↓ Skip to main content

How language impacts memory of motion events in English and French

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
How language impacts memory of motion events in English and French
Published in
Cognitive Processing, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10339-015-0696-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Engemann, Henriëtte Hendriks, Maya Hickmann, Efstathia Soroli, Coralie Vincent

Abstract

This paper examines whether cross-linguistic differences in motion encoding affect event processing, specifically memory performance. We compared speakers of two languages which differ strikingly in how they habitually encode MANNER and PATH of motion (Talmy in Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring, 2nd edn, vol 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000). We tested French and English adult native speakers across three tasks that recruited and/or suppressed verbal processing to different extents: verbal event descriptions elicited on the basis of dynamic motion stimuli, a verbal memory task testing the impact of prior verbalisation on target recognition, and a non-verbal memory task, using a dual-task paradigm to suppress internal verbalisation. Results showed significant group differences in the verbal description task, which mirrored expected typological tendencies. English speakers more frequently expressed both MANNER and PATH information than French speakers, who produced more descriptions encoding either PATH or MANNER alone. However, these differences in linguistic encoding did not significantly affect speakers' memory performance in the memory recognition tasks, neither in the verbal nor in the non-verbal condition. The findings contribute to current debates regarding the conditions under which language effects occur and the relative weight of language-specific and universal constraints on spatial cognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 10 48%
Psychology 4 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,837,567
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#178
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,456
of 264,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.