↓ Skip to main content

Bilingual and Monolingual Children Attend to Different Cues When Learning New Words

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bilingual and Monolingual Children Attend to Different Cues When Learning New Words
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chandra L. Brojde, Sabeen Ahmed, Eliana Colunga

Abstract

The way in which children learn language can vary depending on their language environment. Previous work suggests that bilingual children may be more sensitive to pragmatic cues from a speaker when learning new words than monolingual children are. On the other hand, monolingual children may rely more heavily on object properties than bilingual children do. In this study we manipulate these two sources of information within the same paradigm, using eye gaze as a pragmatic cue and similarity along different dimensions as an object cue. In the crucial condition, object and pragmatic cues were inconsistent with each other. Our results showed that in this ambiguous condition monolingual children attend more to object property cues whereas bilingual children attend more to pragmatic cues. Control conditions showed that monolingual children were sensitive to eye gaze and bilingual children were sensitive to similarity by shape; it was only when the cues were inconsistent that children's preference for one or the other cue was apparent. Our results suggest that children learn to weigh different cues depending on their relative informativeness in their environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 40%
Linguistics 11 11%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Engineering 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 July 2012.
All research outputs
#5,450,005
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,743
of 29,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,447
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#137
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 244,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.