MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007623661 · doi:10.1080/07268602.2020.1729092

Constraints on the argument structure of dative verbs in advanced L3 English

2020· article· en· W3007623661 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelkader Hermas

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsGrammaticalitySyntaxDative caseArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceSemantics (computer science)Second-language acquisitionGrammarHistoryPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the acquisition of the argument structure of dative verbs in L3 English. The learners are L1 Moroccan Arabic–L2 French adults advanced in L3 English. The study considers whether the L3 learners in a formal foreign language instruction context can develop nativelike sensitivity to the semantic and morphological constraints on the distribution of double objects and prepositional phrases in dative constructions. The results of a grammaticality judgment and correction task reveal overgeneralization effects on non-alternating verbs in advanced L3 ultimate attainment. At the same time, the L3 learners show nativelike sensitivity to instances of subtle semantics, but not morphology, associated with dative constructions. The analysis of individual results provides empirical evidence supporting the claim that syntax–semantics and syntax–morphology interface properties are acquirable even if they are language-specific and previously inactive in the L1/L2. Thus, in ultimate attainment, L3 acquisition is another instance of L2 acquisition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207