ArticlePloS one2023
Assessing the size of non-Māori-speakers' active Māori lexicon.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Aotearoa's linguistic landscape: exploring the use of te reo Māori in English-medium early childhood education.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most non-Māori-speaking New Zealanders are regularly exposed to Māori throughout their lives without seeming to build any extensive Māori lexicon; at best, they know a small number of words which are frequently used and sometimes borrowed into English. Here, we ask how many Māori words non-Māori-speaking New Zealanders know, in two ways: how many can they identify as real Māori words, and how many can they actively define? We show that non-Māori-speaking New Zealanders can readily identify many more Māori words than they can define, and that the number of words they can reliably define is quite small. This result adds crucial support to the idea presented in earlier work that non-Māori-speaking New Zealanders have implicit form-based (proto-lexical) knowledge of many Māori words, but explicit semantic (lexical) knowledge of few. Building on this distinction, we further ask how different levels of word knowledge modulate effects of phonotactic probability on the accessing of that knowledge, across both tasks and participants. We show that participants' implicit word knowledge leads to effects of phonotactic probability-and related effects of neighbourhood density-in a word/non-word discrimination task, but not in a more explicit task that requires the active definition of words. Similarly, we show that the effects of phonotactic probability on word/non-word discrimination are strong among participants who appear to lack explicit word knowledge, as indicated by their weak discrimination performance, but absent among participants who appear to have explicit word knowledge, as indicated by their strong discrimination performance. Together, these results suggest that phonotactic probability plays its strongest roles in the absence of explicit semantic knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.