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 |
Pragmatics as Metacognitive Control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02057 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mikhail Kissine |
| Abstract |
The term "pragmatics" is often used to refer without distinction, on one hand, to the contextual selection of interpretation norms and, on the other hand, to the context-sensitive processes guided by these norms. Pragmatics in the first acception depends on language-independent contextual factors that can, but need not, involve Theory of Mind; in the second acception, pragmatics is a language-specific metacognitive process, which may unfold at an unconscious level without involving any mental state (meta-)representation. Distinguishing between these two kinds of ways context drives the interpretation of communicative stimuli helps dissolve the dispute between proponents of an entirely Gricean pragmatics and those who claim that some pragmatic processes do not depend on mind-reading capacities. According to the model defended in this paper, the typology of pragmatic processes is not entirely determined by a hierarchy of meanings, but by contextually set norms of interpretation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iceland | 1 | 20% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 98 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 27% |
| Linguistics | 25 | 25% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 02 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,441,581
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,946
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,797
of 404,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#74
of 445 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 404,825 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 445 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.