Mind & Society

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 31–58 | Cite as

How pretence can really be metarepresentational



Our lives are commonly involved with fictionality, an activity that adults share with children. After providing a brief reconstruction of the most important cognitive theories on pretence, we will argue that pretence has to do with metarepresentations, albeit in a rather weakened sense. In our view, pretending entails being aware that a certain representation does not fit in the very same representational model as another representation. This is a minimal metarepresentationalism, for normally metarepresentationalism on pretense claims that pretending is or entails representing a representation qua representation, i.e. as conceptualised as a representation, in its very content. In the final section we will try to draw some consequences of our view as to the debate in cognitive science on mindreading. Given this minimal metarepresentationalism, the two main positions on mindreading, the ‘theory theory’ and the ‘simulation theory’, turn out to be closer than one would have originally supposed.


Pretence Metarepresentation Simulation Simulation theory Theory theory 


  1. Bisiach E (1988) Language without thought. In: Weiskrantz L (ed) Thought without language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 464–484Google Scholar
  2. Bonomi A (1995) Tranparency and specificity in intentional contexts. In: Leonardi P, Santambrogio M (eds) On Quine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–185Google Scholar
  3. Currie G (1990) The nature of fiction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Currie G (1995) Image and mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Currie G (1998) Pretence, pretending and metarepresenting. Mind Lang 13:35–55Google Scholar
  6. Currie G (2000) Imagination, delusion and hallucinations. Mind Lang 15:168–183Google Scholar
  7. Davies M, Stone T (1995a) Folk psychology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies M, Stone T (1995b) Mental simulation. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Deloache JS (2004) Becoming symbol-minded. Trends Cogn Sci 8:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deloache JS, Burns NM (1994) Early understanding of the representational function of pictures. Cognition 52:83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G (1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol 73:2608–2611Google Scholar
  12. Fodor JA (1990) A theory of content, II: the theory. In: A theory of content and other essays, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 89–136Google Scholar
  13. Fodor JA (2007) The revenge of the given. In: McLaughlin B, Cohen J (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  14. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G (2005) Parietal lobe: from action organisation to intention understanding. Science 308:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frege G (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50; In Geach PT, Black M (eds) Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (trans. by M. Black). Blackwell, Oxford, 19803, pp 56–78Google Scholar
  16. Friedman O, Leslie AM (2007) The conceptual underpinnings of pretence: pretending is not ‘behaving-as-if’. Cognition 105:103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller G (1995) Simulation and psychological concepts. In: Davies M, Stone T (eds) Mental simulation. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  18. Gallese V (2003) The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: the quest for a common mechanism. Philos T R Soc B 358:517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallese V, Goldman A (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mindreading. Trends Cogn Sci 2:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldman A (2006) Simulating minds. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman A (2009) Mirroring, simulation and mindreading. Mind Lang 24(2):235–252Google Scholar
  22. Gordon R (1995a) Folk psychology as simulation. In: Davies M, Stone T (eds) Folk psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 60–73Google Scholar
  23. Gordon R (1995b) Simulation without introspection or inference from me to you. In: Davies M, Stone T (eds) Folk psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 53–67Google Scholar
  24. Harris PL (1994) Understanding pretence. In: Lewis C, Mitchell P (eds) Children’s early understanding of mind: origins and development. Erlbaum, Hove, pp 235–259Google Scholar
  25. Harris P, Kavanaugh R, Meredith M (1994) Young children’s comprehension of pretend episodes: the integration. Child Dev 65:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heal J (1995) Replication and functionalism. In: Davies M, Stone T (eds) Folk psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 45–59Google Scholar
  27. Howes C, Unger O, Matheson CC (1992) The collaborative construction of pretend. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Iacoboni M, Molnar-Szakacs I, Gallese V, Buccino G, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (2005) Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. Plos Biol 3:E79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacob P (2009) The tuning-fork model of human social cognition: a critique. Conscious Cogn 18(1):229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacob P, Jeannerod M (2005) The motor theory of social cognition: a critique. Trends Cogn Sci 9:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jarrolds C, Carruthers P, Smith PK, Boucher J (1994) Pretend play, is it metarepresentational? Mind Lang 9:445–468Google Scholar
  32. Leslie AM (1987) Pretence and representation: the origins of ‘theory of mind’. Psychol Rev 94:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leslie AM (1994) Pretending and believing: issues in the theory of ToMM. Cognition 50:211–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leslie AM, Roth D (1993) What autism teaches us about metarepresentation. In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen D (eds) Understanding other minds: perspectives from autism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 83–111Google Scholar
  35. Lewis D (1978) Truth in fiction. Am Philos Q 15:37–46Google Scholar
  36. Lillard A (1993) Young children’s conceptualization of pretend: action or mental representational state? Child Dev 64:372–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lillard A (1998) Playing with a theory of mind. In: Saracho O, Spodek B (eds) Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education. State University of NY Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Lillard A (2002a) Just through the looking glass: children’s understanding of pretence. In: Mitchell RW (ed) Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lillard A (2002b) Pretend play and cognitive development. In: Goswami U (ed) Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 188–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lillard A, Zeljo A, Curenton S, Kaugars A (2000) Children’s understanding of the animacy constraint on pretence. Merrill-Palmer Q 46:21–44Google Scholar
  41. McDowell J (1982) Truth-value gaps. In: Cohen LJ, Łó J, Pfeiffer H, Podewski KP (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science VI: Proceedings of the 6th international congress of logic, methodology, and philosophy of science, Hannover. North-Holland Publishing Co., New York, pp 299–313Google Scholar
  42. Meini C (2007) Naïve psychology and simulations. In: Marraffa M, De Caro M, Ferretti F (eds) Cartographies of the mind. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nichols S, Stich S (2003) Mindreading. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olson DR (1993) The development of representations: the origins of mental life. Can Psychol 34:1–14Google Scholar
  45. Perner J (1991) Understanding the representational mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Piaget J (1962) Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Pylyshyn ZW (1978) When is attribution of beliefs justified? Behav Brain Sci 1:592–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rakoczy H, Tomasello M (2006) Two-year-olds grasp the intentional structure of pretence acts. Dev Sci 9:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rakoczy H, Tomasello M, Striano T (2004) Young children know that trying is not pretending: a test of the “behaving-as-if” construal of children’s early concept of pretence. Dev Psychol 40:388–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Recanati F (1993) Direct reference. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Recanati F (2000) Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Rizzolatti G, Gentilucci M (1988) Motor and visual-motor functions of the premotor cortex. In: Rakic P, Singer W (eds) Neurobiology of the neocortex. Wiley, Chichester, pp 269–284Google Scholar
  53. Sass LA (1994) The paradoxes of delusion: Wittgenstein, Schreber, and the schizophrenic mind. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiffer S (1978) The basis of reference. Erkenntnis 13:171–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stich S, Nichols S (1995) Folk psychology: simulation or tacit theory? In: Davies M, Stone T (eds) Folk psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 123–158Google Scholar
  56. Suddendorf T (1999) The rise of the metamind. In: Corballis MC, Lea SEG (eds) The descent of mind. Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 218–260Google Scholar
  57. Suddendorf T, Whiten A (2001) Mental evolution and development: evidence for secondary representation in children, great apes, and other animals. Psychol Bull 127:629–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Voltolini A (2006) Fiction as a base of interpretation contexts. Synthese 153:23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vygotsky LS (1967) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Sov Psychol 5:6–18Google Scholar
  60. Walton KL (1973) Pictures and make-believe. Philos Rev 82:283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walton KL (1990) Mimesis as make-believe. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Wollheim R (1998) On pictorial representation. J Aesthet Art Critic 56:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Young AW (2000) Wondrous strange: the neuropsychology of abnormal beliefs. Mind Lang 15:47–73Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Rosselli 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facoltà di Lettere e FilosofiaUniversità del Piemonte OrientaleVercelliItaly
  2. 2.Facoltà di Lettere e FilosofiaUniversità di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations