Phonotactic Probabilities at the Onset of Language Development: Speech Production and Word Position
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
PURPOSE: To examine the role of phonotactic probabilities at the onset of language development, in a new language (Dutch), while controlling for word position. METHOD: Using a nonword imitation task, 64 Dutch-learning children (age 2;2-2;8 [years;months]) were tested on how they imitated segments in low- and high-phonotactic probability environments, in word-initial and word-final position. The relationship between phonological representations and vocabulary development was examined by comparing children's performance with their receptive and expressive vocabularies. RESULTS: Segments in high-phonotactic probability environments were at an advantage in production, in both word-initial and word-final position. Significant correlations were found between vocabulary size and children's mean segment repetition accuracy for word-initial position, but not in word-final position. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that phonological representations are mediated not only by children's developing vocabularies but also by the structure of children's emerging lexicons.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it