↓ Skip to main content

Phonological and orthographic cues enhance the processing of inflectional morphology. ERP evidence from L1 and L2 French

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Phonological and orthographic cues enhance the processing of inflectional morphology. ERP evidence from L1 and L2 French
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00888
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haydee Carrasco-Ortiz, Cheryl Frenck-Mestre

Abstract

We report the results of two event-related potential (ERP) experiments in which Spanish learners of French and native French controls show graded sensitivity to verbal inflectional errors as a function of the presence of orthographic and/or phonological cues when reading silently in French. In both experiments, verbal agreement was manipulated in sentential context such that subject verb agreement was either correct, ill-formed and orally realized, involving both orthographic and phonological cues, or ill-formed and silent which involved only orthographic cues. The results of both experiments revealed more robust ERP responses to orally realized than to silent inflectional errors. This was true for L2 learners as well as native controls, although the effect in the learner group was reduced in comparison to the native group. In addition, the combined influence of phonological and orthographic cues led to the largest differences between syntactic/phonological conditions. Overall, the results suggest that the presence of phonological cues may enhance L2 readers' sensitivity to morphology but that such may appear in L2 processing only when sufficient proficiency is attained. Moreover, both orthographic and phonological cues are used when available.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 25%
Linguistics 8 22%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,062,440
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,253
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,941
of 231,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#212
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 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 58% 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 231,138 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.