第二人称人际互动中的婴儿学习:自然教育学假说评析

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2025.02.14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 社会认知理论越来越突出第二人称动态互动对学习的重要性。认知发展心理学家Csibra和Gergely等人提出的自然教育学假说认为,婴儿在与成人面对面互动中基于对行为的目的论表征,能快速地理解“你”(成人)的教并且有效地完成“我”(婴儿)的学。自然教育学的发生机制由交流、示范与共享所构成,具体表现为婴儿敏感地接收到明示信号并识别出交际意图,产生指向性期望,并倾向于将“此时此地”的信息泛化为具有概括性的通用知识。自然教育学假说引领的第二人称互动方法在社会认知发展领域产生了深远影响,对儿童早期社会性学习具有重要意义,未来需要加强相关实证研究。

关键词: 自然教育学, 目的论, 第二人称人际互动

Abstract: Social cognition theories have increasingly highlighted the importance of second-person dynamic interactions on learning. The Natural Pedagogy hypothesis proposed by cognitive developmental psychologists Csibra and Gergely suggests that infants are able to quickly understand what “you” (the adult) are teaching and effectively complete “my” (the infant’s) knowledge learning based on teleological representations of behavior during face-to-face interactions. It occurs during communication, modeling, and generalization. Specifically, human infants are sensitive to ostensive signals, tend to develop referential expectations and interpret information as generalized knowledge. The second-person interaction approach led by the Natural Pedagogy hypothesis has a profound impact in social cognition and can be essential in children’s early social learning. In the future, relevant empirical research should be strengthened.

Key words: natural pedagogy, teleology, second-person interpersonal interaction

中图分类号:

B844

徐慧艳, 王小英, 陈巍. 第二人称人际互动中的婴儿学习:自然教育学假说评析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 284-291.

XU Huiyan, WANG Xiaoying, CHEN Wei. Infants’ Learning in Second-person Interpersonal Interaction: The Natural Pedagogy Hypothesis[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(2): 284-291.

参考文献

Bachmann, J., Krüger, B., Keck, J., Munzert, J., & Zabicki, A. (2022). When the timing is right: The link between temporal coupling in dyadic interactions and emotion recognition.Cognition, 229, 105267.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105267
Bettle, R., & Rosati, A. G. (2021). The evolutionary origins of natural pedagogy: Rhesus monkeys show sustained attention following nonsocial cues versus social communicative signals.Developmental Science, 24(1), e12987.https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12987
Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve- and 18-month-olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8(1), F13-F20.
Çetinçelik, M., Rowland, C. F., & Snijders, T. M. (2021). Do the eyes have it? A systematic review on the role of eye gaze in infant language development.Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 589096.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.589096
Colomer, M., Bas, J., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2020). Efficiency as a principle for social preferences in infancy.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 194, 104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104823
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language, 25(2), 141-168.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In Y. Munakata, & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development: Attention and Performance (pp. 249-274). Oxford University Press.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148-153.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1567), 1149-1157.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2013). Teleological understanding of actions. In M. R. Banaji & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us (pp. 38-42). Oxford University Press.
Csibra, G., & Shamsudheen, R. (2015). Nonverbal generics: Human infants interpret objects as symbols of object kinds. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 689-710.
Csibra, G., & Volein, A. (2008). Infants can infer the presence of hidden objects from referential gaze information.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 1-11.
Deschrijver, E., & Palmer, C. (2020). Reframing social cognition: Relational versus representational mentalizing.Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 941-969.
Gallagher, S. (2020). Action and interaction. Oxford University Press.
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287-292.
Gergely, G., Egyed, K., & Király, I. (2007). On pedagogy.Developmental Science, 10(1), 139-146.
Gönül, G., & Paulus, M. (2021). Children’s reasoning about the efficiency of others’ actions: The development of rational action prediction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 204, 105035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.105035
Gredeback, G., Theuring, C., Hauf, P., & Ben, K. (2008). The Microstructure of infants’ gaze as they view adult shifts in overt attention. Infancy, 13(5), 533-543.
Hernik, M. (2020). Human tool cognition relies on teleology.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014052 5X20000278
Hirai, M., & Kanakogi, Y. (2019). Communicative hand‐waving gestures facilitate object learning in preverbal infants. Developmental Science, 22, e12787. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12787
Hirsch, J., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A., & Ono, Y. (2017). Frontal temporal and parietal systems synchronize within and across brains during live eye-to-eye contact.NeuroImage, 157, 314-330.
Juvrud, J., & Gredebäck, G. (2020). The teleological stance: Past, present, and future.Developmental Science, 23(5), e12970. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12970
Király, I., & Oláh, K. (2020). Action selection in imitation: Why do we still need the teleological stance? Commentary on 'The teleological stance: Past, present, and future’ by Juvrud and Gredeback.Developmental Science, 23(5), e12972. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12972
Liu, S., Brooks, B.,& Spelke, S. (2019). Origins of the concepts cause, cost, and goal in prereaching infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17747-17752.
Lloyd-Fox, S., Széplaki-Köllod, B., Yin, J., & Csibra, G. (2015). Are you talking to me? Neural activations in 6-month-old infants in response to being addressed during natural interactions.Cortex, 70, 35-48.
Loria, E. (2020).Learning through others. Natural pedagogy and mindreading: A possible cooperation. Accademia University Press.
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2004). 12- and 18-month-old infants follow gaze to spaces behind barriers.Developmental Science, 7(1), F1-F9.
Moore, C., & Barresi, J. (2017). The role of second-person information in the development of social understanding.Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01667
Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Miranda-Zapata, E. (2020). Getting away from the point: The emergence of ostensive gestures and their functions.Journal of Child Language, 47(3), 556-578.
Nakao, H., & Andrews, K. (2014). Ready to teach or ready to learn: A critique of the natural pedagogy theory.Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5(4), 465-483.
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kobayashi, T., & Itakura, S. (2020). Ostension affects infant learning more than attention.Cognition, 195, e104082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104082
Okumura, Y., Kobayashi, T., & Itakura, S. (2016). Eye contact affects object representation in 9-month-old infants.PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0165145. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165145
Perner, J., Priewasser, B., & Roessler, J. (2018).The practical other: teleology and its development. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 43(2), 99-114.
Peters, U. (2021). Teleology and mentalizing in the explanation of action.Synthese, 198(4), 2941-2957.
Priewasser, B., Rafetseder, E., Gargitter, C., & Perner, J. (2018). Helping as an early indicator of a theory of mind: Mentalism or Teleology? Cognitive Development, 46, 69-78.
Redcay, E., & Schilbach, L. (2019).Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(8), 495-505.
Reddy, V. (2019). Meeting infant affect.Developmental Psychology, 55(9), 2020-2024.
Saito, Y., Aoyama, S., Kondo, T., Fukumoto, R., Konishi, N., Nakamura, K., …Toshima, T. (2007). Frontal cerebral blood flow change associated with infant-directed speech.Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92(2), F113-F116.
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393-414.
Schönherr, J.,& Westra, E. (2019). Beyond 'interaction’: How to understand social effects on social cognition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 27-52.
Schuwerk, T., Bätz, J., Träuble, B., Sodian, B., & Paulus, M. (2020). Do ostensive cues affect object processing in children with and without autism? A test of natural pedagogy theory.Psychological Research, 84(8), 2248-2261.
Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals.Current Biology, 18(9), 668-671.
Silverstein, P., Gliga, T., Westermann, G., & Parise, E. (2019). Probing communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants: Two replication attempts of Yoon, Johnson and Csibra (2008).Infant Behavior & Development, 55, 77-87.
Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 162-180.
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate.Developmental Science, 12(6), 1013-1019.
Tomasello, M. (2018). How children come to understand false beliefs: A shared intentionality account.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34), 8491-8498.
Topál, J., Gergely, G., Miklósi, A., Erdöhegyi, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Infants’ perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science, 321(5897), 1831-1834.
Trauble, B., & Batz, J. (2014). Shared function knowledge: Infants’ attention to function information in communicative contexts.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 67-77.
Wass, S. V., Noreika, V., Georgieva, S., Clackson, K., Brightman, L., Nutbrown, R., … Leong, V. (2018). Parental neural responsivity to infants’ visual attention: How mature brains influence immature brains during social interaction.PLoS Biology, 16(12), e2006328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.2006328
Yoon, J. D., Johnson, M. H., & Csibra, G. (2008). Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(36), 13690-13695.
王兴华, 洪慧芳, 朱瑞玲. (2021). 2~3岁幼儿执行功能与母子互动的关系: 幼儿气质的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 37(6), 784-791.
杨岸婷, 盛晓明. (2014). 行为的目的论的解释及其认知机制. 自然辩证法研究, 30(3), 3-9.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	王堃炎, 黄英航, 邓珏, 王璇, 张向葵. 从善念到善行:4~7岁儿童社会善念与亲社会行为的发展关联[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 457-466.
[2]	于晓, 张雅欣, 戚玥, 常尚钺, 何雯惺, 陈英和. 学龄儿童自然联结的发展轨迹及其与创造力倾向的关系:累加效应还是交互效应？[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 467-477.
[3]	邬钟灵, 陈亮. 父亲、母亲教养行为对幼儿社会适应的影响:同胞关系的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 478-489.
[4]	毕爽, 朱华琳, 周晖. 每日父母教养焦虑与儿童亲社会行为的动态关系:正念教养的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 490-501.
[5]	李书琴, 向燕辉. 初中生宽恕的发展趋势与异质轨迹:大五人格的预测作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 502-511.
[6]	唐凤华, 翟予童, 李家瑶, 王芳. 是在“卷”我吗？大学生学业零和信念影响对他人努力的解读及其后果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 512-524.
[7]	杨明, 辛素飞, 辛自强. 社会支持弱化与倾向避免失败:中国大学生成就动机的代际演变[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 525-535.
[8]	陈紫薇, 黄潇潇, 俞国良. 父母教养行为与儿童心理健康关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 563-576.
[9]	刘媛, 曹文锦, 王美芳, 权思翔. 父母体罚和青少年攻击行为的双向动态关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 577-585.
[10]	吴旻, 张杰, 叶攀琴, 龚茜, 袁柯曼. 留守儿童非自杀性自伤行为的发展轨迹:同伴侵害模式的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 586-595.
[11]	舒展, 彭申立, 赵纤, 黎志华. 累积家庭风险对低收入家庭儿童外化问题影响的即时与延时效应:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 596-608.
[12]	金星, 刘景弘, 马跃, 于战宇. 聋童和正常儿童身体表情注意瞬脱的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 305-312.
[13]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 语言范畴影响面部表情知觉的电生理学证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 313-322.
[14]	赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[15]	郑显亮, 陈慧萍, 王雪, 鲍振宙. 青少年网络利他行为的发展趋势及社会阶层的影响:一项追踪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 333-341.