Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cook (1991Cook ( , 1992) discussed the question of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition in terms of what he called 'multicompetence'.He proposed that the internalized L2 grammars of very advanced (native-like) learners are different from those of monolingual native speakers, although their performance is similar, since the L1 and L 2 grammars may influence each other.This article explores the acceptance and use of inappropriate passive morphology by very advanced francophone learners of English, comparing their linguistic performance (measured by a fill-in-the-blanks task) and linguistic intuitions (measured by a grammaticality judgement task) to those of native speakers of English with very little previous exposure to French.The results supported Cook's muIticompetence hypothesis.The very advanced learners had performance which was indistinguishable from that of native speakers on the controlled production task.However, there were significant differences between the two groups in their acceptance of inappropriate passive morphology on the grammaticality judgement task, particularly with verbs having a Theme in subject position and describing a state or change of state.•.This research was supported by research grant #004109 from the Faculte des etudes superieures et de la recherche, Universite de Moncton, for which I am grateful.Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the conference «Les Acadiens et leur(s) langue (s»>,Moncton N.B., August 1994;Second Language Research Forum '94, Montrea!, Que., October 1994; and the 18th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, St. John, N.B., October 1994.I would like to thank the audiences for their questions and comments, and an anonymous reviewer for thought-provoking comments.A paper in French describing this study will appear in Les Actes du colloque «les Acadiens et leur(s) langue(s)>>.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".