Southern Peruvian Quechua is an indigenous language spoken primarily in rural communities in the Peruvian Andes. The language includes a syntactic construction, ‘-paq’, that expresses purpose or function, thus providing an opportunity to trace how parents and children with little formal education express teleological concepts. The authors recorded parent–child dyads (N = 36; children aged 3–5 years) talking about items in a picture book, and coded uses of -paq (e.g., ‘What is that little [toy] bear for?’ [‘Chay usuchari imapaqtaq?’]. For younger children (3–4 years) and their parents, -paq was infrequent and equivalent across domains. For older children (5-year-olds) and their parents, -paq increased dramatically and differentially by domain (most commonly produced for artifacts, food, and animals). These results provide new evidence that speaks to existing developmental accounts regarding the domain-specificity vs. domain-generality of teleological concepts in development.
CaslerK.KelemenD. (2005). Young children’s rapid learning about artifacts. Developmental Science, 8, 472–480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00438.x
4.
CaslerK.KelemenD. (2008). Developmental continuity in teleo-functional explanation: Reasoning about nature among Romanian Romani adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 340–362.
5.
Cerrón-PalominoR. M. (1987). Lingüística quechua [Quechan linguistics]. Cuzco, Peru: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos ‘Bartolomé de la Casas.
6.
Cusihuamán GutiérrezA. (1976). Gramática quechua, Cuzco-Collao [Quechan grammar, Cuzco-Collao]. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
7.
GelmanS. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8.
GelmanS. A.ColeyJ. D.RosengrenK.HartmanE.PappasA. (1998). Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly-structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Serial No. 253, 63(1).
9.
GelmanS. A.TardifT. (1998). A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin. Cognition, 66, 215–248.
10.
GelmanS. A.TaylorM. G.NguyenS. (2004). Mother–child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development69(1).
11.
GreenbergJ. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In GreenbergJ. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12.
GuoJ.LievenE.BudwigN.Ervin-TrippS.NakamuraK.ÕzçalişkanŞ. (2009). Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
13.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
14.
InagakiK. (1990). The effects of raising animals on children’s biological knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 119–129. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1990.tb00827.x
15.
KeilF. C. (1994). The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In HirschfeldL. A.GelmanS. A. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 234–254). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
KeilF. C. (1995). The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds. In SperberD.PremackD.PremackA. (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 234–267). New York, NY: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
17.
KelemenD. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4
18.
KelemenD. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1440–1452. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440
19.
KelemenD. (1999c). Functions, goals and intentions: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 461–468.
20.
KelemenD. (2004). Are children ‘intuitive theists’? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15, 295–301. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x
21.
KelemenD.CallananM. A.CaslerK.Pérez-GranadosD. R. (2005). Why things happen: Teleological explanation in parent–child conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41, 251–264. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.251
22.
KelemenD.RossetE. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001
23.
KelemenD.SestonR.GeorgesL. (2012). The designing mind: Children’s reasoning about intended function and artifact structure. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13, 439–453. doi:10.1080/15248372.2011.608200
24.
LombrozoT.KelemenD.ZaitchikD. (2007). Inferring design: Evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Science, 18, 999–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02015.x
25.
MannheimB. (1991). The language of the Inka since the European invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press.
26.
MuyskenP. (1981). Quechua word structure. In HenyF. (Ed.), Binding and filtering (pp. 279–326). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27.
MuyskenP. (1986). Approaches to affix order. Linguistics, 24, 629–643.
28.
OjalehtoB.WaxmanS. R.MedinD. L. (2013). Teleological reasoning about nature: Intentional design or relational perspectives?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 166–171. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.006
29.
PappasA.GelmanS. A. (1998). Generic noun phrases in mother–child conversations. Journal of Child Language, 25, 19–33.
30.
TardifT.GelmanS. A.XuF. (1999). Putting the ‘noun bias’ in context: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Child Development, 70, 620–635. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00045
31.
UnsworthS. J.LevinW.BangM.WashinawatokK.WaxmanS. R.MedinD. L. (2012). Cultural differences in children’s ecological reasoning and psychological closeness to nature: Evidence from Menominee and European American children. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 12(1–2), 17–29. doi:10.1163/156853712X633901
32.
WareE. A.GelmanS. A. (2014). You get what you need: An examination of purpose-based inheritance reasoning in undergraduates, preschoolers, and biological experts. Cognitive Science, 38, 197–243. doi:10.1111/cogs.12097
33.
WaxmanS.MedinD.RossN. (2007). Folkbiological reasoning from a cross-cultural developmental perspective: Early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 43, 294–308. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.294
34.
WeberD. (1976). Suffix-as-operator analysis and the grammar of successive encoding in Llacón Quechua. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
