The role of acoustic cues in the development of (non-) target-like second-language prosodic representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the acquisition of English (primary) word stress by native speakers of Canadian French, with focus on the trochaic foot and the alignment of its head with heavy syllables. L2 learners and native English speakers produced disyllabic and trisyllabic nonsense nouns. The participants with consistent stress patterns were grouped according to their prosodic grammar, and their productions were analyzed acoustically. The results indicate that the L2 learners who failed to align the head of the trochaic foot with the heavy syllable realized stress with higher pitch. Conversely, the L2 learners who aligned the head of the trochaic foot with the heavy syllable realized non-initial stress by lengthening the syllable. Surprisingly, the native speakers produced higher pitch on the initial syllable irrespective of stress, and they used length to realize stress on the heavy syllable. These findings suggest that L2 learners may have reached different prosodic grammars as a result of attending to distinct acoustic cues to English stress. Cette étude examine l'acquisition de l'accent principal dans le mot anglais chez les locuteurs francophones canadiens, se concentrant sur le pied trochaïque et l'alignement de sa tête avec les syllabes lourdes. Des apprenants de l'anglais, langue seconde (L2), et des locuteurs natifs de l'anglais ont produit des substantifs dissyllabiques et trisyllabiques dépourvus de sens. Les participants ayant produit des patrons accentuels constants ont été regroupés selon leur grammaire prosodique, et leurs productions ont été analysées de façon acoustique. Les résultats indiquent que les apprenants de L2 qui ne réussissent pas à aligner la tête du pied trochaïque avec la syllabe lourde, réalisent l'accent avec une tonalité (<i>pitch</i>) élevée. Inversement, les apprenants de L2 qui alignent la tête du pied trochaïque avec la syllabe lourde réalisent l'accent non-initial en allongeant la syllabe. Il est surprenant de constater que les locuteurs anglophones produisent une tonalité plus élevée sur la syllabe initiale indépendamment de l'accent et qu'ils allongent la syllabe lourde pour l'accentuer. Les résultats suggèrent que les apprenants de L2 ont peut-être atteint des grammaires prosodiques différentes en faisant attention à différents indices acoustiques de l'accent anglais.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".