Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research on early speech production has often argued that children's representations start out being holistic.They receive more phonological feature specifications in the course of development.In this talk, we will briefly review the arguments from early production for underspecified representations, and subsequently focus on two sets of perception studies, which both confirm the underspecified nature of children's early lexical representations.If words are stored as highly abstract units, then the prediction is that for word recognition detailed phonetic information is not used either.Moreover, not only do underspecified representations lead to asymmetrical patterns in production, the asymmetry is expected to show up in perception as well.Children's discrimination abilities may be very accurate, but mapping the perceived features to stored lexical items is a different matter.In the first set of experiments we replicated and expanded previous research by Werker and colleagues for Dutch.Werker and colleagues (1997, 2001, 2004), showed, using the switch procedure, that 14-month-old Canadian infants do not perceive the contrast in the pair of nonce words bin-din in a word learning task.However, they did perceive the same contrast in a pure discrimination task, as well as in the pair of well-known words ball-doll.Therefore they argue that infants perceive phonetic detail and at least have detailed representations for known words.In our experiments we tested two pairs of nonce words bin-din (experiment 1) and bon-don (experiment 2) in a word-learning condition.In addition, we tested children's behavior on bin-din in a pure discrimination task (experiment 3).Based on results from production, we hypothesized that words like bon and don at the onset of speech would have a labial representation, due to the labial vowel, and words like din and bin a coronal representation.Moreover, we predicted coronal to behave as underspecified.Results from experiment 1 show that in the case of bin -din, Dutch 14-month-old infants do not listen significantly longer to the 'new' words than to the 'old' words, indicating that the difference between bin and din is not picked up.However, in the pair bon -don (experiment 2) infants did listen significantly longer to the 'new' than to the 'old' forms, suggesting that the bon -don contrast is perceived.Experiment 3 shows that children accurately discriminate bin -din.We argue that the difference between bin -din and bon -don is due to children's underlying representation of the perceived words: they store bin -din as (underspecified) [coronal], and bon -don as [labial].The perceived coronal feature of the 'd' in don mismatches with the labial representation of the word.The 'b' in bin on the other hand does not mismatch with coronal as this is underspecified in the lexicon.In conclusion, the results from this perception experiment confirm our predictions and are conform the patterns attested in production.In the second set of experiments, we investigated the nature of the phonological representations of well-known words in 24-month-old Dutch children, using a split-screen preferential looking paradigm.All test items were plosive-initial CVC words that were either
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».