International audienceLanguage's intentional nature has been highlighted as a crucial feature distinguishing it from other communication systems. Specifically, language is often thought to depend on highly structured intentional action and mutual mindreading by a communicator and recipient. Whilst similar abilities in animals can shed light on the evolution of intentionality, they remain challenging to detect unambiguously. We revisit animal intentional communication and suggest that progress in identifying analogous capacities has been complicated by (i) the assumption that intentional (that is, voluntary) production of communicative acts requires mental-state attribution, and (ii) variation in approaches investigating communication across sensory modalities. To move forward, we argue that a framework fusing research across modalities and species is required. We structure intentional communication into a series of requirements, each of which can be operationalised, investigated empirically, and must be met for purposive, intentionally communicative acts to be demonstrated. Our unified approach helps elucidate the distribution of animal intentional communication and subsequently serves to clarify what is meant by attributions of intentional communication in animals and humans

PurposeThe aim of this study is to identify descriptions involved in defining the concept of freshness from a consumer perspective.Design/methodology/approachA total of 559 subjects recruited in supermarkets of different cities and villages in Switzerland were asked to write down their understanding of freshness in general, and for fruits and vegetables in particular. Direct elicitation by means of an open‐ended questionnaire was used.FindingsRespondents mentioned a large variety of descriptors in relationship with fresh fruits and vegetables. Results suggest that freshness describes a level of closeness to the original product, in terms of distance, time and processing. Respondents having more contact with the place of fruit and vegetable production mentioned non‐sensory attributes more frequently, whereas those having fewer contacts mentioned sensory attributes more frequently. It can be concluded that consumers have a collective concept of freshness but they use their different everyday experiences with fruits and vegetables to describe freshness.Research limitations/implicationsAnalysis of open‐ended questionnaires is time‐consuming and difficulties were encountered in the categorisation of phrases. Participants might have been influenced by the environment in supermarkets.Practical implicationsThe perception of freshness is influenced by the information consumers have on products. Therefore, the importance of providing sufficient information on the products is emphasized.Originality/valueThe study is the first to extensively investigate the consumer understanding of the term “fresh” in relationship with fruits and vegetables. The use of an open‐ended questionnaire is particularly interesting as it allows greater freedom of expression by the participants compared with other forms of enquiry.

No abstract