MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183792165

Error Patterns and Interference Features of French-Speaking Learners of KSL/KFL

2007· article· en· W3183792165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seong-Sook Yim

Bibliographic record

Venue언어과학 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsPronunciationVocabularySpellingComputer scienceFirst languageArtificial intelligenceWord orderSuffixLanguage transferNatural language processingVerbContrastive analysisPolitenessError analysisSecond-language acquisitionSecond languagePsychologyComprehension approachNatural languageMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the characteristics and causes of Korean errors made by French-Speaking learners of KSL/KFL. We studied a corpus constituted of typical oral and written error sentences produced by 70 students attending the Korean language courses at the University of Montreal in Canada. According to the non-contrastive approach, error is defined as a ‘transitional language’, not as a ‘something wrong’. The errors were classified and analyzed into 8 categories: pronunciation, spelling, particle, word order, verb suffix, tense, politeness and vocabulary. By applying the inference theory of J.C. Richards, we explained what constraints learners would be facing when assimilating the target language and what type of interferences lead them to produce errors. Our findings show that errors represent their transitional language performed at a particular stage of the acquisition and can be caused by interference of their mother tongue and also by interference of Korean development and/or intra-lingual complexity.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue언어과학Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207