↓ Skip to main content

Keep meaning in conversational coordination

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Keep meaning in conversational coordination
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena C. Cuffari

Abstract

Coordination is a widely employed term across recent quantitative and qualitative approaches to intersubjectivity, particularly approaches that give embodiment and enaction central explanatory roles. With a focus on linguistic and bodily coordination in conversational contexts, I review the operational meaning of coordination in recent empirical research and related theorizing of embodied intersubjectivity. This discussion articulates what must be involved in treating linguistic meaning as dynamic processes of coordination. The coordination approach presents languaging as a set of dynamic self-organizing processes and actions on multiple timescales and across multiple modalities that come about and work in certain domains (those jointly constructed in social, interactive, high-order sense-making). These processes go beyond meaning at the level that is available to first-person experience. I take one crucial consequence of this to be the ubiquitously moral nature of languaging with others. Languaging coordinates experience, among other levels of behavior and event. Ethical effort is called for by the automatic autonomy-influencing forces of languaging as coordination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 38%
Linguistics 3 13%
Computer Science 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,141,764
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,257
of 32,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,334
of 368,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#74
of 361 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 368,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 361 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.