MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390057631 · doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2293024

L1 grammatical attrition in late Spanish-English bilinguals in the UK: aspectual interpretations of present tense in Spanish

2023· article· en· W4390057631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glyn Hicks, Laura Domínguez, Elizabeth R. Jamieson, Monika S. Schmid

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilArts and Humanities Research CouncilUniversity of Southampton
KeywordsLinguisticsAttritionPsychologyPast tenseMorphemeHistoryPhilosophyVerb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article sheds light on the linguistic and extralinguistic conditions that determine the likelihood of L1 grammatical attrition in late sequential bilinguals. We explore whether aspectual interpretations associated with the present tense may be a vulnerable area for the native grammar of 30 late Spanish-English bilinguals who have settled in the UK for over 15 years. Attrition of this property in L1 Spanish grammars has been reported by Cuza (2010. On the L1 attrition of the Spanish present tense. Hispania 93, no. 2: 256–272. doi:10.1353/hpn.2010.a382874) for Spanish-English bilinguals in the USA and Canada. Our finding of no attrition for UK-based Spanish bilinguals suggests that in Cuza’s study, attrition may be mediated by dialectal variation in the L1 in the North American context, where Spanish is a widespread and visible community language. Further, we ascribe the absence of attrition to a specific characteristic of the grammatical distinction between the L1 and L2: where the L2 grammar provides options representing only a subset of the options available to the L1 for the corresponding grammatical property, attrition may be disfavoured.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Learning JournalSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207