English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Over the past several years, there has been increasing interest in incorporating implicit attitude measures into language attitudes research. While the tools used to measure implicit attitudes are relatively new to linguists, they are grounded in a long history of social cognition research, where dual processing models of attitude formation have been discussed and debated for decades. As the use of these methods becomes more prevalent in language attitudes research, there is a growing tendency for language attitudes researchers to overlook the foundational literature and focus only on sociolinguistic studies as precedent. As a result, there is a tendency to conflate and misuse terminology – most notably the terms automatic, implicit, and unconscious – and to mischaracterize the kinds of conclusions that can safely be drawn from experimental studies. The purpose of this paper is to help language attitudes researchers by providing perspective on the theoretical traditions of dual processing models and an analysis of the implications of selecting particular attitudes measures, and to make an appeal for the use of clear and consistent terminology in reporting this type of language attitudes research.

Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research: Are they related and how do we characterize them?