Comparing the Outcomes of Early and Late Acquisition of European Portuguese: An Analysis of Morpho-syntactic and Phonetic Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper compares the linguistic competence of German-Portuguese bilinguals with upper-intermediate German L2 learners (L2ers) of EP (European Portuguese) and with monolingual Portuguese speakers. The bilingual speakers are heritage speakers (HSs), who were raised bilingually with EP as the minority language and German as the majority language. The aim of our comparison is to verify in which way different input sources and maturational effects shape the speakers’ linguistic knowledge. The findings of two studies, one focused on the morpho-syntactic knowledge of clitics and the other on global accent, corroborate the assumption that L2ers and HSs behave differently, despite superficial similarities observed in the morpho-syntactic study. In contrast to that of the L2ers’, the accent of the HSs is perceived as being native-like, whereas their morpho-syntactic competence is mainly shaped by their dominant exposure to colloquial Portuguese and reduced contact with formal registers.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it