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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pronoun Interpretation in the Second Language: Effects of Computational Complexity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01236 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roumyana Slabakova, Lydia White, Natália Brambatti Guzzo |
| Abstract |
Children acquiring their native language (L1) have been reported to have greater difficulty in interpreting pronouns than reflexives. In addition, they are less accurate when pronouns refer to referential antecedents than to quantified antecedents, and when they hear full pronouns as opposed to reduced pronouns. We hypothesize that similar difficulties of interpretation will occur for (non-advanced) second language (L2) learners, due to an elevated computational burden, as argued for L1 acquisition by Reinhart (2006, 2011). We report on an experiment with adult learners of English (L1s French and Spanish), using a truth-value judgment task. Participants interpreted reduced and full pronouns bound by referential and quantified antecedents in aurally presented test sentences. The learners' performance is affected by type of pronoun and antecedent. When a referential antecedent is combined with a full pronoun, learners' accuracy is significantly lower. These results are in line with Reinhart's analysis of reference set computation in processing pronouns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 19 | 54% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#13,983,536
of 24,733,536 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,556
of 33,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,084
of 319,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#294
of 567 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,733,536 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 319,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 567 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.