MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132978089

Acquisition de l’Objet du Verbe et de la Préposition en Arabe Syrien L1

2023· dissertation· W7132978089 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Alkurdi-Alzirkly

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Historical record
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette thèse examine l’acquisition de l’objet en arabe syrien L1 dans deux contextes, verbal et prépositionnel, auprès des enfants de 3 à 5 ans. L’acquisition de l’objet direct du verbe en syrien L1 est étudiée en comparaison avec le comportement des enfants francophones de l’étude de Pérez-Leroux et al. (2008). Notre objectif est d’évaluer deux approches, celle qui attribue l’omission de l’objet au clitique et celle qui l’attribue à l’Objet Nul. Le syrien et le français sont deux langues à clitique, elles possèdent apparemment les mêmes constructions à objet nul, N et pro, mais la récupération de cet objet dans un contexte référentiel est distincte au niveau morphosyntaxique : une marque d’accord en syrien et un clitique en français. Nos résultats montrent que l’acquisition de l’objet direct en syrien L1 est moins problématique qu’en français. Il s’avère que le clitique en syrien n’est pas le seul facteur responsable de ce décalage entre les deux langues. La variabilité de l’input, représentée par le redoublement clitique, joue un rôle important dans l’apprentissage. Nous proposons, suivant Pérez-Leroux et al. (2018), que l’objet omis est un DP nul référentiel. Ce DP correspond soit au pro, soit au DP lexical dans la grammaire adulte du syrien. L’acquisition de l’objet de la préposition en syrien est étudiée en comparaison avec celle de l’objet verbal. Nous avons deux contextes similaires, VP et PP : deux têtes lexicales, V et P, dont les pronoms objets liés se comportent de la même manière. Les résultats montrent que le parcours du développement de la transitivité apparaît similaire au niveau du moment de l’acquisition, mais il existe des différences au niveau des omissions et des DP lexicaux. Ces différences sont discutées grâce à un rapprochement entre la transitivité verbale et prépositionnelle via l’approche de l’objet nul (Roberge, 2012). La problématique observée dans le contexte verbal n’est pas due à la nature du clitique, mais plutôt à la nature du contexte de la transitivité qui se traduit par la nature de la relation sémantique entre la tête et son objet nul et par la nature de l’objet nul et son interprétation. This thesis examines the acquisition of the object in L1 Syrian Arabic in two contexts, verbal and prepositional, in 3 to 5 year old children. The acquisition of the direct object of the verb in L1 Syrian is studied in comparison with the behaviour of French-speaking children in Pérez-Leroux et al. (2008). Our aim is to evaluate two approaches, one that attributes the omission of the object to the clitic itself and another that attributes it to the Null Object. Syrian and French are two clitic languages, they apparently have the same null object constructions, N and pro, but the recovery of this object in a referential context is morphosyntactically distinct: an agreement mark in Syrian and a clitic in French. Our results show that the acquisition of the direct object in Syrian L1 is less problematic than in French. It turns out that the clitic in Syrian is not the only factor responsible for this discrepancy between the two languages. Input variability, represented by clitic doubling, plays an important role in learning. We propose, following Pérez-Leroux et al. (2018), that the omitted object is a referential null DP. This DP corresponds to either pro or lexical DP in the adult grammar of Syrian. The acquisition of the object of the preposition in Syrian is studied in comparison with that of the verbal object. We have two similar contexts, VP and PP: two lexical heads, V and P, whose bound object pronouns behave in the same way. The results show that the developmental path of transitivity appears similar with respect of the acquisition timing, but there are differences in relation to lexical omissions and DPs. These differences are discussed through a comparison between verbal and prepositional transitivity via the null object approach (Roberge, 2012). The problem observed in the verbal context is not due to the nature of the clitic, but rather to the nature of the context of transitivity which is reflected in the nature of the semantic relationship between the head and its null object and the nature of the null object and its interpretation.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207