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 |
Bilinguals' Plausibility Judgments for Phrases with a Literal vs. Non-literal Meaning: The Influence of Language Brokering Experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Belem G. López, Jyotsna Vaid, Sümeyra Tosun, Chaitra Rao |
| Abstract |
Previous work has shown that prior experience in language brokering (informal translation) may facilitate the processing of meaning within and across language boundaries. The present investigation examined the influence of brokering on bilinguals' processing of two word collocations with either a literal or a figurative meaning in each language. Proficient Spanish-English bilinguals classified as brokers or non-brokers were asked to judge if adjective+noun phrases presented in each language made sense or not. Phrases with a literal meaning (e.g., stinging insect) were interspersed with phrases with a figurative meaning (e.g., stinging insult) and non-sensical phrases (e.g., stinging picnic). It was hypothesized that plausibility judgments would be facilitated for literal relative to figurative meanings in each language but that experience in language brokering would be associated with a more equivalent pattern of responding across languages. These predictions were confirmed. The findings add to the body of empirical work on individual differences in language processing in bilinguals associated with prior language brokering experience. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistics | 10 | 59% |
| Psychology | 2 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Energy | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,591,533
of 23,796,227 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,927
of 31,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,344
of 321,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#301
of 592 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,796,227 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 321,679 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 592 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.