Basically the strongest predictors were sound recognition and vocabulary, while intelligence and visual processing played a surprisingly small role.
I remember reading a decade or so ago that early phoneme exposure was one of the most important things to being able to sound native in multiple languages. To me this feels related.
I guess I could've qualified the statement with "this is my take on it". You are welcome to provide your own in order to make this an engaging discussion, and I am happy to be wrong and learn from your interpretation. I feel like that would be more constructive?
Doing a re-read I'd agree the latter part of my statement is a bit of an exaggeration, but based on how the paper defined the categories, Gc and Ga having the most meaningful impact overall still seems a fair takeaway. Though if you'd like to call my labels for those categories reductive, that's fair.
Basically the strongest predictors were sound recognition and vocabulary, while intelligence and visual processing played a surprisingly small role.
I remember reading a decade or so ago that early phoneme exposure was one of the most important things to being able to sound native in multiple languages. To me this feels related.
You have substituted the authors' words with your own interpretation of the results, which is both reductive and inaccurate.
I guess I could've qualified the statement with "this is my take on it". You are welcome to provide your own in order to make this an engaging discussion, and I am happy to be wrong and learn from your interpretation. I feel like that would be more constructive?
Doing a re-read I'd agree the latter part of my statement is a bit of an exaggeration, but based on how the paper defined the categories, Gc and Ga having the most meaningful impact overall still seems a fair takeaway. Though if you'd like to call my labels for those categories reductive, that's fair.