The Facilitative Role of L1 Influence in Tense–Aspect Marking: A Comparison of Hispanophone and Anglophone Learners of French
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
English learners of French whose first language (L1) does not mark the perfective/imperfective distinction have shown verb semantic influence and an overall preference for perfective over imperfective in their use of second language (L2) tense–aspect markers. This study investigated whether learners whose L1 marks the perfective/imperfective distinction would exhibit similar acquisition profiles. Hispanophones ( n = 17) and Anglophones ( n = 15) at similar levels of French L2 proficiency completed a 68‐item cloze task with equal numbers of perfective and imperfective contexts distributed across 4 semantic categories: stative, activity, accomplishment, and achievements. In a 20‐minute retrospective interview, a subsample of the participants (8 Hispanophones, 11 Anglophones) commented on factors influencing their tense–aspect choices. An ANOVA of 1,012 predicates revealed that unlike the Anglophones, the Hispanophones did not prefer perfective over imperfective, and they were also less influenced by verb semantics. The learners' comments suggest that the Hispanophones made effective use of L1–L2 similarities, whereas the Anglophones appealed to verb semantics and partially understood pedagogical rules, which were frequently associated with inappropriate uses of the forms.
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