| Title |
Decoding the biology of language and its implications in language acquisition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings: Plant Sciences, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12038-018-9832-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D R Rahul, R Joseph Ponniah |
| Abstract |
Associating human genetic makeup with the faculty of language has long been a goal for biolinguistics. This stimulated the idea that language is attributed to genes and language disabilities are caused by genetic mutations. However, application of genetic knowledge on language intervention is still a gap in the existing literature. In an effort to bridge this gap, this article presents an account of genetic and neural associations of language and synthesizes the genetic, neural, epigenetic and environmental facets involved in language. In addition to describing the association of genes with language, the neural and epigenetic aspects of language are also explored. Further, the environmental aspects of language such as language input, emotion and cognition are also traced back to gene expressions. Therefore, effective language intervention for language learning difficulties must offer genetics-informed solutions, both linguistic and medical. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 5 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 45% |
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 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings: Plant Sciences
#559
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,596
of 446,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings: Plant Sciences
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 975 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 446,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.