Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39995579›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025

Pragmatics as Social Inference About Intentional Action.

Manuel Bohn, Michael C Frank

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Manuel BohnInstitute of Psychology in Education, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6006-1348
Michael C FrankDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7551-4378

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pragmatic inferences are based on assumptions about how speakers communicate: speakers are taken to be cooperative and rational; they consider alternatives and make intentional choices to produce maximally informative utterances. In principle, this analysis applies to linguistic but also non-linguistic communicative actions, but this prediction is typically only tested in children and not in more systematic implicature contexts. We test key implications of this view across six online experiments with American English speaking adults (total

Indexed as

communicationgestureinferencepragmatics

Identifiers

PMID39995579
PMCPMC11850021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.