A comparison of vowel formant frequencies in the babbling of infants exposed to Canadian English and Canadian French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that normally developing infants typically enter the canonical babbling stage of production between 6 and 8 months of age. However, whether the linguistic environment affects babbling, either in terms of the phonetic inventory of vowels produced by infants [Oller & Eiler (1982)] or the acoustics of vowel formants [Boysson-Bardies et al. (1989)] is controversial. The spontaneous speech of 42 Canadian English- and Canadian French-learning infants aged 8 to 11, 12 to 15 and 16 to 18 months of age was recorded and digitized to yield a total of 1253 vowels that were spectrally analyzed and statistically compared for differences in first and second formant frequencies. Language-specific influences on vowel acoustics were hypothesized. Preliminary results reveal changes in formant frequencies as a function of age and language background. There is evidence of decreases over age in the F1 values of French but not English infants vowels, and decreases over age in the F2 values of English but not French infants vowels. The notion of an age-related shift in infants attention to language-specific acoustic features and the implications of this for early vocal development as well as for the production of Canadian English and Canadian French vowels will be discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".