The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences
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 investigated the referring expressions used for first mentions of participants and entities in narratives by Mandarin heritage language (HL) and monolingual children. Referring expressions for first mentions in Mandarin comprise lexical, morphological and syntactic devices. Results showed that HL children used less adequate referring expressions for first mentions than the monolinguals, mainly due to overgeneralization of classifiers and lack of vocabulary knowledge. However, HL children did not differ from monolinguals in their use of relative clauses and post-verbal NP placement to mark first mentions. These results suggest that incomplete acquisition of the HL may vary across different linguistic subdomains (Montrul, 2008); specifically, domains requiring a great deal of input to acquire, such as vocabulary and the large repertoire of classifier morphemes, might be more vulnerable in HL speakers than syntax. Mixed modeling analyses revealed that older age of arrival, higher maternal education levels and a rich and diverse Mandarin environment at home predicted stronger narrative outcomes, also pointing to an important role for input in HL acquisition.
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