The Acquisition of French (L3) Wh-question by Persian (L1) Learners of English (L2) as a Foreign Language: Optimality Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Recent decade has been prominent in investigating third language acquisition (L3). This study presents an Optimality theoretic account of French wh-question by learners whose first and second language are Persian and English respectively. Additionally, it investigates transfer at the initial stage based on the three dominant transfer hypotheses namely, L1 transfer hypothesis, L2 status factor, Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM) in the domain of L3 acquisition. First, in French and Persian wh- question structure, the wh-word move to pre subject position (Spec-CP &amp; Spec-FOCP) but the interrogative verb do not raise to C. This is the indicator of L1 Factor hypothesis. Second, in French and English the wh-word follows by an interrogative verb in French or by subject-auxiliary inversion in English so in these languages the wh-word occupies the Spec-CP and the verb occupies the C position. This is an evidence for L2 status factor. Third, in English and Persian the wh-word remains in original position for echo questions, this feature triggers this parallel structure in French; this confirms Cumulative Enhancement Model hypothesis. Two groups of Persian native speakers with different English proficiency levels (the lower-intermediate &amp; advanced) that were at the initial stage of acquiring L3 French were asked to complete two test namely, grammar judgment task and translation test. The results showed that the main source of transfer was L1 transfer hypothesis and partially CEM. Regarding OT, although the advanced learners transferred their L2 knowledge in the L3 acquisition in GJT, there was not any significant difference between L1 transfer and L2 transfer context. Therefore, the following constraint hierarchies were obtained for TT and GJT respectively, Q-Scope&gt;&gt; Lex-V&gt;Stay&gt;&gt;Q-Mark and Stay&gt;&gt;Lex-V&gt;&gt;Q-Mark&gt;&gt;Q-Scope. In fact, these ranking, particularly the former one, advocated the L1 transfer hypothesis.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.060 |
| 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".