The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores aspects of the development of discourse and linguistic competencies by Ontario French immersion students. It represents a new front for second language (L2) acquisition and immersion research in that, firstly, it provides an in-depth analysis of the mastery by immersion students of several polysemous and polyfunctional words (i.e., comme/ like; donc/alors/(ça ) fait que/so; bon; là), words playing key roles in the expression of fundamental semantic notions (e.g., comparison, consequence, location) and discursive functions (e.g., emphasis, topic shifting, turn yielding). Secondly, it offers insight into the use of discourse markers by immersion students, an as yet under-researched area. Finally, it documents the influence on L2 learners' discourse and linguistic competencies exerted by a range of independent factors, many of which have not before been applied to research on the development of these competencies. To determine to what degree the immersion students' discursive and non-discursive uses of these expressions conform to native and teacher norms, the students' speech collected during taped interviews is compared with that of same-age Canadian Francophones recorded in the same situation of communication and with the in-class speech of Ontario French immersion teachers. The findings of this research underline, firstly, the important role of first language (L1) transfer in the students' frequency of use of the expressions and the range of discursive functions this use fulfills. Secondly, they demonstrate that the students' sex and/or social class impact on the use of only those expressions with English discursive equivalents. Thirdly, they show that greater curricular and extra-curricular L2 exposure for the students correlates with increased use of four of the six French expressions. Finally, the findings show that, while the students' rank order of frequency of use of the expressions matches almost exactly that of the immersion teachers, it is far from approximating native norms. This research concludes that explicit in-class teaching of the discursive and non-discursive uses of the expressions under study is needed to redress the students' over-reliance on their L1 familiarity. In addition, greater extra-curricular L2 exposure would provide the students additional linguistic models and allow them to more closely approximate native norms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".