The role of acoustic cues in the development of (non-)target-like second-language prosodic representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the acquisition of English (primary) word stress by native speakers of Canadian French, with focus on the trochaic foot and the alignment of its head with heavy syllables. L2 learners and native English speakers produced disyllabic and trisyllabic nonsense nouns. The participants with consistent stress patterns were grouped according to their prosodic grammar, and their productions were analyzed acoustically. The results indicate that the L2 learners who failed to align the head of the trochaic foot with the heavy syllable realized stress with higher pitch. Conversely, the L2 learners who aligned the head of the trochaic foot with the heavy syllable realized non-initial stress by lengthening the syllable. Surprisingly, the native speakers produced higher pitch on the initial syllable irrespective of stress, and they used length to realize stress oh the heavy syllable. These findings suggest that L2 learners may have reached different prosodic grammars as a result of attending to distinct acoustic cues to English stress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".