arXiv:2608.00507v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Perceptual narrowing---the developmental loss of non-native phoneme discrimination in the first year of life \citep{werker1984}---is a canonical developmental finding, yet \emph{what learning objective produces it} remains open. We train a (\sim)7,M-parameter Transformer encoder on child-directed and read speech and evaluate phoneme ABX in English, French, and Mandarin over ten seeds, the seed as the unit of replication. Six results. \textbf{(1)}~The objective sets the direction of cross-lingual transfer: reconstruction (masked mel-prediction) degrades non-native discrimination, prediction (frame-contrastive) improves it---a same-encoder, same-data gap of (+0.051) in first-layer Mandarin ABX ((p=3\times10^{-8})), unanimous in sign across twenty runs. \textbf{(2)}~That decline combines a large arm-intrinsic difficulty gradient with a smaller language-specialization effect (matched vs.\ mismatched (+0.022), (p=10^{-4}), all four layers). \textbf{(3)}~Against a language-symmetric raw-mel floor, reconstruction pushes the first layer \emph{below} the discriminability of its input; prediction pushes it \emph{above}. \textbf{(4)}~Read speech gives a (3.6\times) steeper non-native decline than child-directed speech. \textbf{(5)}~The customary three-seed budget cannot see this reliably: an effect unambiguous at ten seeds is called significant by as few as 70% of three-seed subsets. \textbf{(6)}~Six objective configurations---sharpening, compression, consolidation, their composition, and word-level semantic grounding in two forms---fail to produce the full developmental signature (native improves \emph{and} non-native declines): a single objective moves both languages the same way because it acts on a shared representation. We conclude that the objective, not the architecture, is the first-order determinant of narrowing-shaped representational change.
Learning Compositional Meta-Routing for Agentic Workflows: An Executable Benchmark