Variation in Cantonese Acceptability Judgements due to Language Contact: An Investigation of Word Order Preferences in the Resultative Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the acceptability of different word orders in the resultative construction among Cantonese speakers in Canada (heritage) and Hong Kong (homeland). In an auditory acceptability judgement experiment, heritage speakers of Cantonese and English-dominant speakers were found to have higher acceptance of the English-influenced Means-Object-Result word order than homeland speakers and Cantonese-dominant speakers, respectively. These results give support to models of bilingual/multilingual grammars that propose that the extent of cross-linguistic influence is proportional to language dominance (Filipović and Hawkins 2019, Putnam and Sanchez 2013). We argue that these results demonstrate a system-altering change in the grammar of heritage/English-dominant speakers due to contact with English, where the functional features of English are temporarily/permanently drawn upon despite incompatibilities between the grammars of the two languages. We discuss possible mechanisms of change within the framework of Feature Reassembly (Lardiere 2009).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".