Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
August 15, 2025

No one-to-one mapping between typologies of pragmatic relations and models of pragmatic processing: a case study with mentalizing.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

NKNapoleon KatsosMKMikhaïl Kissine

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Analysis uncovers a lack of one-to-one mapping between types of pragmatic relations and cognitive models, suggesting context shapes inference processes in communication.

Key Points

  • No distinct mapping exists between types of pragmatic relations and cognitive processing models, challenging existing theories.
  • Key evidence indicates that contextual factors rather than relation types influence mentalizing in pragmatic processing.
  • This work involves a theoretical critique alongside recent experimental findings on pragmatic inferences and their cognitive implications.
  • The findings highlight the need for revised frameworks in evaluating pragmatic theories, emphasizing the variability of inference based on context.

Cite This Study

Katsos et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68a365600a429f797332b586https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0501
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pragmatic communication and Theory of Mind.2025 · 3 citations
  2. 2Mapping the pragmatic field: in how many ways?2025
  3. 3At the heart of human communication: new views on the complex relationship between pragmatics and Theory of Mind.2025 · 10 citations
  4. 4Meaning as mentalization2024
  5. 5Three distinct components of pragmatic language use: Social conventions, intonation, and world knowledge–based causal reasoning2025