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.