Hi Mike
and everyone else interested in the ontological development of communicative action.
I have sent an attachment discussing developmental constructs that are being put into relation in ways that posit "maternal attunment" as the mediational variable as infants move from dyadic to triadic communication.
Mike describing gaze monitoring as dyadic could be challenged by Gergeley's notion of the theory of pedagogy as MARKED gaze or MARKED attunement and therefore triadic. However with this qualification this article is speaking to experience that I believe is fundamental to understanding intersubjectivity. The question of PRIMARY or secondary intersubjectivity is discussed.
Also the methodology could be challenged but I want to draw attention to the theoretical discussion.
The reason I believe this is a central question for development is my intuition that as we move to "higher levels" of development and complexity I don't believe we TRANSCEND the earlier patterns of organization and REPLACE these earlier formations but rather transform our RELATIONSHIP to these earlier patterns. Therefore in schools, where I work, when children become "dysregulated or overwhelmed" I have a "sense" "attunement" (as mediation) is required to re=establish the teacher/learner/object communicative activity.
I could say more but have to go to work.
I hope others may have insights that this article puts in play.
Larry