ArticleCognitive processing2026
Revisiting L1 morphological effects on L2 online processing of morphologically complex words: the potentially confounding roles of cognateness and L1 writing system.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have revealed conflicting results as regards whether second language (L2) learners decompose morphologically complex words during online reading or process them in a whole-word manner. To resolve such controversies, first language (L1) morphological characteristics have been proposed as one factor leading to variation in L2 performance. Evidence for the argument of L1 morphological effects includes (1) that L2 learners from an L1 with a similar/congruent morphological feature outperform those from an L1 without a similar corresponding morphological feature and (2) that there is an advantage for L2 learners from an L1 with a more complex morphological system. In this paper, we examine the design of these studies and identify two potentially confounding factors that most studies have failed to consider when comparing L2 learners from different L1 morphological backgrounds: cognateness and L1 writing system. We suggest that studies examining L1 morphological effects recruit L2 groups whose L1s differ in their morphological system characteristics but share the same type of writing system, while also stringently excluding cognates in the design of experimental materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42530803What 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.