Comparing two notions of transfer in third languagephonological acquisition
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
Abstract In third language acquisition (L3A) research on cross-linguistic influence, much of the emphasis of the existing acquisition models has been on the transfer of morphosyntactic features, leaving phonology understudied. This chapter seeks to assess the empirical adequacy of two competing hypotheses of transfer and establish their potential value for future L3 phonology research: Full Transfer (FT) and Full Transfer Potential (FTP). I review previous L3 phonological studies and examine how FT and FTP could explain the data patterns. My analyses suggest that FTP provides greater empirical coverage and more explanatory potential than FT. Though better in accounting for sources of L3 phonological transfer post facto and beyond the initial stage, FTP may be limited concerning its core idea that “anything may transfer” ( Westergaard, 2019 ).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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