Adult perceptions of phonotactic violations in Japanese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult Japanese speakers ‘‘hear’’ epenthetic vowels in productions of Japanese-like words that violate the canonical CVCVCV form by containing internal consonant clusters (CVCCV) [Dupoux et al., J. Exp. Psychol. 25, 1568–1578 (1999)]. Given this finding, this research examined how Japanese adults rated the goodness of Japanese-like words produced without a vowel in the final syllable (CVC), and words produced without vowels in the penultimate and final syllables (CVCC). Furthermore, in some of these contexts, voiceless vowels may appear in fluent, casual Japanese productions, especially in the Kanto dialect, and in some, such voiceless vowels may not appear. Results indicate that both Kanto and Kinki speakers rated CVC productions for contexts in which voiceless vowels are not allowed as the worst; they rated CVC and CVCC contexts in which voiceless vowel productions are allowed as better. In these latter contexts, the CVC words, which result from the loss of one, final, vowel, are judged to be better than the CVCC words, which result from the loss of two (final and penultimate) vowels. These results mirror the relative seriousness of the phonotactic violations and indicate listeners have tacit knowledge of these regularities in their language.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".