MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023361827 · doi:10.1075/lab.1.2.01bru

Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers

2011· article· en· W2023361827 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLinguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCliticLinguisticsSubject (documents)Object (grammar)Noun phraseDative caseSyntaxNounComputer scienceGrammarPsychologyConnectionismArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues against connectionist models of language acquisition. It examines knowledge of the properties of subjects and objects in Spanish, particularly in impersonal passives and inchoatives. In both of these structures, the reflexive clitic se is obligatorily present and the linear order of elements is the same, namely [ se V NP], with agreement between the verb and the noun phrase. In other words, the input is identical in both cases ( se quemaron los libros ‘the books burned/were burned’ is ambiguous between both structures). However, the NP in the impersonal passive exhibits some of the properties of objects while the NP in the inchoatives behaves exclusively like a subject. An empirical study shows that three groups of speakers of Spanish, a monolingual Spanish group, an early English/Spanish bilingual group and a group of late learners of Spanish, are aware of these differences. As the input is ambiguous, it is argued that a model such as that provided by connectionist theories, which argues that the input is sufficient for acquisition, cannot account for the data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.098 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it