MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082349792 · doi:10.1515/iral-2019-0115

D-linked and non-d-linked<i>wh</i>-questions in L2 French and L3 English

2020· article· en· W3082349792 on OpenAlex
Abdelkader Hermas

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsSyntaxFeature (linguistics)Interrogative wordPsychologySecond-language acquisitionDiscourse analysisComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study considers L2 French and L3 English ultimate attainment among L1 Moroccan Arabic adult learners. It contrasts the acquisition of two types of wh -questions: discourse-linked and non-discourse-linked questions in root and embedded forms. The results of two acceptability judgment tasks indicate that the advanced learners in L2 French and L3 English are nativelike on d-linked wh -questions but less accurate on non-discourse-linked interrogatives. They successfully unlearn resumption as an L1 strategy to form discourse-linked questions. Therefore, contra the prediction of the Interface Hypothesis, discourse-linking is acquirable though it is a property of the syntax-discourse interface. It does not pose more learning difficulty than quantification (formal wh -feature) of narrow syntax. The study indicates that embedding and thereby the processing cognitive load are the deterministic variables, not the language domain of constructions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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