is the opposite of differentiation defining the sign, is still important for enabling the understanding of the task in children at this age.

  • 3.
    Zlatev, Jordan
    Lund University.
    Lenninger, Sara M.
    Lund University.
    Persson, Tomas
    Lund University.
    Sayehli, Susan
    Lund University.
    Sonesson, Göran
    Lund University.
    van de Weijer, Joost
    Lund University.
    Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees2013In: Cognitive development, ISSN 0885-2014, E-ISSN 1879-226X, Vol. 28, no 3, p. 312-329Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Developmental and comparative studies of the ability to understand communicative intentions using object-choice tasks raise questions concerning the semiotic properties of the communicative signals, and the roles of rearing histories, language and familiarity. We adapted a study by Tomasello, Call, and Gluckman (1997), in which a “helper” indicated the location of a hidden reward to children of three ages (18, 24, and 30 months) and to four chimpanzees, by means of one of four cues: Pointing, Marker, Picture and Replica. For the chimpanzees, we controlled for familiarity by using two helpers, one unfamiliar and one highly familiar. Even 18-months performed well on Pointing and Marker, while only the oldest group clearly succeeded with Picture and Replica. Performance did not correlate with scores for the Swedish Early Communicative Development Inventory (SECDI). While there were no positive results for the chimpanzees on the group level, and no effect of familiarity, two chimpanzees succeeded on Pointing and Marker. Results support proposals of a species difference in understanding communicative intentions, but also highlight the need to distinguish these from the complexity of semiotic vehicles and to consider both factors.

1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf