Redeploying appendices in L2 phonology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore aspects of the production and perception of certain consonant clusters (in particular s + C clusters) in second language learners. We administered perception tasks (ABX and non-word transcription) and production tasks (reading, picture-based discussion, and elicited imitation) to native speakers of Persian and Arabic, and compare their results to those in previously published studies of other L1s. We will arrive at two broad conclusions. The first is that many subjects who demonstrate non-targetlike production of consonantal sequences by producing epenthetic vowels between the consonants are not hearing an illusory vowel in perception tasks. Thus, non-nativelike production is not always reflective of non-nativelike perception; non-nativelike production is not always caused by non-nativelike perception. Our second conclusion is that the locus of explanation for the accurate perception in subjects whose L1s lack s + C clusters is the presence or absence in the L1 of right-edge syllabic appendices. L1s which do not license appendices (Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese) will have difficulty perceiving L2 English s + C sequences, while L1s which do license appendices (Persian, Arabic) will not have difficulty perceiving L2 English s + C strings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".