Abstract
Dixon and Bortolussi (2001) argued that researchers should not investigate text processing as being analogous to spoken conversation. They suggested that researchers studying text processing would be better served by treating texts as artifacts rather than as the products of authorial intentions. In our commentary, we provide 2 counterarguments to this analysis. First, we suggest that the claim "text is not communication," as Dixon and Bortolussi framed it, creates a false dichotomy between situations of "communication" and "not communication." Second, we argue that Dixon and Bortolussi needed to consider the cognitive psychological consequences of their claim.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
