Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines whether L2 acquisition of morphology and syntax develops independently (the Separation Hypothesis) or not (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis), focusing on the acquisition of Number specification on certain Spanish quantifiers by French speakers.In Spanish, some quantifiers are specified for Number and directly precede the head noun, in contrast to their French counterparts where a dummy preposition de must appear inside the DP.Results from a grammaticality judgement task and a production task show that intermediate and advanced learners perform poorly on plural inflection with some quantifiers, and reject the use of de.This suggests that they have acquired Number specification on these quantifiers, which allows Case marking on the following noun, but do not produce the appropriate morphology.These results support the Separation Hypothesis, but not the Rich Agreement Hypothesis. ResumeL'objectif de cet article est de determiner si la morphologie et la syntaxe se developpent independammenten acquisition L2 (Hypothese de la separation) ou non (Hypothese de l'accord riche) en examinant l'acquisition de la specification du Nombre sur certains quantificateurs espagnols par des francophones.En espagnol, certains quantificateurs sont specifies pour le Nombre et precedent directement la tete nominale, contrairement a leurs homologues francais ou la preposition de doit apparaitre au sein du DP.Les resultats d'une tache de jugement de grammaticalite et d'une tache de production montrent que les apprenants intermediaires et avances affichent une performance mediocre en ce qui a trait a l'apparition de la flexion pluriel sur certains quantificateurs et qu'en raeme temps ils rejettent l'utilisation de de.Cela suggere qu'ils ont acquis la specification en Nombre sur ces quantificateurs, ce qui permet au nom qui suit d'etre marque pour le Cas, sans produire la morphologie appropriee.Ces resultats appuient l'Hypothese de la separation mais non l'Hypothese de l'accord riche.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.632 | 0.508 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".