↓ Skip to main content

Comprehending non-native speakers: theory and evidence for adjustment in manner of processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Comprehending non-native speakers: theory and evidence for adjustment in manner of processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01546
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiri Lev-Ari

Abstract

Non-native speakers have lower linguistic competence than native speakers, which renders their language less reliable in conveying their intentions. We suggest that expectations of lower competence lead listeners to adapt their manner of processing when they listen to non-native speakers. We propose that listeners use cognitive resources to adjust by increasing their reliance on top-down processes and extracting less information from the language of the non-native speaker. An eye-tracking study supports our proposal by showing that when following instructions by a non-native speaker, listeners make more contextually-induced interpretations. Those with relatively high working memory also increase their reliance on context to anticipate the speaker's upcoming reference, and are less likely to notice lexical errors in the non-native speech, indicating that they take less information from the speaker's language. These results contribute to our understanding of the flexibility in language processing and have implications for interactions between native and non-native speakers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 25%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Lecturer 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 29 29%
Psychology 23 23%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 22 22%
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 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#5,730,102
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,246
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,057
of 354,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#175
of 395 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 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 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 354,492 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 395 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 55% of its contemporaries.