MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490551131 · doi:10.1075/lald.46.04mei

Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition?

2008· book-chapter· en· W2490551131 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage acquisition & language disorders · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanLinguisticsRule-based machine translationLanguage acquisitionSecond-language acquisitionSubject (documents)Computer sciencePsychologyNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the question of whether child L2 acquisition is more like L1 or adult L2. An analysis of the acquisition of finiteness by German child L2 learners of French leads to the conclusion that successive acquisition of languages exhibits similarities to adult L2 in some aspects of inflectional morphology. This claim is based on the observation that specific features of grammatical development typically occur in one type of acquisition only, not in the other. Unlike mature French and child L1, French subject clitics appear adjacent to non-finite verbs in adult and child L2 French. One can argue that they do not possess the same grammatical status in child and adult L2 grammars as they do in L1 grammars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1680.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it