ABSTRACT
Several generations of social psychologists have been nurtured on the idea that the reading of a sign, or the interpretation of a discursive act, can be adequately described as a “response.” Deriving the original version of this view from radical behaviorists, even G.H. Mead, in spite of his rejection of radical behaviorism in general, used it in his essays in social psychology. Still, it must not be forgotten that it was Mead and John Dewey who mounted the first attack on radical behaviorism long before Noam Chomsky’s celebrated review of B.F. Skinner’s work on verbal behavior. Nevertheless, it cannot be gainsaid that a “response” is rather a limited description of the richly detailed and complex process by which a sign is read and a discourse interpreted.
