<i>J’ai tout le temps aimé</i> <i> <scp>expand</scp> </i> <i>mes</i> <i> <scp>horizon</scp> </i> : A Closer Look at the Insertion of English-Origin Lexical Verbs in Louisiana French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the treatment of English-origin lexical verbs inserted into Louisiana French has received some attention, relatively little research has specifically targeted these forms. Most studies have focused on their occurrence in naturalistic data, a practice that risks providing only a partial understanding of the lexical insertion strategies of speakers. This study examines the morphological treatment of two categories of English-origin verbs across six different morphological contexts using elicited data. These data confirm that the use of bare forms remains the most frequently employed lexical insertion strategy, but they also show that lexical insertion in Louisiana French is far from uniform. Moreover, although factors such as listedness (relative frequency) and finiteness have been proposed as predictors of morphological integration in other language contact situations, these predictors do not account for the patterns observed in Louisiana French.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".