↓ Skip to main content

From “cracking the orthographic code” to “playing with language”: toward a usage-based foundation of the reading process

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From “cracking the orthographic code” to “playing with language”: toward a usage-based foundation of the reading process
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00891
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Wallot

Abstract

The empirical study of reading dates back more than 125 years. But despite this long tradition, the scientific understanding of reading has made rather heterogeneous progress: many factors that influence the process of text reading have been uncovered, but theoretical explanations remain fragmented; no general theory pulls together the diverse findings. A handful of scholars have noted that properties thought to be at the core of the reading process do not actually generalize across different languages or from situations single-word reading to connected text reading. Such observations cast doubt on many of the traditional conceptions about reading. In this article, I suggest that the observed heterogeneity in the research is due to misguided conceptions about the reading process. Particularly problematic are the unrefined notions about meaning which undergird many reading theories: most psychological theories of reading implicitly assume a kind of elemental token semantics, where words serve as stable units of meaning in a text. This conception of meaning creates major conceptual problems. As an alternative, I argue that reading shoud be rather understood as a form of language use, which circumvents many of the conceptual problems and connects reading to a wider range of linguistic communication. Finally, drawing from Wittgenstein, the concept of "language games" is outlined as an approach to language use that can be operationalized scientifically to provide a new foundation for reading research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Lecturer 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Neuroscience 4 12%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,200,861
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,395
of 29,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,736
of 235,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#192
of 383 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 383 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.