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 |
Why language really is not a communication system: a cognitive view of language evolution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01434 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne C. Reboul |
| Abstract |
While most evolutionary scenarios for language see it as a communication system with consequences on the language-ready brain, there are major difficulties for such a view. First, language has a core combination of features-semanticity, discrete infinity, and decoupling-that makes it unique among communication systems and that raise deep problems for the view that it evolved for communication. Second, extant models of communication systems-the code model of communication (Millikan, 2005) and the ostensive model of communication (Scott-Phillips, 2015) cannot account for language evolution. I propose an alternative view, according to which language first evolved as a cognitive tool, following Fodor's (1975, 2008) Language of Thought Hypothesis, and was then exapted (externalized) for communication. On this view, a language-ready brain is a brain profoundly reorganized in terms of connectivity, allowing the human conceptual system to emerge, triggering the emergence of syntax. Language as used in communication inherited its core combination of features from the Language of Thought. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 12% |
| Mexico | 4 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| India | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 72% |
| Scientists | 9 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 19 | 22% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 26 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 10 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,238,184
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,588
of 34,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,175
of 286,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#47
of 556 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,783 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 286,855 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 556 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.