by Jared Vasil, Camryn Capoot, Michael Tomasello
The pronoun we can be used to refer to various collections of people depending on various pragmatic factors. This article reports the results of two online experiments that investigated children’s interpretation of inclusive we, in which the child-listener is part of the intended referent of we. 128 2- and 4-year-olds collaborated with three partners in a coloring task. Before they played together, one partner informed participants that, e.g., “we can color!” Participants had their own markers and had to choose to how many partners to distribute (virtual) markers. In the first experiment, the partners appeared more like an aggregation of individuals than a collaborative group. The second experiment flipped this so that the partners appeared more like a collaborative group. Contrary to expectations, there was relatively little evidence for development in children’s interpretation of we. Additionally, participants did not sharply distinguish their interpretations of we from those of we both or we all. Rather, participants were more likely to choose group interpretations when contextual cues indicated that their partners were a collaborative group than an aggregation of individuals. Interestingly, this interpretational distinction was sharpest for the pragmatically ambiguous we, compared to the relatively unambiguous we both and we all. These results are informative about the kinds of cues that shape young children’s interpretation of pragmatically ambiguous pronominal reference.