Microanalysis of lexical depth in a second language: the implicit and the expressible aspects of the definitional skill
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The research found that, in terms of implicit deep word knowledge, the heritage language group, the content-based group, and the monolingual group performed similarly in English on the Word Association Test. In terms of English expressible deep word knowledge, the heritage language group and the monolingual group performed similarly and, in some cases, better than the content-based group on the English Word Definition Task. For Farsi expressible deep word knowledge, there was no difference between the content-based group and the heritage language group on the Farsi Word Definition Task. This research compares three groups of elementary-school children in Toronto by testing their deep lexical knowledge of specific words (implicit aspect) and grading their expression of such knowledge in a standard definition form (expressible aspect). This research concludes that for both aspects of lexical knowledge in children, length of residence in the L2 context and instruction in L2 may be more important than L1 literacy per se. This suggests that L1 literacy in a two-way bilingual education environment, and in combination with simultaneous L2 academic instruction, might have a stronger impact than mere L1 literacy on the development of academic skills and definitional knowledge. The research showed the important role of curricular L2 exposure (or language of instruction) in the development of students' deep lexical knowledge, and the weaker role of L1 academic skill, be it lack of knowledge or transfer, in providing definitions in the L2. In other words, although the findings demonstrate that longer length of residence in an L2 context and L2 schooling correlates with better performance on the implicit and expressible measures of L2 lexical depth, longer residence in Iran with some L1 content-based schooling does not correlate with higher definitional quality in Farsi. To compare the children's lexical depth, all were tested on a Word Association Test (in English) and a Word Definition Task (in English and Farsi.) Their degree of expressible knowledge was derived from the quality of the definitions produced which were analyzed in terms of linguistic and semantic content. Child participants were drawn from three groups of fifth and sixth graders: one monolingual group (English L1) and two bilingual groups (Farsi L1, English L2). These last were immigrant children with some formal content-based schooling in L1 (the content-based group) and immigrant children with basic L1 literacy through Toronto heritage-language schools (the heritage language group).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».