The acquisition of allophones among bilingual Spanish–English and French–English 3-year-old children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children are exposed to highly variable input from multiple sources within their speech community. This study examines the acquisition of allophones in Spanish and French by monolingual and bilingual children. We hypothesised that two factors would influence allophone acquisition: (1) the amount of exposure to phonological input, and (2) the degree of variability of the allophonic pattern. Thirty-four typically developing 3-year-old participated in the study. The analyses revealed that regardless of the language, the monolingual children produced similar error rates in the production of the target allophones. In contrast, the bilingual children produced different patterns of acquisition of the allophones: the Spanish-English bilinguals produced higher error rates than the monolinguals, whereas the French-English bilinguals produced lower error rates than the monolinguals. Possibilities for these differences are discussed within the context of structural complexity as well as in light of the effects of between-language interaction on bilingual phonological development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".