↓ Skip to main content

How language affects children's use of derivational morphology in visual word and pseudoword processing: evidence from a cross-language study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
How language affects children's use of derivational morphology in visual word and pseudoword processing: evidence from a cross-language study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Séverine Casalis, Pauline Quémart, Lynne G. Duncan

Abstract

Developing readers have been shown to rely on morphemes in visual word recognition across several naming, lexical decision and priming experiments. However, the impact of morphology in reading is not consistent across studies with differing results emerging not only between but also within writing systems. Here, we report a cross-language experiment involving the English and French languages, which aims to compare directly the impact of morphology in word recognition in the two languages. Monolingual French-speaking and English-speaking children matched for grade level (Part 1) and for age (Part 2) participated in the study. Two lexical decision tasks (one in French, one in English) featured words and pseudowords with exactly the same structure in each language. The presence of a root (R+) and a suffix ending (S+) was manipulated orthogonally, leading to four possible combinations in words (R+S+: e.g., postal; R+S-: e.g., turnip; R-S+: e.g., rascal; and R-S-: e.g., bishop) and in pseudowords (R+S+: e.g., pondal; R+S-: e.g., curlip; R-S+: e.g., vosnal; and R-S-: e.g., hethop). Results indicate that the presence of morphemes facilitates children's recognition of words and impedes their ability to reject pseudowords in both languages. Nevertheless, effects extend across accuracy and latencies in French but are restricted to accuracy in English, suggesting a higher degree of morphological processing efficiency in French. We argue that the inconsistencies found between languages emphasize the need for developmental models of word recognition to integrate a morpheme level whose elaboration is tuned by the productivity and transparency of the derivational system.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 32%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 42%
Linguistics 11 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Philosophy 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 25%
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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,330,127
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,639
of 29,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,782
of 237,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#351
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 237,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.