Processing Trade-Offs in Non-Native Learners’ Performance of Narrative Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring learners’ processes of memory and analysis has captivated considerable attention among language-learning researchers due to the recent prevalence of key concepts from feeder disciplines such as cognitive psychology and phraseology. However, there has been little empirical effort to describe the nature of interaction between these two processing modes. This article reports on a study that was designed (a) to explore the distribution of these two modes of language representation in the oral production of non-native learners of English and (b) to determine whether they shift their processing styles (i.e., lexical retrieval to rule analysis or vice versa) in the face of increasing cognitive load. Thirty Tunisian undergraduate students of English performed three narrative tasks over three tape-recorded episodes. Analysis of the transcribed findings revealed that these participants activated their memory-based system for lexical retrieval at the beginning of their performance when the tasks were not demanding and fell back on the rule-based mode when faced with the increasing processing load due to time pressure. These results empirically validate the role of formulaicity in second/foreign-language learners’ processing styles.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 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 teacher head, 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".