MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294586467 · doi:10.1177/00238309221114143

Relative Difficulty in the Acquisition of the Phonetic Parameters of Obstruent Coda Voicing: Evidence from Mandarin-Speaking Learners of French

2022· article· en· W4294586467 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Patience, Jeffrey Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Speech · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstruentVoiceMandarin ChineseLinguisticsVowelPsychologyDuration (music)Voice-onset timeAudiologySentenceCodaPerceptionContrast (vision)Speech recognitionComputer scienceAcousticsArtificial intelligenceMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recurring finding of research on the L2 acquisition of coda obstruent voicing is that, in terms of the phonetic parameters that serve to realize the voicing contrast, learners are overwhelmingly more accurate with duration than the voicing of the obstruent itself. The current work expands our understanding of this asymmetry in two ways. First, as previous studies have focused almost exclusively on learners of English, we investigate here whether L2 learners' superior production of duration is also found among learners of other target languages via a study of Mandarin-speaking learners' production of French stop and fricative codas. Results from 18 Mandarin-speaking learners of French, primarily of beginner and intermediate proficiency who completed a sentence reading task, parallel those of previous studies with greater accuracy observed for vowel duration than the laryngeal voicing of the obstruent. Second, we explore potential sources of this asymmetry, in particular, the roles of L1 experience as well as of universal factors, namely, the relative perceptual salience of duration versus voicing, and the articulatory difficulty of voicing obstruents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and SpeechSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207