Language learners' use of discourse markers as evidence for a mixed code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against the backdrop of the language classroom as a bilingual community of practice, this paper focuses on learners' use of discourse markers in one advanced German language classroom. As in other bilingual communities, the learners in the data exhibit phenomena that are characteristic for various stages along the continuum from codeswitching to mixed code (Auer, 1998). In analyzing the data for functional distribution of pairs of German and English discourse markers as used by the students, we find that the discourse markers `so' and `also' have specialized functionally on the level of the entire classroom community of practice, causing a structural division of labor between the two markers, and thus exhibiting evidence of a later stage of a mixed code. Our focus is primarily on the ways in which these practices are meaningful to the community rather than on how practices may originate from contact phenomena such as language transfer. We also draw attention to the importance of working across the fields of second language acquisition and bilingualism, since language learners in a classroom where the use of more than one language is allowed may develop similar practices to those found in natural bilingual settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".