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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Understanding violations of Gricean maxims in preschoolers and adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00901 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mako Okanda, Kosuke Asada, Yusuke Moriguchi, Shoji Itakura |
| Abstract |
This study used a revised Conversational Violations Test to examine Gricean maxim violations in 4- to 6-year-old Japanese children and adults. Participants' understanding of the following maxims was assessed: be informative (first maxim of quantity), avoid redundancy (second maxim of quantity), be truthful (maxim of quality), be relevant (maxim of relation), avoid ambiguity (second maxim of manner), and be polite (maxim of politeness). Sensitivity to violations of Gricean maxims increased with age: 4-year-olds' understanding of maxims was near chance, 5-year-olds understood some maxims (first maxim of quantity and maxims of quality, relation, and manner), and 6-year-olds and adults understood all maxims. Preschoolers acquired the maxim of relation first and had the greatest difficulty understanding the second maxim of quantity. Children and adults differed in their comprehension of the maxim of politeness. The development of the pragmatic understanding of Gricean maxims and implications for the construction of developmental tasks from early childhood to adulthood are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 26% |
| Linguistics | 16 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 28 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,229,658
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,503
of 34,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,222
of 278,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 561 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 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 34,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 278,318 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 561 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.