Explicit Knowledge of the Spanish Subjunctive and Accurate Use in Discrete-Point, Oral Production, and Written Production Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The usefulness of explicit knowledge of the second language is a matter of controversy in the field of second language acquisition. In this regard, it has been argued that explicit representations might be useful for some structures but not for others (R. Ellis, 2006; Roehr & Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009). The goal of this study was to examine whether explicit knowledge about the Spanish subjunctive is related to using this structure accurately in discrete-point measures, as well as in measures of oral and written production. The participants were 46 learners of Spanish as a second language, who were in their fifth semester and had received explicit instruction about the subjunctive during three terms. The results show that the participants had developed somewhat low levels of explicit knowledge of the subjunctive, and that explicit knowledge of this structure was significantly correlated to its correct use in discrete-point grammar exercises and in writing, but not in speaking. Résumé L’utilité des connaissances explicites de la langue seconde est un sujet à controverse dans le domaine de l’acquisition de la langue seconde. À cet égard, on a soutenu que des représentations explicites pourraient être utiles pour certaines structures, mais pas pour d’autres (R. Ellis, 2006 ; Roehr et Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009). Le but de cette étude a été d’examiner si les connaissances explicites du subjonctif en espagnol étaient liées à l’utilisation correcte de cette structure dans les mesures à des instants discrets et dans les mesures de production orale et écrite. Les participants étaient 46 apprenants d’espagnol langue seconde, à leur cinquième semestre, qui avaient reçu de l’enseignement explicite sur le subjonctif pendant trois semestres. Les résultats ont démontré que les participants ont développé des niveaux assez bas de connaissances explicites du subjonctif. De même, les résultats ont indiqué qu’il y avait une corrélation significative entre les connaissances explicites de cette structure et son utilisation correcte dans les exercices de grammaire à mesure à instants discrets et dans la production écrite, mais pas dans la production orale.
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 | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".