What is the impact of age of second language acquisition on the production of consonants and vowels among childhood bilinguals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated bilinguals’ ability to produce language-specific acoustic values for consonants and vowels that are highly similar across the two languages. To investigate this ability, we targeted early bilinguals who had acquired two languages before the age of 12 and continued to use both languages on a daily basis. These adult bilinguals were separated into two groups: simultaneous bilinguals (or nearly so) who acquired both languages by their third year, and sequential bilinguals who acquired their second language between the ages of 8 and 12 years. Their speech production was studied through an acoustic analysis of stop consonants (voice onset time) and vowels (formant structure). Despite the differences in age of acquisition, these bilinguals used both languages on a regular basis at work and at home and were very proficient in both languages. In contrast to other early bilinguals who undergo a change in language dominance from their first language to their second, the participants in this study maintained relatively balanced abilities in both languages. This study revealed that childhood bilinguals can maintain contrasts across their two languages, even for very similar phonemes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".