Sensitivity to Word-Final Phonotactics in 9- to 16-Month-Old Infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that infants begin to display sensitivities to language-specific phonotactics and probabilistic phonotactics at around 9 months of age. However, certain phonotactic patterns have not yet been examined, such as contrast neutralization, in which phonemic contrasts are neutralized typically in syllable- or word-final position. Thus, the acquisition of contrast neutralization is dependent on infants' ability to perceive certain contrasts in final position. The studies reported here test infants' sensitivity to voicing neutralization in word-final position and infants' discrimination of voicing and place of articulation (POA) contrasts in word-initial and word-final position. Nine and 11-month-old Dutch-learning infants showed no preference for legal versus illegal voicing phonotactics that were contrasted in word-final position. Furthermore, 10-month-old infants showed no discrimination of voicing or POA contrasts in word-final position, whereas they did show sensitivity to the same contrasts in word-initial position. By 16 months, infants were able to discriminate POA contrasts in word-final position, although showing no discrimination of the word-final voicing contrast. These findings have broad implications for models of how learners acquire the phonological structures of their language, for the types of phonotactic structures to which infants are presumed to be sensitive, and for the relative sensitivity to phonemic distinctions by syllable and word position during acquisition.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it