Speech Production of Trilingual Children: A Study on Their Transfers in Terms of Content and Function Words and the Effect of Their L1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the speech production of trilingual children whose L1 was either Greek or Albanian and their L3 was English. Since this specific combination of languages has not been widely studied in current literature this study can contribute to our knowledge and the teaching of these children. Moreover, research into transfers from content and function words could help us comprehend the different roles word classes have in trilingual speakers since Paradis (2009) has suggested that the tendency to transfer function words from L2, rather than from L1, into L3 supports the idea that content words and function words have the same status in an L2 but not in L1. Also, although content words are often transferred from both L1 and L2 into L3, studies have indicated that function words are mainly transferred from the L2 and not from the L1 (Ringbom, 1987; Sjögren, 2000; Stedje, 1977). The aim of this study was to find out the source language of our participants’ transfers, whether there would be any influence of our speakers’ L1 or L2 on Content and Function words, as well as whether cross-linguistic influence had any effect on Content and Function words, following Cenoz (2001).The participants of our study were asked to narrate a picture story in their third language and the main source of their transfers was surveyed. Also, the ratio of Content to Function words and the effect of the children’s L1 was investigated since former research showed function words are mainly transferred from the L2 and not from the L1. The results of this study showed that the main source of transfer was Greek (whether as an L1 or an L2) and that the children’s transfers were mainly from content words. Finally, the ratio of Greek content/ function words was found to be greater for those children whose L1 is Greek compared to the children whose L1 is Albanian.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".