The effects of parental interaction on French-English bilingual infants’ vocalization and turn-taking rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior studies suggest that parent-infant interactions play an important role on infant volubility, which is an important indication of language development. However, little is known about how speaker and language contexts affect infant volubility in bilingual infants. In the current study, we examined how the speaker context (Mother versus Father) and the language context (French versus English) might influence bilingual infants’ rate of vocalization and turn-taking. We analyzed naturalistic daylong recordings from English-French bilingual parent/infant dyads (n = 21). Preliminary analysis showed that mothers elicited more turn-taking in their 10-month-old infants than fathers did, but they did not elicit more vocalizations. Importantly, there was no effect of language on infant vocalization or turn-taking. We will alsoreport analyses that examine whether the dominant language in the bilingual child’s input has an effect on infant volubility that is independent of talker effects. These novel findings will inform our understanding of how parent-infant interactions shape the language development of infants being raised in bilingual families.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".