Bilingual First Language Acquisition: Evidence from Montreal
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
Bilingual code-mixing is the use of elements (phonological, lexical, and morpho-syntactic) from two languages in the same utterance or stretch of conversation or in different situations. Bilingual code-mixing is ubiquitous among bilinguals, both child and adult. Child bilingual code-mixing has been interpreted by researchers and laypersons as an indication of linguistic confusion and incompetence. This article reviews a series of studies on French-English simultaneous bilinguals from Montreal that examined their code-mixing with respect to young bilingual children’s ability: to differentiate their developing languages, to control code-mixing in different communicative situations, to adjust their code-mixing in response to feedback from interlocutors, and to fill gaps in their developing language competence. Contrary those who view child code-mixing as evidence of confusion and incompetence, extant evidence indicates that it reflects linguistic and communicative competence even in very early stages of simultaneous bilingual 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) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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