Constraints on novel word learning in heritage speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent research on word learning has found that adults can rapidly learn novel words by tracking cross-situational statistics, but learning is greatly influenced by the phonological properties of the words and by the native language of the speakers. Mandarin-native speakers could easily pick up novel words with Mandarin tones after a short exposure, but English-native speakers had specific difficulty with the tonal components. It is, however, unclear how much experience with Mandarin is needed to successfully use the tonal cue in word learning. In this study, we explored this question by focusing on the heritage language population, who typically are exposed to the target language at an early age but then develop and switch to another majority language. Specifically, we investigated whether heritage Mandarin speakers residing in an English-speaking region and speaking English as a dominant language would be able to learn novel Mandarin tonal words from statistical tracking. It helps us understand whether early exposure to the target feature is sufficient to promote the use of that feature in word learning later in life. Methods: We trained 30 heritage Mandarin speakers with Mandarin pseudowords via a cross-situational statistical word learning task (CSWL). Results and discussion: Heritage Mandarin speakers were able to learn the pseudowords across multiple situations, but similar-sounding words (i.e., minimal pairs) were more difficult to identify, and words that contrast only in lexical tones (i.e., Mandarin lexical tone) were distinguished at chance level throughout learning. We also collected information about the participants' heritage language (HL) experience and usage. We did not observe a relationship between HL experience/usage and performance in tonal word learning, suggesting that HL exposure does not necessarily lead to an advantage in learning the target language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".