Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language transfer has long been a controversial topic in applied linguistics, second language acquisition, and language teaching for more than 100 years. The paper concentrates on several aspects that have an especially important bearing on tle study of L1 transfer in English writing of Chinese college students: causes , differences between English and Chinese discourse analysis and characteristics of English and Chinese syntactical structure. Key words: L1 transfer, English writing, Chinese students, discourse analysis Resume: 100 ans se sont passes depuis que le transfert linguistique est devenu un theme d’etude important dans la linguistique appliquee, l’acquisition de la deuxieme langue et l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues. Commencant par les differences du texte et celles de la syntaxe entre l’anglais et le chinois, l’article present analyse essentiellement les causes et les caracteristiques du phenomene de transfert de la langue maternelle dans la redaction anglaise des etudiants chinois. Mots-cles: transfert de la langue maternelle, redaction en anglais, etudiants chinois, analyse du texte 摘要：語言遷移成為應用語言學、第二語言習得和語言教學領域中的重要研究課題至今已有一百年歷史。本文從英漢語篇的差異及英漢句法結構的不同入手著重分析了中國大學生英語寫作中的母語遷移現象的原因及特點。 關鍵詞：母語遷移；英語寫作；中國學生；語篇分析
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".