At the Interface between Sociolinguistic and Grammatical Development: The Expression of Futurity in L2 French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an example of socio-grammatical variation in target language French, the morphological variation at work in the expression of futurity constitutes an interesting area to intricately relate the L2 learner’s sociolinguistic and grammatical development. This conceptual entity is all the more interesting since previous studies of this variable in native speaker French point to a certain discrepancy between prescriptive and sociolinguistic norms in the speaker’s choice between the inflected and periphrastic forms as well as in the use of the present to mark futurity, whereby the prescriptively hypothesized semantic restrictions on the use of each form are not seen to be upheld in real language usage. This paper is concerned with the acquisition challenge that such a threefold choice poses to the L2 learner of French, based on a quantitative cross-sectional analysis of Irish instructed and study abroad learners of French. Reflecting previous studies of other variables (see, for example, Dewaele 2004; Mougeon et al. 2010), results suggest an important effect for naturalistic exposure on the acquisition of native speaker norms surrounding the expression of futurity, as well as for the actual target language variety to which the learners are exposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".