Spoken Word Recognition in Native and Second Language Canadian French: Phonetic Detail and Representation of Vowel Nasalization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research has shown that fine-grained consonantal phonetic information can be gradiently integrated during spoken word recognition in the L1. However, the way listeners categorize vocalic phonetic information has not been investigated as thoroughly. Furthermore, second language (L2) listeners’ processing of fine-grained information is not as well known as L1 processing. L1 Canadian French (CF) listeners and L2 listeners (native English) were tested in an eye tracking paradigm with words containing partially nasalized (CVN) and fully nasal (CṼ) vowels. Stimuli were designed to have variable nasalization duration on the vowel, and sometimes include a short nasal consonant word-finally. The main goals were to determine how nasalization duration influences word recognition in an L1 and an L2, and if variations in phonetic details are gradiently or categorically integrated. Results show that L1 listeners gradiently were able to identify the stimuli when they contained mismatching phonetic cues, while L2 listeners display more categorical patterns of recognition. When stimuli do not have conflicting phonetic cues, L1 listeners mostly identify words as CṼ, except when the vowel is not nasalized. For L2 listeners, the pattern was similar, but the rate of stimuli identification as phonological nasal (CṼ) was lower due to L1 transfer. These results support the hypothesis that L1 listeners have phonological representations that include fine-grained phonetic information and that they consider it when recognizing words. On the other hand, L2 listeners who have less experience in the L2 display more categorical recognition patterns, probably because their representations include coarser phonetic information or because they cannot access fine-grained representations, given the cognitive demands of L2 processing. When words do not contain conflicting phonetic cues, patterns of recognition of both L1 and L2 listeners seem more categorical, even though L2 listeners displayed lower rates of identification than L1 listeners overall. This uncertainty can also be due to less detailed phonological representations or to their inability to access all the necessary information to recognize words. Overall, these results suggest that fine-grained phonetic information gradiently impacts word recognition, that it is part of phono-lexical representations, and that L2 processing is qualitatively and quantitatively different from L1 processing.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».