Learning to perceive English /d/ versus /ð/: A comparison of French, English, and English–French bilingual 4-year-olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings show that discrimination of the English /d–ð/ does not differ for English and French infants (6–8-month-olds and 10–12-month-olds), although English adults clearly outperform French adults on this contrast, which is not phonemic in French. With respect to age effects, English listeners’ perception of /d–ð/ improves between infancy and adulthood, whereas French listeners’ perception remains unchanged [Polka et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2190–2200 (2001)]. In the present study, we tested monolingual English, monolingual French, and early English–French bilingual 4-year-olds on the same contrast using the same stimuli and procedures to clarify when facilitative effects of language experience emerge and whether they are affected by bilingualism. Four findings are reported. First, a language effect (English>French) is evident by 4 years of age. Second, among native (English) listeners facilitative effects are evident by 4-years of age (infants<4-year-olds
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".