↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Bilectalism and Non-standardization on the Perception of Native Grammatical Variants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
The Influence of Bilectalism and Non-standardization on the Perception of Native Grammatical Variants
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00205
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelina Leivada, Elena Papadopoulou, Maria Kambanaros, Kleanthes K. Grohmann

Abstract

Research in speakers of closely related varieties has shown that bilectalism and non-standardization affect speakers' perception of the variants that exist in their native languages in a way that is absent from the performance of their monolingual peers. One possible explanation for this difference is that non-standardization blurs the boundaries of grammatical variants and increases grammatical fluidity. Affected by such factors, bilectals become less accurate in identifying the variety to which a grammatical variant pertains. Another explanation is that their differential performance derives from the fact that they are competent in two varieties. Under this scenario, the difference is due to the existence of two linguistic systems in the course of development, and not to how close or standardized these systems are. This study employs a novel variety-judgment task in order to elucidate which of the two explanations holds. Having administered the task to monolinguals, bilectals, and bilinguals, including heritage language learners and L1 attriters, we obtained a dataset of 16,245 sentences. The analysis shows differential performance between bilectal and bilingual speakers, granting support for the first explanation. We discuss the role of factors such as non-standardization and linguistic proximity in language development and flesh out the implications of the results in relation to different developmental trajectories.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 7 33%
Arts and Humanities 3 14%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Psychology 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 May 2023.
All research outputs
#16,994,004
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,833
of 33,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,280
of 316,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#369
of 490 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 316,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 490 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.