ReviewFrontiers in psychology2015
Theory of mind in utterance interpretation: the case from clinical pragmatics.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuropragmatics: from classical pragmatics to neurocognitive models of pragmatics in dialogue.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- At the heart of human communication: new views on the complex relationship between pragmatics and Theory of Mind.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Ten years of using the APACS test: a multistudy cross-diagnostic analysis of pragmatic profiles and their relationship with Theory of Mind.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- More than a Bundle? Developing Adaptive Guidance for Task Selection in an Online, Semantic-Based Cognitive Stimulation Program.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Individual Differences in Indirect Speech Act Processing Found Outside the Language Network.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Exploring mentalization, trust, communication quality, and alienation in adolescents.PloS one · 2020Article
- Why Pragmatics and Theory of Mind Do Not (Completely) Overlap.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Exploring the Components of Advanced Theory of Mind in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2017Article
- Sincere, Deceitful, and Ironic Communicative Acts and the Role of the Theory of Mind in Childhood.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cognitive basis of utterance interpretation is an area that continues to provoke intense theoretical debate among pragmatists. That utterance interpretation involves some type of mind-reading or theory of mind (ToM) is indisputable. However, theorists are divided on the exact nature of this ToM-based mechanism. In this paper, it is argued that the only type of ToM-based mechanism that can adequately represent the cognitive basis of utterance interpretation is one which reflects the rational, intentional, holistic character of interpretation. Such a ToM-based mechanism is supported on conceptual and empirical grounds. Empirical support for this view derives from the study of children and adults with pragmatic disorders. Specifically, three types of clinical case are considered. In the first case, evidence is advanced which indicates that individuals with pragmatic disorders exhibit deficits in reasoning and the use of inferences. These deficits compromise the ability of children and adults with pragmatic disorders to comply with the rational dimension of utterance interpretation. In the second case, evidence is presented which suggests that subjects with pragmatic disorders struggle with the intentional dimension of utterance interpretation. This dimension extends beyond the recognition of communicative intentions to include the attribution of a range of cognitive and affective mental states that play a role in utterance interpretation. In the third case, evidence is presented that children and adults with pragmatic disorders struggle with the holistic character of utterance interpretation. This serves to distort the contexts in which utterances are processed for their implicated meanings. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the role of theorizing in relation to utterance interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.