Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T06:53:46.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dancing on thin ice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Stan A. Kuczaj ,
Joana A. Ramos  and
Robin L. Paulos
Stan A. Kuczaj
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5025 s.kuczaj@usm.edujoana.ramos@usm.edurobin.paulos@usm.edu http://www.usm.edu/psy/kuczaj/
Joana A. Ramos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5025 s.kuczaj@usm.edujoana.ramos@usm.edurobin.paulos@usm.edu http://www.usm.edu/psy/kuczaj/
Robin L. Paulos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5025 s.kuczaj@usm.edujoana.ramos@usm.edurobin.paulos@usm.edu http://www.usm.edu/psy/kuczaj/
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The “new” paradigm proposed by Shanker & King (S&K) is neither new nor a significant advance in our understanding of communication. Although we agree that social interaction is important, ignoring the roles of mental processes and the significance of information exchange is theoretically dangerous. Moreover, the “communicative dance” is sequential. If one partner does not lead, how is the other to follow?

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 629 - 630
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press