Grammatical gender in Zapotec/Spanish monolingual and bilingual speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As inanimate nouns are not classified according to grammatical gender in Zapotec, it is legitimate to wonder whether it is possible that the influence of Zapotec on Spanish plays a role in the quantity and in the grammatical and structural contexts where pronoun “lo” is used as a substitute for “la”. We also address whether or not there are differences between the Zapotec/Spanish bilinguals and the Spanish monolinguals, as Spanish monolinguals have been in contact with Zapotec/Spanish bilinguals for generations. We have analyzed data from 40 adults, 20 Spanish monolinguals and 20 Zapotec/Spanish bilinguals in San Cristóbal Lachirioag, Oaxaca, Mexico. The data analysis carried out on the three experimental tasks administered to the participants shows differences between the bilingual and the monolingual groups, both in terms of the number of inherent feminine nouns that are pronominalized with "lo" and with respect to the structural contexts where this occurs. Another relevant finding relates to the differences between the first task (classification of nouns according to gender) and the second task (gender agreement), which leads us to propose that the two groups of participants have problems with gender agreement but not with gender assignment.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".