2012/03/01 by Maricela Correa‐Chávez, Amy L D Roberts · 1 citation
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Aesthetics #Cultural Differences and Values #Cultural analysis #Epistemology #Indigenous Cultures and Socio-Education #Intersubjectivity #Linguistics #Philosophy #Psychology #Reading (process) #Social Representations and Identity #Social science #Sociology
paper · doi:10.1177/1354067x11427471
openalex publication_date 2012/03/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/23
In this commentary we argue that in order to understand how joint understanding arises out of activity, a cultural examination of communication and interaction must be included in the analysis. In their article “The tension between dialogicality and interobjectivity in cooperative activities,” Talamo and Pozzi (2011) argue that intersubjectivity should be thought of as a process that occurs in group interaction and collaboration. We agree with the authors that intersubjectivity is not something that is located inside people’s heads and that intersubjectivity is not “mind reading.” However, we argue that their plan of analysis lacks an examination of the cultural milieu in which both the personal and the social happen. By not bringing a cultural lens to bear in their analysis they have privileged verbal interactions and painted an incomplete picture of the phenomenon. We provide evidence from cultural comparative work on the different ways that joint understanding and joint activity can be viewed culturally to highlight how cultural understandings of communication are key in interaction.