Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of studies on the use/interpretation of first language (L1) pronominals by late bilinguals who immigrated as adults to a second language (L2), living there for an extended period speaking the majority L2. It discusses how, among other linguistic properties, vulnerability in the L1 pronominal system has been documented. The chapter discusses why pronominals have become topical in L1 attrition research and reviews relevant research, demonstrating how different linguistic analyses proposed for adult L2 acquisition can also help identify the (un)changing characteristics of mature L1 grammar. The chapter deliberately confines itself to generative linguistics-based L1 attrition studies involving late bilinguals residing in an L2 country as first-generation immigrants, who typically become dominant L2 users after puberty, after which developmental point the L1 grammatical competence is believed to stabilize. Thus, any qualitative changes in L1 grammar of post-puberty bilinguals may have far-reaching implications for the alterability of L1 linguistic competence due to the L2. Studies discussed in this chapter are thus revealing as to the nature of the L1 attrition phenomenon in the pronominal domain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".