Emergence of that in long-distance wh-movement in the Korean-English interlanguage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the emergence of that (termed the way-that for terminological convenience) as a remnant copy of wh-word in the course of acquiring long-distance (LD) wh-movement. A cross-sectional task using an elicited oral-translation task was carried out with 30 Korean-speaking university students learning L2 English. The goal was to corroborate the existence of that in the Korean-English interlanguage such as Who do you think that who lived in the house? by bilingual Basque-Spanish learners (Gutiérrez & Mayo 2008) and Who do you think that he go buy eggs? by Canadian French speakers (Slavkov 2009). The way that is argued to be a remanent copy of the moved wh-word, devoid of the [+WH] feature while preserving phonetic features, and is, pronounced as that, during the syntactic operation of deletion. The experimental data gathered reveal that (1) there are a few but still necessary instances of the way-that which allude that UG can be accessible in the Korean-English interlanguage, and that.(2) Korean L2 leaners can select a linguistic option available in UG but unavailable in their L1 Korean and L2 English. Furthermore, the way-that was found to not be the usual complementizer that, which commonly is placed in the specifier head, since it situates to the left of the wh-word in the specifier position. For the same reason, it was argued that the way-that was not a case of doubly-comp filter violation.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".