Acoustic Analysis of a Canadian French Speaker’s Production of English Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lexical stress in English plays an important role in native speakersperception and processing of speech. French learners of English have a fixed final-stress system, which differs from the free variable-stress system of English. This difference in stress systems between the two languages may result in interference from the native language stress system on the production of English stress by French learners of English. This paper reports a phonetic experiment that sets out to test the hypothesis of native language interference on stress production. One female native English speaker and one female French learner of English produced 50 initially-stressed, trisyllabic English words of French etymology (balanced for word frequency) twice in a carrier phrase I didnt say ____, but you said ____ yesterday.In the carrier phrase, the first instance of the target word functions as new information and occurs on an intonational phrase boundary, and the second occurrence of the target word serves as old information and occurs in the intonational phrase medial position. The carrier phrase is designed this way in order to avoid the boundary effect of high tone that is often observed due to the French prosodic structure, and to investigate the effect of information structure of new and old information. A 2 (language) × 3 (syllable position) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the data for each parameter of stress: fundamental frequency, amplitude and duration. The results supported the hypothesis of native language interference for the French learner of English. Further analysis was performed for the target word in the prosodic structure and word frequency. Unlike the native English speaker who showed an effect of frequency and prosodic structure, neither had an effect on the overall results for French learners of English.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".