Rethinking the phonetics of baby‐talk: Differences across Canada and Vanuatu in the articulation of mothers' speech to infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infant-directed speech (IDS) is phonetically distinct from adult-directed speech (ADS): It is typically considered to have special prosody-like higher pitch and slower speaking rates-as well as unique speech sound properties, for example, more breathy, hyperarticulated, and/or variable consonant and vowel articulation. These phonetic features are widely observed in the IDS of caregivers from urbanized contexts who speak a handful of very well-researched languages. Yet studies with more diverse socio-cultural and linguistic samples show that this "typical" IDS prosody is not consistently observed across cultures. We extended cross-cultural work by examining IDS speech segment articulation, which-like prosody-is also thought to be a characteristic phonetic feature of IDS that might aid speech and language development. Here we asked whether IDS vowels have different articulatory features compared to ADS vowels in two distinct linguistic and socio-cultural contexts: urban English-speaking Canadian mothers, and rural Lenakel- and Southwest Tanna-speaking ni-Vanuatu mothers (n = 57, 20-46 years of age). Replicating prior work, Canadian mothers had more variable vowels in IDS compared to ADS, but also did not show clear register differences for breathiness or hyperarticulation. Vowels spoken by ni-Vanuatu mothers showed very distinct articulatory tendencies, using less variable (and less breathy) IDS vowels. Along with other work showing diversity in IDS phonetics across populations, this paper suggests that any understanding of how IDS might aid speech and language development are best examined through a culturally- and linguistically-specific lens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".