Phonetic Implementation of Prosodic Emphasis in Preschool-Aged Children and Adults: Probing the Development of Sensorimotor Speech Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We aimed to investigate the production of contrastive emphasis in French-speaking 4-year-olds and adults. Based on previous work, we predicted that, due to their immature motor control abilities, preschool-aged children would produce smaller articulatory differences between emphasized and neutral syllables than adults. Method Ten 4-year-old children and 10 adult French speakers were recorded while repeating /bib/, /bub/, and /bab/ sequences in neutral and contrastive emphasis conditions. Synchronous recordings of tongue movements, lip and jaw positions, and speech signals were made. Lip positions and tongue shapes were analyzed; formant frequencies, amplitude, fundamental frequency, and duration were extracted from the acoustic signals; and between-vowel contrasts were calculated. Results Emphasized vowels were higher in pitch, intensity, and duration than their neutral counterparts in all participants. However, the effect of contrastive emphasis on lip position was smaller in children. Prosody did not affect tongue position in children, whereas it did in adults. As a result, children's productions were perceived less accurately than those of adults. Conclusion These findings suggest that 4-year-old children have not yet learned to produce hypoarticulated forms of phonemic goals to allow them to successfully contrast syllables and enhance prosodic saliency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".