Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 375–400 | Cite as

Social cognition, mindreading and narratives. A cognitive semiotics perspective on narrative practices from early mindreading to Autism Spectrum Disorder

  • Claudio PaolucciEmail author
Article

Abstract

Understanding social cognition referring to narratives without relying on mindreading skills has been the main aim of the Narrative Practice Hypothesis (NPH) proposed by Daniel Hutto and Shaun Gallagher. In this paper, I offer a semiotic reformulation of the NPH, expanding the notion of narrative beyond its conventional common-sense understanding and claiming that the kind of social cognition that operates in implicit false belief task competency is developed out of the narrative logic of interaction. I will try to show how experience is shaped through meaning by the structure of narrativity and the way this can account for how narrative competencies do not just depend on language acquisition, but permeate the interactive competencies of pre-linguistic children and some social non-human animals. Developing during primary and secondary intersubjectivity and rooted in the semiotic ability to deceive and manipulate others, semiotic narrativity is the key bridge that leads us to mind and beliefs starting from basic perceptions, emotions and embodied enactive interactions. I will test my Narrative Practice Semiotic Hypothesis (NPSH) on Autism spectrum disorders, where social cognition skills don’t work properly, connecting NPSH to the Social Motivation Theory of Autism (Dawson et al. 2005; Chevalier et al. 2012). I will finally answer some criticisms towards the original NPH, connecting its semiotic reformulation to early mindreading in infants and to some very recent experiments by Krupeneye et al. (2016) and Buttelmann et al. (2017) about false beliefs understanding in primates.

Keywords

Narratives Social cognition Early mindreading Semiotics Shaun Gallagher Daniel Hutto False beliefs Animal cognition Enactivism Interaction theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Shaun Gallagher and to my two anonymous reviewers for the help in making this paper a lot better than it originally was.

References

  1. Andrews, K. (2015). The Animal Mind. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116, 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28(5), 606–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bertrand, D. (2000). Précis de sémiotique littéraire. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buttelmann D., Carpenter M. and Tomasello M. (2009) Eighteen-month-old infants show false belief understanding in an active helping paradigm, Cognition, 112 (2), 337–342.Google Scholar
  9. Buttelmann, D., Buttelmann, F., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tommasello, M. (2017). Great apes distinguish true from false beliefs in an interactive helping task. PLoS One, 12(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers, P. (2013). Mindreading in infancy. Mind & Language, 28(2), 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chevalier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clements, W. A. and Perner, J. (1994), “Implicit understanding of belief”, Cognitive Development, 9(4), 377–395.Google Scholar
  13. Crane, T. (1995). The mechanical mind. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Currie, G. and Sterelny, K. (2000). How to think about the modularity of mind-reading. The Philosophical Quarterly, 50(199), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danto, A. (1985). Narration and knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dawson, G., Webb, S. J., & McPartland, J. (2005). Understanding the nature of face processing impairment in autism: Insights from behavioral and electrophysiological studies. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27(3), 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani (English translation, A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fibula. Milano: Bompiani (English translation, The Role of the Reader, Bloomington: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Ellis, R. et al. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning. Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matter.Google Scholar
  20. Fletcher, L., & Carruthers, P. (2013). Behavior-reading versus mentalizing in animals. In J. Metcalfe & H. Terrace (Eds.), Agency and joint attention, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frith, U., & Happe, F. (1999). Theory of mind and self-consciousness: What is it like to be autistic. Mind & Language, 14(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fusaroli, R. and Paolucci, C. (2011). The ‘external mind’: An introduction. VS, 112-5, 3–30.Google Scholar
  23. Fusaroli, R., Gangopadhyay, & Tylén, K. (2013). The dialogically extended mind: language as skilful intersubjective engagement. Cognitive Systems Research, (1), 29–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.06.002.
  24. Gallagher, S. (2006). “The Narrative Alternative to Theory of Mind”. In Menary, R. 2006 (ed.): 223–9.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, S. (2009). Two Problems of Intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16. No., 6–7, 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions. Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gallagher, S. & Hutto, D. (2018). Narratives in embodied therapeutic practice: Getting the story straight, in press.Google Scholar
  28. Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–38.Google Scholar
  29. Gallagher, S. and Zahavi, D. (2008). The phenomenological mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gallagher, S. and Povinelli, D. J. (2012) Enactive and Behavioral Abstraction Accounts of Social Understanding in Chimpanzees, Infants, and Adults. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3 (1), 145–169.Google Scholar
  31. Gallese, V. (2001). The ‘shared manifold’ hypothesys: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Study, 8, 33–50.Google Scholar
  32. Gallese, V. (2007). Before and below ‘theory of mind’: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The Brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21(2005).Google Scholar
  34. Gallese, V., Rochat, M., & Berchio, C. (2013). The mirror mechanism and its potential role in autism spectrum disorder. Developemental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldman, A. I. (1989). Interpretation psychologised. Mind & Language, 4, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldman, A. I. (2006) Simulating Minds. The Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gordon, R. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language, 1, 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Greimas, A. J. (1970). Du sens. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  39. Greimas, A. J. (1983). Du sens 2. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  40. Heal, J. (1998). Understanding other minds from the inside. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Current issues in philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herman, D. (2003a), “Stories as a tool for thinking”, in Herman, D. (ed.) 2003: 163–194.Google Scholar
  42. Herman, D. (Ed.). (2003b). Narrative theory and the cognitive science. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Hutto, D. (2006), “Narrative Practice and Understanding Reasons”, in Menary, R. (ed.) (2006): 231–247.Google Scholar
  44. Hutto, D. (2007), “The narrative practice hypothesis: Origins and applications of folk psychology”. Philosophy. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement: 82: 60. (Also in Hutto, D. (ed.). Narrative and Understanding Persons, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 43–68).Google Scholar
  45. Hutto, D. (2008), “The Narrative Practise Hypothesis: clarifications and implications”, Philosophical Explorations, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2008: 175–192.Google Scholar
  46. Hutto, D. (2009). Folk Psychology as Narrative Practise. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16, No, 6-8, 9–39.Google Scholar
  47. Hutto, D., Herschbach, M. and Southgate, V. (2011) Social cognition: Mindreading and alternatives. Review of Philosophical Psychology (2011) 2, 375–395.Google Scholar
  48. Jacob, P. (2011, 2011). The direct-perception model of empathy: A critique. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, (2), 519–540.Google Scholar
  49. Jahn, M. (1997). Frames, preferences and the reading of third-person narratives. Towards a cognitive narratology. Poetics Today, 18(4), 441–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kovacs, A. (2016). Belief files in theory of mind reasoning. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(2), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krupeneye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tommasello, M. (2016, 2016). Great apes anticipate agents’ actions based on their false beliefs. Science 354, October, 110–114.Google Scholar
  52. Leslie, A. M. (2005). Developmental parallels in understanding minds and bodies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levi-Strauss, C. (1958), Anthropologie structural, Paris, Plon.Google Scholar
  54. Lorusso, A. M., Paolucci, C. and Violi, P. (eds.) (2012), Narratività. Temi, Problemi, prospettive. Bologna, Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Low, J., & Wang, B. (2011). On the long road to mentalism in children's spontaneous false-belief understanding: Are we there yet? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lurz, S. J., and Krachun, C. (2014). “Animal Mindreading: a Defense of Optimistic Agnosticism”, Mind and Language, 29 (4): 428–454.Google Scholar
  57. Malle, B. F. (2002). The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–284.Google Scholar
  58. Marrone, G., & Mangano, D. (2018). Semiotics of animals in culture. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Martin, A., & Santos, L. R. (2014). The origins of belief representation: Monkeys fail to automatically represent others’ beliefs. Cognition, 130(3), 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martin, A., & Santos, L. R. (2016). What cognitive mechanisms support primate theory of mind? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, May, 20(5), 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Menary, R. (Ed.). (2006). Radical Enactivism: Focus on the Philosophy of Daniel D. Hutto. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  62. Mink, L. O. (1978). Narrative form as a cognitive instrument. In R. Canary & H. Kozicki (Eds.), The writing of history: Literary form and historical understanding. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  63. Myowa-Yamakoshi, M., Tomonaga, M., Tanaka, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2004). Imitation in neonatal chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). Developmental Science, 7(4), 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Noë, A. (2006). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Onishi, K. H., and Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paolucci, C. (2010). Strutturalismo e interpretazione. Bompiani: Milano.Google Scholar
  67. Paolucci, C. (2011). The ‘external mind’: Semiotics, pragmatism, extended mind and distributed cognition. VS, 112(5), 67–94.Google Scholar
  68. Peirce, C. S. (CP), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, voll. I – VI edited by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, 1931–1935, voll. VII – VIII edited by a.W. Burks, 1958, Cambridge (Mass)., Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  69. Pennisi, A. and Falzone, A. (2017). Darwinian biolinguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Povinelli, D. J., and Vonk, J. (2004). We don’t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee’s mind. Mind & Language, 19, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Propp, V. (1928). Morfologija skazki. St. Petersburg: Academia.Google Scholar
  72. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rizzolatti, G., & Vozza, L. (2011). Nella mente degli altri. Neuroni specchio e comportamento sociale. Zanichelli: Bologna.Google Scholar
  74. Robichaud, D. (2003), “Narrative institutions we organize by: the case of municipal administration”, in Czarniawska, B. and Gagliardi, P., Narrative we organize by (pp. 37–54), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  75. Ruffman, T., & Perner, J. (2005a). Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep? Science, 308(5719), 214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ruffman, T., & Perner, J. (2005b). Do infants really understand false belief? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 462–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Simion, F., Di Giorgio, E., Leo, I., & Bardi, L. (2011). The processing of social stimuli in early infancy: From faces to biological motion perception. Progress in Brain Research, 189, 173–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53884-0.00024-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Talmy, L. (2000), “A cognitive framework for narrative structure”, Toward a Cognitive Semantics vol. 2, Cambridge: MIT Press: 417–82.Google Scholar
  80. Tomasello, M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  81. Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12(5), 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183–229). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. Violi, P. (2012), “Nuove forme della narratività”, in Lorusso, A. M., Paolucci, C. e Violi, P. (eds.) 2012.Google Scholar
  84. Vygotskij, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. Zlatev, J. (2008), The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis, in Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C. and Itkonen, E. (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 215–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Communication StudiesUniversità degli Studi di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations