A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of clitic and pronoun production
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study develops a single elicitation method to test the acquisition of \nthird-person pronominal objects in 5-year-olds for 16 languages. This methodology \nallows us to compare the acquisition of pronominals in languages \nthat lack object clitics (“pronoun languages”) with languages that employ \nclitics in the relevant context (“clitic languages”), thus establishing a robust \ncross-linguistic baseline in the domain of clitic and pronoun production for \n5-year-olds. High rates of pronominal production are found in our results, \nindicating that children have the relevant pragmatic knowledge required to \nselect a pronominal in the discourse setting involved in the experiment as \nwell as the relevant morphosyntactic knowledge involved in the production \nof pronominals. It is legitimate to conclude from our data that a child who \nat age 5 is not able to produce any or few pronominals is a child at risk for \nlanguage impairment. In this way, pronominal production can be taken as a \ndevelopmental marker, provided that one takes into account certain crosslinguistic \ndifferences discussed in the article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it