Conversing as Metaphor of Human Thinking: Is Mind like a Conversation?

Regular Article

Abstract

How can researchers shape their ideas so that they understand the mind better? This theoretical paper discusses the merits of the conversation metaphor as a means of analyzing the human mind. We will develop arguments concerning conversation as i) a situated and distributed activity, ii) a “product” in perpetual construction, and iii) the amount of credence and belief we afford it. Finally, we will advocate for metaphorical tools that promote a more dynamic conceptualization of human thinking.

Keywords

Thinking development Conversation Mind Learning Pragmatics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Elizabeth Wiles Portier for comments on the English style.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Author A declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London & New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1998). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press (original work published 1995).Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. London: Paladin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bernicot, J. (1992). Les actes de langage chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  6. Bernicot, J., & Bert-Erboul, A. (2009). L’acquisition du langage par l’enfant. Paris: In Press Editions.Google Scholar
  7. Bernicot, J., & Trognon, A. (2002). Le tournant pragmatique en psychologie. In J. Bernicot, A. Trognon, M. Guidetti, & M. Musiol (Eds.), Pragmatique et psychologie (pp. 13–32). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  8. Bernicot, J., Trognon, A., Guidetti, M., & Musiol, M. (Eds.). (2002). Pragmatique et psychologie. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  9. Berthoud, A. C., & Mondada, L. (1991). Modes d’introduction et de négociation du topic dans l’interaction sociale. In D. Véronique & R. Vion (Eds.), Modèles de l’interaction verbale (pp. 277–301). Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.Google Scholar
  10. Brassac, C. (Ed.). (1997). L’assertion en débat. La description du monde dans la conversation. Psychologie de l’Interactions, 5–6.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Bruner, J. S. (1984). Contextes et formats. In M. Deleau (Ed.), Langage et communication à l’âge préscolaire (pp. 13–26). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  13. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Caron, J. (1983). Les régulations du discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  17. Caron, J. (1997). Psychologie cognitive et interactions conversationnelles. In J. Bernicot, J. Caron-Pargue, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Conversation, interaction et fonctionnement cognitif (pp. 221–237). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deleau, M. (1999). Communiquer, imaginer, penser la pensée. In M. Deleau (Ed.), Psychologie du développement (pp. 190–241). Rosny: Bréal.Google Scholar
  21. Deleau, M., Guehenneuc, K., Le Sourn, S., & Ricard, M. (1999). Clairvoyance conversationnelle et théorie de l’esprit. Enfance, 52(3), 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donald, M. W. (2001). A mind so rare. The evolution of human consciousness. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  24. Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young children’s understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and their antecedents. Child Development, 62, 1352–1366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engel, P. (1994). Introduction à la philosophie de l’esprit. Paris: La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engel, P. (2004). Belief. In O. Houdé, D. Kayser, O. Koening, J. Proust, & F. Rastier (Eds.), Dictionary of cognitive science (pp. 125–127). New York and Hove: Psychology Press (original work published 1998).Google Scholar
  27. Garitte, C. (1998). Le développement de la conversation chez l’enfant. Brussels: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
  28. Ghiglione, R., & Trognon, A. (1993). Où va la pragmatique? De la pragmatique à la psychologie sociale. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  29. Gilly, M., Roux, J.-P., & Trognon, A. (1999). Interactions sociales et changements cognitifs: Fondements pour une analyse séquentielle. In M. Gilly, J.-P. Roux, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Apprendre dans l'interaction. Analyse des médiations sémiotiques (pp. 9–39). Aix-en-Provence, Nancy: Presses de l’Université de Provence & Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  30. Greenfield, P. (2011). Variabilité du développement humain: relier le changement social et le changement individuel. In B. Troadec & T. Bellaj (Eds.), Psychologies et cultures (pp. 63–119). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  31. Hargreaves, D., Molloy, C., & Pratt, A. (1982). Social factors in conservation. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 231–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, P. L. (1996). Desires, beliefs and language. In P. Carruthers & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 200–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harris, P. L. (1999). Acquiring the art of conversation: Children’s developing conception of their conversation partner. In M. Bennet (Ed.), Developmental psychology: Achievements and prospects. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of imagination. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Heritage, J. C. (1990). Interactional accountability: A conversation analytic perspective. In B. Conein, M. De Fornel, & L. Quéré (Eds.), Les formes de la conversation Volume 1. Paris: CNET.Google Scholar
  36. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), 14–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Inhelder, B., Cellérier, G., Ackermann, E., Blanchet, A., Boder, A., De Caprona, D., Ducret, J.-J., & Saada-Robert, M. (1992) (Eds.). Le cheminement des découvertes de l'enfant. Recherche sur les microgenèses cognitives. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
  40. Jacques, F. (1982). Différence et subjectivité. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  41. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Light, P. (1986). Context, conservation and conversation. In M. Richards & P. Light (Eds.), Children of social worlds: Development in social context (pp. 170–190). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Light, P., & Butterworth, G. (1992) (Eds.). Context and cognition. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  47. Light, P., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1989). Social context effects in learning and testing. In A. Gellatly, D. Rogers, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Cognition and social worlds (pp. 99–112). Oxford: Science Publications, University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Light, P., Gorsuch, C., & Newman, J. (1987). “Why do you ask?” Context and communication in the conservation task. European Journal of Psychology of Education, II(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maingueneau, D. (1996). Les termes clés de l’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil (Mémo coll.).Google Scholar
  50. Manes Gallo, M. C., & Vernant, D. (1997). Pour une réévaluation pragmatique de l’assertion. Psychologie de l’Interaction, II(1 & 2), 7–41.Google Scholar
  51. McGarrigle, J., & Donaldson, M. (1975). Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, S. (1982). On the generalisability of conservation. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morelli, G. A., Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Cultural variation in young children’s access to work or involvement in specialised child-focused activities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(3), 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morris, C. (1955). Signs language and behavior. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  56. Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Perret-Clermont, A. N., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Trognon, A. (1992). L'extorsion des réponses en situation asymétrique. Verbum, 1-2, 3–32.Google Scholar
  58. Piaget, J. (1926). La représentation du monde chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  59. Piaget, J. (1992). Biologie et connaissance. Essai sur les relations entre les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs. Paris, Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé (original work published 1967).Google Scholar
  60. Politzer, G. (1991) (Ed.). Pragmatique et psychologie du raisonnement. Intellectica, 1(11).Google Scholar
  61. Politzer, G. (1993). La psychologie du raisonnement: Lois de la pragmatique et logique formelle (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Paris VIII, Paris.Google Scholar
  62. Politzer, G. (Ed.). (2002). Le raisonnement humain. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  63. Politzer, G. (2004). Reasoning, judgment and pragmatics. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 94–115). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Politzer, G., & Macchi, L. (2000). Reasoning and pragmatics. Mind & Society, 1, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prigogine, I. (1996). La fin des certitudes. Paris: O. Jacob.Google Scholar
  66. Quéré, L. (2006). Ethnométhodologie. Encyclopedia Universalis. Google Scholar
  67. Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (2008). Coming to agreement. Object use by infants and adults. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind. Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2002). Investigating the coordinated functioning of multifaceted cultural practices in human development. Human Development, 45, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rose, S., & Blank, M. (1974). The potency of context in children’s cognition. Child Development, 45, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rossi, S., Van der Hernst, J.-B. (Eds.) (2007). Psychologies du raisonnement. Brussels: Editions De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
  72. Saada-Robert, M. (1992). Didier et les poupées russes: Analyse de cas et conceptualization. In I. B. Inhelder, G. Cellérier, E. Ackermann, A. Blanchet, A. Boder, D. De Caprona, et al. (Eds.), Le cheminement des découvertes de l’enfant. Recherche sur les microgenèses cognitives (pp. 139–176). Delachaux & Niestlé: Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
  73. Samuel, J., & Bryant, P. (1984). Asking only one question in the conservation experiment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 315–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saxe, G. B. (1988). The mathematics of child street vendors. Child Development, 59, 1415–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Saxe, G. B. (2002). Children’s developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Everyday cognition. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2: Basic processes and human development, pp. 177–216). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  78. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Siegal, M. (1991). A clash of conversational words: Interpreting cognitive development through communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 23–41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2007). Conversational understanding in young children. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Handbook of language development (pp. 304–323). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Sinha, C., & Rodríguez, C. (2008). Language and the signifying object: From convention to imagination. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind. Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 357–378). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sorsana, C. (2003). Comment l’interaction coopérative rend-elle plus “savant”? Quelques réflexions à propos des conditions nécessaires au fonctionnement dialogique du conflit sociocognitif. L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 32(3), 437–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sorsana, C. (2005). Croyances et habiletés conversationnelles entre enfants: Réflexions à propos de la gestion dialogique des désaccords au sein des raisonnements. Psychologie de l’Interaction, 19-20, 39–97.Google Scholar
  85. Sorsana, C. (2011). L’activité conversationnelle est-elle une fenêtre ouverte sur la pensée de soi et d’autrui? Enfance, 63(1), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sorsana, C., & Trognon, A. (2011). Contextual determination of human thinking: About some conceptual and methodological obstacles in psychology studies. Human Development, 54(4), 204–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Trognon, A. (1992). Psicologia cognitiva e analisi delle conversazioni. In C. Galimberti (Ed.), La conversazione: Prospettive sull’interazione psico-sociale (pp. 115–157). Milan: Guerini Studio.Google Scholar
  90. Trognon, A. (1993). How does the process of interaction work when two interlocutors try to resolve a logical problem? Cognition and Instruction, 11(3), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Trognon, A. (1997). Conversation et raisonnement. In J. Bernicot, J. Caron-Pargue, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Conversation, interaction et fonctionnement cognitif (pp. 253–282). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  92. Trognon, A. (1999). Eléments d’analyse interlocutoire. In M. Gilly, J. P. Roux, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Apprendre dans l'interaction. Analyse des médiations sémiotiques (pp. 69–94). Aix-en-Provence, Nancy: Presses de l’Université de Provence & Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  93. Trognon, A. (2000). Comment formaliser le domaine cognitif d’une conversation? Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Budapest.Google Scholar
  94. Trognon, A. (2002). Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp. 121–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins and Sons.Google Scholar
  95. Trognon, A. (2003). La productivité du malentendu. In M. Laforest (Ed.), Le malentendu: Dire, mésentendre, mésinterpréter (pp. 53–64). Quebec City: Nota Bene.Google Scholar
  96. Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2010). Interlocutory logic: A unified framework for studying conversational interaction. In J. Streek (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp. 9–40). Brussels: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2013). A new link in the unification of the sciences of cognition (commentary on Mercier: Using evolutionary thinking to cut across disciplines: The example of the argumentative theory of reasoning). In P. H. Crowley & T. R. Zentall (Eds.), Comparative decision making (pp. 312–315). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Trognon, A., & Brassac, C. (1992). L’enchaînement conversationnel. Cahiers de linguistique française, 13, 67–108.Google Scholar
  99. Trognon, A., & Bromberg, M. (2007). L’interaction sociale. In A. Trognon & M. Bromberg (Eds.), Psychologie sociale et ressources humaines (pp. 63–94). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  100. Trognon, A., & Rétornaz, A. (1989). Clinique du rationnel: Psychologie cognitive et analyse des conversations. Connexions, 53, 69–91.Google Scholar
  101. Trognon, A., & Sorsana, C. (2005). Les compétences interactionnelles: Formes d’exercice, bases, effets et développement. Rééducation Orthophonique, 221, 29–56.Google Scholar
  102. Trognon, A., & Sorsana, C. (2011). Grasping both the normative facts and the social positions emerging from conversation. Human Development, Letters to the Editor, November, 1, 11–17.Google Scholar
  103. Trognon, A., Batt, M., Schwarz, B. B., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Marro, P. (2003). L’apprentissage dans l’interaction. Essai de logique interlocutoire. In A. Herzig, B. Chaïb-Draa, & P. Math (Eds.), Modèles formels de l’interaction. Actes des secondes journées francophones de Lille (pp. 229–240). Cepaduès éditions: Toulouse.Google Scholar
  104. Trognon, A., Batt, M., Schwarz, B. B., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Marro, P. (2006). Logique interlocutoire de la résolution en dyade d’un problème arithmétique. Psychologie Française, 51(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Trognon, A., Sorsana, C., Batt, M., & Longin, D. (2008). Peer interaction and problem solving: One example of a logical-discursive analysis of a process of joint decision making. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(5), 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Trognon, A., Batt, M., Bromberg, M., Sorsana, C., & Frigout, S. (2011a). Les formes logiques de la parole en interaction (quelques bases de la logique interlocutoire). In P. Castel, E. Sales-Wuillemin, & M. F. Lacassagne (Eds.), Psychologie sociale, communication et langage. De la conception aux applications (pp. 327–348). Paris, Brussels: Editions De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
  107. Trognon, A., Batt, M., & Marchetti, E. (2011b). Le dialogisme de la rationalité dans l’ordre de l’interaction. Bulletin de Psychologie, 64(5), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Trognon, A., Batt, M., & Sorsana, C, & Saint Dizier de Almeida, V. (2011c). Argumentation and dialogue. In A. Trognon, M. Batt, J. Caelen, & D. Vernant (Eds.), Logical properties of dialogue (pp. 147–186). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  109. Valsiner, J. (2009). Contextualizing learning: How activity theories can change our conventional research practices in the study of development. Human Development, 52(1), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Van der Henst, J.-B. (2002a). La perspective pragmatique dans l’étude du raisonnement et de la rationalité. L’Année Psychologique, 102, 65–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Van der Henst, J.-B. (2002b). Contexte et raisonnement. In G. Politzer (Ed.), Le raisonnement humain (pp. 272–305). Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  112. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  114. Veneziano, E. (1997). Echanges conversationnels et premières acquisitions langagières. In J. Bernico, J. Caron-Pargue, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Conversation, interaction et fonctionnement cognitif (pp. 91–123). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  115. Veneziano, E. (1998). Buts illocutoires de l’assertion et enchâssement des forces: le cas de l’explication. Psychologie de l’Interaction, 5-6, 137–148.Google Scholar
  116. Veneziano, E. (1999a). L’acquisition de connaissances pragmatiques: Apprendre à expliquer. Parole, 9-10, 1–27.Google Scholar
  117. Veneziano, E. (1999b). La conversation: Instrument, objet et source de connaissancel. Psychologie de ’Interactions, 7–8.Google Scholar
  118. Veneziano, E. (1999c). La conversation: Instrument, objet et source de connaissance. Psychologie de l’Interaction, 7-8, 1–24.Google Scholar
  119. Vernant, D. (2011). The dialogical logic of veridicity. In A. Trognon, M. Batt, J. Caelen, & D. Vernant (Eds.), Logical properties of dialogue (pp. 123–145). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
  120. Vincent, J.-D., & Lledo, P.-M. (2012). Le cerveau sur mesure. Paris: O. Jacob.Google Scholar
  121. Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  122. Wertsch, J. V. (2008). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 51, 66–79 (original work published 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zittoun, T., Gillespie, A., Cornish, F., & Psaltis, C. (2007). The metaphor of the triangle in theories of human development. Human Development, 50, 208–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Toulouse Jean JaurèsNancyFrance
  2. 2.University of LorraineNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations