On the lexical source of variable L2 phoneme production
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study investigates two lexical explanations for variation in L2 production: approximate (‘fuzzy’) representations vs dual URs. The focus is on Quebec francophone (QF) production of English /θ ð/ and /h/, which a reading-aloud task shows to be highly variable. Variation is problematic for the assumption that, due to perceptual illusions, URs are inaccurate. How is accurate output generated from inaccurate URs? Approximate representations employ diacritics rather than distinctive features. Arguably, these representations do not consistently generate accurate output. Under dual URs, lexical entries contain both inaccurate URs due to initial misperceptions and accurate URs generated when learners become capable of perceiving L2 phonemes. These URs compete for selection, leading to variation. Perception findings from oddball and semantic incongruity tasks provide conflicting support for the explanations: perception is variable, as predicted under approximate representations; but typical L2→L1 substitutions are harder to detect than atypical L1→L2 substitutions, an asymmetry expected under dual URs. To resolve the contradiction, we reinterpret the latter findings as revealing an implicit strategy of corrective adjustment acquired through experience with L2 errors. While we conclude that the L2 lexicon employs approximate representations, an enduring enigma concerns the considerably higher rates of hypercorrect [h] than [θ ð].
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 it