Phonemic and pitch variability in bilingual preschoolers: A comparison of Jamaican Creole and English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the cross-linguistic influences of Jamaican Creole (JC) and English on phonemic and vocal development in bilingual JC-English-speaking preschoolers.Method Sixteen typically developing children (12 females, M = 4 years; 4 months) completed the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation in Phonology Word Inconsistency Assessment subtest in JC and in English. Acoustic measures of voice onset time (VOT), VOT variability (VOT SD), mean fundamental frequency (fo), and fo variability (fo SD) were extracted from each target word. Prevoicing was noted. Mixed models and regression models were analysed to understand the patterns of acoustic measures in each language, and the relationship between phonemic and vocal variability, respectively.Result Analyses showed a significant effect of language on fo SD, wherein SD was greater in English than JC. JC spoken (percentage) was a significant positive predictor of VOT SD for voiced (short lag) productions. There was no relationship between phonemic and vocal variability measures.Conclusion Greater fo SD in English may be due to linguistic fo differences and speaking environment. Variability for voiced VOT is likely due to the continued maturation of vocal and articulatory control when children are developing adult-like productions, though longitudinal studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".