In this paper we discuss the historical origins and conceptual debts of the Theory of Mind framework (ToM). We investigate its affinities to Chomsky’s psychology, and Paul Grice’s work on meaning. We find that the ToM framework is resourced by the ideas found in Chomsky and Grice, adding very little new to them, and suffering from the same problems of dualism. ToM inherits the traditional dualistic problem of other minds, tries to solve it, and ends up profoundly intellectualizing social interactions.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: Cognitive or affective?Journal of Autism and Affective Disorders, 18, 379–402 .
4.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1992). The theory of mind hypothesis of autism: History and prospects of the idea . The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 5, 9–12 .
5.
Baron-Cohen, S. , Leslie, A. , & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’?Cognition, 21, 37–46 .
Bilmes, J. (1986). Discourse and behavior. New York: Plenum .
8.
Bilmes, J. (1992). Referring to internal occurrences . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 253–262 .
9.
Broadbent, D.E. (1957). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon .
10.
Broadbent, D.E. (1973). In defence of empirical psychology. London: Methuen .
11.
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. New York: Free Press .
12.
Brown, R. (1970). Psycholinguistics. New York: Free Press .
13.
Bruner, J. (1978). Learning how to do things with words. In J. Bruner & A. Garton (Eds.), Human growth and development:The Wolfson College Lectures 1976 (pp. 62–84). Oxford: Clarendon .
14.
Cherry, C. (1957). On human communication: A review, a survey, and a criticism. New York: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology .
15.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner , Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58 .
16.
Chomsky, N. (1964). Formal discussion. In U. Bellugi & R. Brown (Eds.), The acquisition of language (Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, pp. 35–42). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press .
17.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics:A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Lanham, MD: University Press of America .
18.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Quine’s empirical assumptions. In D. Davidson & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Words and objections: Essays on the work of W.V. Quine (pp. 303–311). Dordrecht: Reidel .
19.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Maurice Temple Smith .
20.
Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell .
21.
Chomsky, N. (1980b). Rules and representations . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1–61 .
22.
Chomsky, N. (1984). Modular approaches to the study of the mind. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press ,.
23.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Interview with Noam Chomsky. In B.J. Baars (Ed.), The cognitive revolution in psychology (pp. 341–351). New York: Guilford .
24.
Costall, A. , & Leudar, I. (2004). Where is the ‘theory’ in Theory of Mind?Theory & Psychology, 14, 623–646 .
25.
Coulter, J. (1989). Mind in action. Cambridge: Polity .
26.
Coulter, J. (1992). Bilmes on ‘internal states’: A critical commentary . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 239–252 .
27.
Cromer, R.F. (1980). Empirical evidence in support of non-empiricist theories of mind . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 16–18 .
28.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage .
29.
Descartes, R. (1954). Correspondence with Princess Elizabeth (1643). In E. Anscombe & P.T. Geach (Eds.), Descartes: Philosophical writings (pp. 274–282). London: Nelson .
30.
Drew, P. (1995). Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning. In E. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 11–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
31.
Fiske, S. , & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill ,
32.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. London: Macmillan .
33.
Greene, J. (1972). Psycholinguistics. London: Penguin .
34.
Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning . Philosophical Review, 64, 377–388 .
35.
Grice, H.P. (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning . Foundations of Language, 4, 225–242 .
36.
Grice, H.P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intentions . Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177 .
37.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press .
38.
Grice, H.P. (1982). Meaning revisited. In N.V. Smith (Ed.), Mutual knowledge (pp. 233–243). New York: Academic Press .
39.
Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
40.
Hacker, P.M.S. (1988). Language, rules and pseudo-rules . Language and Communication, 8, 159–172 .
41.
Johnson-Laird, P. , & Wason, P.C. (Eds.). (1977). Thinking: Readings in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
42.
Leahey, T.H. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American psychology . American Psychologist, 47, 308–318
43.
Leudar, I. , & Antaki, C. (1996). Discourse participation, reported speech and research practices in social psychology . Theory & Psychology, 6, 5–29 .
44.
Leudar, I. , & Browning, P.K. (1988). Meaning, maxims of communication and language games . Language and Communication, 8, 1–16 .
45.
Leudar, I. , & Thomas, P. (2000). Voices of reason, voices of insanity. London: Routledge .
46.
Mandelbaum, J. , & Pomerantz, A. (1991). What drives social action? In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple goals in discourse (pp. 151–166). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters .
47.
McShane, J. (1980). Learning to talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ,
48.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1973). Consciousness and the acquisition of language. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press .
49.
Nehamas, A. (1998). The art of living: Socratic reflections from Plato to Foucault. Berkeley: University of California Press .
50.
Ochs, E. , & Schieflin, B.B. (1979). Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press .
51.
Peters, S. (1972). The projection problem: How is a grammar to be selected? In S. Peters (Ed.), Goals of linguistic theory (pp. 171–188). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
52.
Pomerantz, A. (1990). Mental concepts in the analysis of social action . Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 299–310 .
53.
Premack, D. , & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have ‘a theory of mind’?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526 .
54.
Pullum, G.K. , & Scholz, B.C. (1992). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments . Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50 .
55.
Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell .
56.
Quine, W.V.O. (1969). Replies to Chomsky. In D. Davidson & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Words and objections: Essays on the work of W.V.O. Quine (pp. 303–311). Dordrecht: Reidel .
57.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
58.
Ryle, G. (1973). The concept of mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin . (Original work published 1949.)
59.
Ryle, G. (1999). Reason . The Linacre Journal, 3, 71–84 .
60.
Sampson, G. (2002). Exploring the richness of the stimulus . Linguistic Review, 19, 73–104 .
61.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
62.
Searle, J.R. (1972, 29 June). A special supplement: Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics . New York Review of Books, 18(12).
63.
Searle, J.R. (1980). Rules and causation . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 37–38 .
64.
Searle, J.R. , & Kiefer, F. (Eds.). (1980). Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel .
65.
Shanker, S. (2002). The generativist/interactionist debate over specific language impairment: Psycholinguistics at a crossroads . American Journal of Psychology, 115, 415–450 .
66.
Sharrock, W. , & Coulter, A. (2004). ToM: A critical commentary . Theory & Psychology, 14, 579–600 .
Smith, N.V. (1999). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
69.
Smith, N.V. , & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics:The result of Chomsky’s revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin .
70.
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in an evolutionary perspective. In D. Sperber (Ed.)Metarepresentations:An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 117–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
71.
Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell .
72.
Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading . Mind and Language, 17, 3–23 .
73.
Stich, S. (1980). What every speaker cognizes . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 39–40 .
74.
Still, A. , & Costall, A. (Eds.). (1991). Against cognitivism. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
75.
Taylor, T.J. (1992). Mutual misunderstanding. London: Routledge .
76.
ter Hark, M. (2001). The inner and the outer. In H.-J. Glock (Ed.), Wittgenstein: A critical reader (pp. 199–223). Oxford: Blackwell .
77.
Thomas, M. (2002). Development of the concept of ‘poverty of stimulus’ . Linguistic Review, 19, 51–72 .
78.
Tibbetts, P. (1973). Historical note on Descartes’ psychophysical dualism . Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 162–165 .
79.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
80.
Vroon, P.A. (1987). Man–machine analogs and theoretical mainstreams in psychology. In W.J. Baker , M.E. Hyland , H. van Rappard , & A.W. Staats (Eds.), Current issues in theoretical psychology (pp. 393–414). North-Holland: Elsevier .
81.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley .
82.
Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations:An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 411–448). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
83.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell .
