↓ Skip to main content

Reversing the Approach to Null Subjects: A Perspective from Language Acquisition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Reversing the Approach to Null Subjects: A Perspective from Language Acquisition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maia Duguine

Abstract

This paper proposes a new model for null subjects, and focuses on its implications for language development. The literature on pro-drop generally considers that not allowing null subjects is, informally speaking, the "default" option in natural languages, and appeals to particular morphosyntactic mechanisms in order to account for those languages in which the subject can be omitted. Shifting the perspective, the inverse approach postulates that pro-drop is (almost) a default grammatical setting, and that non-pro-drop results from the intervention of independent factors that block pro-drop in the derivation. The paper explores the consequences of the inverse approach in the domain of language acquisition, arguing that this model allows to account for a number of properties of child languages. It opens an avenue of research worth exploring, one that could give new solutions to old problems.

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 4 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 5 33%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,944,011
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,569
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,504
of 430,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#271
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 430,225 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 487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.