ArticlePloS one2019
This shoe, that tiger: Semantic properties reflecting manual affordances of the referent modulate demonstrative use.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The space of words: semantic integration of space-related words in noun sensorimotor processing.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Action verbs and demonstrative pronouns affect volumetric affordance activation.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Inferring Depression and Its Semantic Underpinnings from Simple Lexical Choices.Depression and anxiety · 2024Article
- A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
- Shrinking Your Deictic System: How Far Can You Go?Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Demonstrative Reference and Semantic Space: A Large-Scale Demonstrative Choice Task Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Demonstratives in Spatial Language and Social Interaction: An Interdisciplinary Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- This is for you: Social modulations of proximal vs. distal space in collaborative interaction.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Demonstrative reference is central to human communication. But what influences our choice of demonstrative forms such as "this" and "that" in discourse? Previous literature has mapped the use of such "proximal" and "distal" demonstratives onto spatial properties of referents, such as their distance from the speaker. We investigated whether object semantics, and specifically functional properties of referents, also influence speakers' choices of either demonstrative form. Over two experiments, we presented English, Danish and Italian speakers with words denoting animate and inanimate objects, differing in size and harmfulness, and asked them to match them with a proximal or a distal demonstrative. Objects that offer more affordances for manipulation (smaller and harmless) elicited significantly more proximal demonstratives. These effects were stronger for inanimate referents, in line with the predictions of sensory-functional views on object semantics. These results suggest that demonstrative use may be partly grounded on manual affordances, and hints at the possibility of using demonstratives as a proxy to investigate the organization of semantic knowledge.
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.