Phonological Transfer from Cantonese to English for Cantonese-English Bilingual Children: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English acquisition of Cantonese-English bilingual children has emerged as a prominent research focus within the field of bilingual studies. This study aims to explore the characteristics of Cantonese ESL (English as a Second Language) children by examining Cantonese-English bilingual children as subjects. Specifically, three main research questions are addressed: whether Cantonese influences the English learning of Cantonese-English bilingual children, how Cantonese impacts English learning, and what the resulting effects are. To conduct this investigation, a scoping review research method was employed to gather relevant studies on the topic. Five significant studies were selected and analyzed to examine the English learning characteristics of Cantonese-English bilingual children and the influence of Cantonese on their English acquisition process. Throughout the scoping review process, various comparisons were made to highlight distinctions between the studies, aiding in answering the research questions posed in this study. Key findings indicate three primary types of influence from Cantonese to English: tone transfer, delayed acquisition of English lexical stress, and difficulty in acquiring speech rhythm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".