Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32265773›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Sílvia Perpiñán

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The Mediating Role of aFrontiers in psychology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sílvia PerpiñánDepartment of Applied Linguistics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reflects on the meaning of the results of a self-paced grammaticality judgment task that tested island configurations (with gaps and resumptive pronouns) in L1 and L2 speakers of Spanish. Results indicated that resumptive pronouns do not rescue extractions from islands, as traditionally assumed in grammatical theory, and propose that islands are essentially an interpretative or processing matter, and not only a grammatical one, as in Kluender (1998). This study further challenges the L2 studies that proposed that L2 learners are fundamentally different from native speakers because they usually fail to reject island configurations, and shows that L2 learners are sensitive to the same processing and interpretative mechanisms that native speakers employ to parse island configurations. Generally speaking, this study proposes that apparent purely syntactic restrictions such as extractions from islands might not depend on their grammatical formation, but on other relevant factors such as plausibility, embedding, and processability, which together with grammatical well-formedness configure a more holistic and useful notion of linguistic acceptability.

Indexed as

islandsL2 learnersprocessibilityresumptive pronounspanishwh-movement

Identifiers

PMID32265773
PMCPMC7108788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.