Cited by 540Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAction Observation and SynchronizationSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

2. Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice

Gallagher, Shaun, Hutto, Daniel D.·2008·Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research

Abstract

We argue that theory-of-mind (ToM) approaches, such as "theory theory" and "simulation theory", are both problematic and not needed. They account for neither our primary and pervasive way of engaging with others nor the true basis of our folk psychological understanding, even when narrowly construed. Developmental evidence shows that young infants are capable of grasping the purposeful intentions of others through the perception of bodily movements, gestures, facial expressions etc. Trevarthen's notion of primary intersubjectivity can provide a theoretical framework for understanding these capabilities and his notion of secondary intersubjectivity shows the importance of pragmatic contexts for infants starting around one year of age. The recent neuroscience of resonance systems (i.e., mirror neurons, shared representations) also supports this view. These ideas are worked out in the context of an embodied "Interaction Theory" of social cognition. Still, for more sophisticated intersubjective interactions in older children and adults, one might argue that some form of ToM is required. This thought is defused by appeal to narrative competency and the Narrative Practice Hypothesis (or NPH). We propose that repeated encounters with narratives of a distinctive kind is the normal route through which children acquire an understanding of the forms and norms that enable them to make sense of actions in terms of reasons. A potential objection to this hypothesis is that it presupposes To…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/celcr.12.04gal

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Storytelling enables children to understand the behaviours of others and the reasons underlying them.

    “Storytelling enables children to understand the behaviours of others and the reasons underlying the behaviour (Gallagher and Hutto 2008).”

    From Gifts of Cooperation, Mauss and Pragmatism (2016) · cites this paper as Gallagher and Hutto 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D. D.
Venue
Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research
Published
2008-06-26
Pages
17-38
ISSN
1566-7774 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1764548386
Cited by
540
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 27
FWCI
35.97
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Converging evidence in language and communication research (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
theory of mind, primary intersubjectivity, infant social cognition, narrative skills, mirror neurons, shared representations, simulation theory, theory theory, folk psychology, pragmatic context, intention understanding, social cognition development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review