Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Bibliometric Analysis of Experimental Philosophy of Language

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Experimental Philosophy of Language: Perspectives, Methods, and Prospects

Part of the book series: Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ((LARI,volume 33))

  • 144 Accesses

Abstract

Since the implementation of experimental methods in philosophy, several philosophical disciplines are producing a fruitful body of research that has recently gained more recognition. Experimental Philosophy of Language (EPL) is one of the research topics that has drawn a great deal of attention lately. This chapter performs a bibliometric analysis of the EPL field in order to show the research trends, collaboration networks and topics structure that can be found in the literature. Techniques such as citation analysis, co-word occurrence analysis and clustering procedures are applied to identify significant research themes and publications from academic books and peer-reviewed research articles. This study uses quantitative analysis to explore the diverse practices of scholars working in the disciplinary community of EPL. The goal is to discover community-pattern trends within the field and investigate how they changed during the last years, as well as to provide information about the most-cited journals and academic editorial publication record. This analysis allows us to observe the research topics structure within the field, the most prolific authors and works and the collaboration degree among countries. This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive overview of EPL for those interested in one of the most prolific, empirically-driven trend in contemporary philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a detailed criticism on this idea, see Cappelen (2012).

  2. 2.

    Regular expressions are formal expressions extensively used to process strings, i.e., sequences of characters (Mitkov, 2003).

  3. 3.

    https://github.com/massimoaria/bibliometrix.

  4. 4.

    Some of the plots presented in this work were made with the bbplot R package (https://github.com/bbc/bbplot).

  5. 5.

    Notice that with bigrams, the absolute frequency of expressions is lower than with unigrams.

References

  • Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2007). Multiple correspondence analysis. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Correspondence analysis. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 267–278). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J., Mallon, R., & Weinberg, J. M. (2010). Accentuate the negative. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfano, M., Machery, E., Plakias, A., & Loeb, D. (2022). Experimental moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/experimental-moral/

  • Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 959–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, R. (2013). Don’t ask, look! Linguistic corpora as a tool for conceptual analysis. In M. Hoeltje, T. Spitzley, & W. Spohn (Eds.), Was dürfen wir glauben? Was sollen wir tun? Sektionsbeiträge des achten inter- nationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie (pp. 7–15). DuEPublico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, R. (2016). Corpus analysis in philosophy. In M. Hinton (Ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and the philosophy of language (pp. 91–109). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordonaba-Plou, D. (2021). An analysis of the centrality of intuition talk in the discussion on taste disagreements. Filozofia Nauki, 29, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, A. M., Frey, D., Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2017). Examining network effects in an argumentative agent-based model of scientific inquiry. In A. Baltag, J. Seligman, & T. Yamada (Eds.), Logic, rationality, and interaction (pp. 391–406). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, A. M., Frey, D., Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2018). Epistemic effects of scientific interaction: Approaching the question with an argumentative agent-based model. Historical Social Research, 43, 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h-index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h-index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braam, R. R., Moed, H. F., & van Raan, T. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis: II: Dynamical aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 252–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caton, J. N. (2020). Using linguistic corpora as a philosophical tool. Metaphilosophy, 51, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Check, J., & Schutt, R. K. (2012). Survey research. In J. Check & R. K. Schutt (Eds.), Research methods in education. Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cobo, M. J., López Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., & Sarto, F. (2016). Foundations and trends in performance management. A twenty-five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics, 108, 595–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, M. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2000). Multidimensional scaling. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 323–353). Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, M. (2015). Testing theories of reference. In J. Haukioja (Ed.), Advances in experimental philosophy of language (pp. 31–65). Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drott, C. M. (1981). Bradford’s law: Theory, empiricism and the gaps between. Library Trends Summer, 30(Special Issue on Bibliometrics), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elango, B., & Rajendran, P. (2012). Authorship trends and collaboration pattern in the marine sciences literature: A scientometric study. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 2, 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, S. C., Knobe, J., Wheeler, G., & Woodcock, B. A. (2021). Changing use of formal methods in philosophy: Late 2000s vs. late 2010s. Synthese, 199, 14555–14576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. (2015). The power of Lotka’s law through the eyes of R. Romanian Statistical Review, 2, 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genone, J. (2012). Theories of reference and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 7, 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P. (2009). Threshold phenomena in epistemic networks. In AAAI fall symposium: Complex adaptive systems and the threshold effect (pp. 53–60). AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Bramson, A., Berger, W. J., Reade, C., Flocken, C., & Sales, A. (2013). Scientific networks on data landscapes: Question difficulty, epistemic success, and convergence. Episteme, 10, 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, N. (2015). Experimental philosophy of language. Oxford Handbooks Online.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haukioja, J. (2015). Introduction. In J. Haukioja (Ed.), Advances in experimental philosophy of language (pp. 1–7). Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1999). The Emperor’s new intuitions. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, M. (2021). Corpus linguistics methods in the study of (meta)argumentation. Argumentation, 35, 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska, N., & Chupetlovska-Anastasova, A. (2009). A review of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and its utility in various psychological domains. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 5, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jylkkä, J., Railo, H., & Haukioja, J. (2009). Psychological essentialism and semantic externalism: Evidence for externalism in lay speakers’ language use. Philosophical Psychology, 22, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalantari, A., Kamsin, A., Kamaruddin, H. S., Ebrahim, N. A., Gani, A., Ebrahimi, A., & Shamshirband, S. (2017). A bibliometric approach to tracking big data research trends. Journal of Big Data, 4, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobe, J, & Nichols, S. (2017). Experimental philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/experimental-philosophy/

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mitkov, R. (2003). The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., Pinillos, Á., & Mallon, R. (2015). Ambiguous reference. Mind, 125, 145–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2018). Scientific polarization. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8, 855–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Railsback, S. F., & Grimm, V. (2019). Agent-based and individual-based Modeling. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repanovici, A. (2011). Measuring the visibility of the university’s scientific production through scientometric methods: An exploratory study at the Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šešelja, D. (2021). Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements. Synthese, 198, 6143–6158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šešelja, D., Borg, A. M., & Straßer, C. (2020). Formal models of scientific inquiry in a social context: An introduction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 51, 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, B., & Suben, A. (2013). Experimenter philosophy: The problem of experimenter bias in experimental philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J. (2016). Going positive by going negative: On keeping x-phi relevant and dangerous. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A companion to experimental philosophy (pp. 71–87). Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (2016). Philosophical criticisms of experimental philosophy. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), A companion to experimental philosophy (pp. 22–37). Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, K. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74, 574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, K. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72, 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, K. (2013). Network epistemology: Communication in epistemic communities. Philosophy Compass, 8, 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this chapter was supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (grant number FFI2017-87395-P).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Osorio-Mancilla

Authors
  1. Javier Osorio-Mancilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Lógica y Filosofía Teórica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    David Bordonaba-Plou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Osorio-Mancilla, J. (2023). A Bibliometric Analysis of Experimental Philosophy of Language. In: Bordonaba-Plou, D. (eds) Experimental Philosophy of Language: Perspectives, Methods, and Prospects. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28908-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation