1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Considerable variability has been observed in sentence comprehension abilities in both native speakers and second language (L2) learner populations. While it has long been established that, in native speakers, this variability is closely linked to individual differences (IDs) in verbal working memory (vWM), previous research on the role of vWM in L2 sentence comprehension has produced mixed results. Moreover, there is an accumulating body of evidence demonstrating that the relationship between vWM and native language comprehension abilities is mediated by language experience. However, to our knowledge, until now, no attempt has been made to integrate language experience measures into the vWM-L2 sentence comprehension relationship. The goal of the present study is twofold: (1) to determine whether and to what extent vWM – as gauged by a reading span (RSPAN) task – correlates with IDs in two proxy estimates of L2 experience and (2) to investigate the effects of vWM on L2 comprehension of three different types of complex sentences. Thirty-four German advanced learners of English participated in this study. Significant positive correlations were found between the RSPAN scores and both proxy estimates of L2 experience. Mixed-effects modeling revealed that vWM exerted a significant effect on L2 sentence comprehension that was not modulated by sentence type. Taken together, these results provide additional evidence in support of the involvement of vWM in L2 sentence comprehension and, to our knowledge, first evidence for the contribution of L2 experience to RSPAN task performance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18022.ker
2020-04-10
2020-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baddeley, A.
    (1986) Working memory. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003) Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. 10.1038/nrn1201
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2007) Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caplan, D., & Waters, G.
    (2013) Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 243–268. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0369‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S.
    (1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 77–94. 10.1017/S0140525X99001788
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001788 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K.
    (2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272. 10.1037/0033‑295X.113.2.234
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.234 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coady, J.
    (1993) Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning, 3, 3–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and users guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. 10.3758/BF03196772
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dabrowska, E.
    (2008) Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 391–425. 10.1515/COGL.2008.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.015 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dabrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A.
    (2009) The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 571–597. 10.1515/COGL.2009.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.025 [Google Scholar]
  14. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90312‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [Google Scholar]
  15. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M.
    (1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433. 10.3758/BF03214546
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dussias, P. E., & Pinar, P.
    (2010) Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26(4), 443–472. 10.1177/0267658310373326
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310373326 [Google Scholar]
  17. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R.
    (1999) Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331. 10.1037/0096‑3445.128.3.309
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 [Google Scholar]
  18. Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
    (2006) Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(32), 12203–12208. 10.1073/pnas.0602173103
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602173103 [Google Scholar]
  19. Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2016) Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 413–433. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1131310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1131310 [Google Scholar]
  20. Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2012) Individual differences in sentence processing. InM. Spivey, M. Joanisse, & K. McRae (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.353–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.018 [Google Scholar]
  21. Felser, C., & Roberts, L.
    (2007) Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23(1), 9–36. 10.1177/0267658307071600
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307071600 [Google Scholar]
  22. Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R.
    (2003) The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of english. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. 10.1017/S0142716403000237
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000237 [Google Scholar]
  23. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D.
    (1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325. 10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90002‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A.
    (2004) The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(1), 136–158. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 581–590. 10.3758/BF03192728
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192728 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D.
    (2014) Working memory and language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson, E.
    (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00034‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M.
    (2009) Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59(1), 73–112. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00501.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Hopp, H.
    (2015) Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173. 10.1017/S0142716413000180
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000180 [Google Scholar]
  30. Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M. J., Popovich, D. L., & Bakamitsos, G. A.
    (2016) Mean centering helps alleviate “micro” but not “macro” multicollinearity. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1308–1317. 10.3758/s13428‑015‑0624‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0624-x [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackendoff, R.
    (2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jackson, C. N., & Van Hell, J. G.
    (2011) The effects of L2 proficiency level on the processing of wh-questions among Dutch second language speakers of English. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(3), 195–219. 10.1515/iral.2011.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H.
    (2011) On language utility: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Juffs, A.
    (2004) Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(2), 199–225. 10.1111/j.0079‑1636.2004.00135.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0079-1636.2004.00135.x [Google Scholar]
  35. (2005) The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21(2), 121–151. 10.1191/0267658305sr255oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr255oa [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) Processing reduced relative vs. main verb ambiguity in English as a second language: a replication study with working memory. InS. M. R. Slabakova & P. Prevost (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development in Honor of Lydia White (pp.213–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.133.12juf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.133.12juf [Google Scholar]
  37. Juffs, A., & Harrington, M.
    (1995) Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 483–516. 10.1017/S027226310001442X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001442X [Google Scholar]
  38. (1996) Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 46(2), 283–323. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01237.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01237.x [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011) Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166. 10.1017/S0261444810000509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000509 [Google Scholar]
  40. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.122
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W.
    (2004) The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217. 10.1037/0096‑3445.133.2.189
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kidd, E.
    (2013) The role of verbal working memory in children’s sentence comprehension: A critical review. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(3), 208–223. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31829d623e
    https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e31829d623e [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K.
    (2017) Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 33(3), 365–388. 10.1177/0267658315623322
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315623322 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kuznetsova, A., Bruun Brockhoff, P., & Haubo Bojesen Christensen, R.
    (2017) lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models [Computer software manual].
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M.
    (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of english. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A.
    (2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 447–454. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  47. Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., … Doughty, C. J.
    (2013) Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63(3), 530–566. 10.1111/lang.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12011 [Google Scholar]
  48. Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F.
    (2014) Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0565‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2 [Google Scholar]
  49. MacDonald, M. C.
    (2015) The emergence of language comprehension. InB. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp.81–92). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2002) Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54. 10.1037/0033‑295X.109.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  51. MacWhinney, B.
    (2012) The logic of the unified model. InSusan M. Gass & Alison Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.211–227). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mathot, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J.
    (2012) Opensesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0168‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7 [Google Scholar]
  53. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A.
    (1983) The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3–18. 10.1080/10862968309547474
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968309547474 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westphalen
    Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westphalen (2014) Kernlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe ii Gymnasium in Nordrhein-Westphalen: Englisch. Retrieved from: https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/upload/klpSII/e/KLPGOStEnglisch.pdf (9June 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2012) Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00626.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Ouellette, G. P.
    (2006) What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566. 10.1037/0022‑0663.98.3.554
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554 [Google Scholar]
  57. Payne, B. R., Gao, X., Noh, S. R., Anderson, C. J., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L.
    (2012) The effects of print exposure on sentence processing and memory in older adults: Evidence for efficiency and reserve. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 122–149. 10.1080/13825585.2011.628376
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.628376 [Google Scholar]
  58. Perez-Vidal, C.
    (2014) Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (AILA Applied Linguistics Series 13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.13 [Google Scholar]
  59. Perfetti, C. A., Wlotko, E. W., & Hart, L. A.
    (2005) Word learning and individual differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281–1292.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Roberts, L.
    (2012) Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62(s2), 172–188. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00711.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00711.x [Google Scholar]
  62. (2013) Sentence processing in bilinguals. InR. P. van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing (pp.233–258). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Roberts, L., & Felser, C.
    (2011) Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 299–331. 10.1017/S0142716410000421
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000421 [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392. 10.1177/026765830101700405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700405 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2002) Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2 [Google Scholar]
  66. Rodrıguez, G. A.
    (2008) Second language sentence processing: Is it fundamentally different? (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
  67. Sharwood-Smith, M.
    (2017) Working with working memory and language. Second Language Research, 33(3), 291–297. 10.1177/0267658317719315
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317719315 [Google Scholar]
  68. Shipley, W. C.
    (1940) A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371–377. 10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704 [Google Scholar]
  69. Skehan, P.
    (2002) Theorizing and updating aptitude. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp.69–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.06ske [Google Scholar]
  70. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F.
    (1989) Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. 10.2307/747605
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747605 [Google Scholar]
  71. Stone, J. M., & Towse, J.
    (2015) A working memory test battery: Java-based collection of seven working memory tasks. Journal of Open Research Software, 3. 10.5334/jors.br
    https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.br [Google Scholar]
  72. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M.
    (1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 [Google Scholar]
  73. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W.
    (1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90040‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5 [Google Scholar]
  74. Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J.
    (2008) Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(3), 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1414 [Google Scholar]
  75. Von Bastian, C. C., Locher, A., & Ruflin, M.
    (2013) Tatool: A java-based open-source programming framework for psychological studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 108–115. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0224‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0224-y [Google Scholar]
  76. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D.
    (1996a) The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of just and carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103(4), 761–772. 10.1037/0033‑295X.103.4.761
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761 [Google Scholar]
  77. (1996b) The Measurement of Verbal Working Memory Capacity and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(1), 51–79. 10.1080/713755607
    https://doi.org/10.1080/713755607 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2003) The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 550–564. 10.3758/BF03195534
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195534 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C.
    (2009) Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wen, Z.
    (2016) Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Bristol: Multilingual matters. 10.21832/9781783095735
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095735 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wen, Z., Mota, M. B., & McNeill, A.
    (2015) Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093595
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595 [Google Scholar]
  82. Williams, J. N.
    (2012) Working memory and SLA. InS. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhou, H., Rossi, S., & Chen, B.
    (2017) Effects of working memory capacity and tasks in processing L2 complex sentence: evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 595. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00595
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00595 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18022.ker
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.18022.ker
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error