Language as a vehicle or as a resource? Exploring the nature of metalinguistic reflection in plurilingual consciousness-raising tasks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While studies have shown that additional language (Lx) learners build on knowledge of previously acquired languages (Ringbom 2007), the natural interaction between languages is rarely exploited in Lx classrooms. This study explores the nature of metalinguistic reflections and crosslinguistic connections during plurilingual consciousness-raising tasks (PluriL-CRT). Three collaborative PluriL-CRTs targeting specific target language (TL) structures were implemented and recorded in a higher education German Lx classroom in Quebec, Canada. Discussions were analyzed for metalinguistic reflections with or without crosslinguistic connections and for levels of analysis (superficial vs. complex) in terms of Form – Meaning – Use (Larsen-Freeman 2014). Analyses suggest that when crosslinguistic connections are made, learners engage in qualitatively different levels of analysis depending on the given TL structures and specific language combinations. The framework of analysis detailed in this study is meant to serve future research into the effects of plurilingual classroom practice that involves metalinguistic reflection on Lx development.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it