Influence of L1 Background on Categorical Perception of Mandarin Tones by Russian and Vietnamese Listeners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of L1 background on categorical perception of lexical tones by three language groups, namely native Mandarin, Russian and Vietnamese listeners. Tone identification and discrimination scores of two tone continua (T1-T2 and T1-T4) were measured for each participant. Results showed that the two tone language groups, i.e., Mandarin and Vietnamese listeners, perceived both tone continua categorically whereas the non-tone language group, i.e., Russian listeners, did not. More specifically, while the Russian group exhibited significantly broader identification boundaries and performed near chance level in discrimination tasks, the Mandarin and Vietnamese groups presented sharp slopes in identification curves and corresponding discrimination peaks at the cross-boundary positions. Moreover, Mandarin and Vietnamese listeners showed slightly different discrimination curves, which could be attributed to the effect of their different tone inventories. The current findings suggest that native tone language background, to some extent, can facilitate non-native tone perception.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".