Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36571132›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023

Linguistic concepts are self-generating choice architectures.

N J Enfield

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Editorial concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

N J EnfieldDiscipline of Linguistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3891-6973
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the idea of a 'concept' has been defined in diverse ways, researchers in the cognitive science of language have largely agreed that linguistic concepts are objects, whether mental or physical, that bits of language stand for. This O-axis view (where O = object), focusing on sign-object relations, sees linguistic concepts as ideas that stand in a static relation to signs, with the function of mediating relations between agents and their environments. But this is only half the story. Because every linguistic concept is moored to a bit of language, and bits of language are mostly learned and encountered in sequences of social interaction, then we must look not only at what signs stand for (their

Indexed as

LanguageLearningCognitive ScienceLinguisticschoice architectureconceptsenchronyinterpretantsmeaningsemiotics

Identifiers

PMID36571132
PMCPMC9791480
OpenAlexW4312143890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.