Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Immigrants who perceive themselves as proficient speakers of English may still experience challenges when they speak to native speakers of English in “inner circle countries”(Kachru,1978). Blommmaert (2007) argues that language expertise are relatively perceived and such linguistic expertise in their home countries can be looked down upon in the new country as inappropriate in the context and genres of the specific work place(as cited in Roberts, 2010). In addition, Scassa(1994) states that dominant speakers make use of language standards as a gatekeeper to keep their positions and roles exclusive in a society while controlling access to standard language acquisition by non-standard speakers. Thus, this paper tries to investigate ways in which L2 speakers are discriminated in English-dominant workplaces in English speaking countries. The theoretical framework of this study stems from the view that language standards imposed by dominant speakers for enacting discrimination in multilingual and monolingual settings (Sik Hung Ng, 2007) relate to both code of the language (grammar, vocabulary) and the manner of speaking (Scassa, 1994). A language code that can be subject to discrimination at the workplace is L2 speaker’s communicative and rhetorical styles. L2 anxiety and communication apprehension can also have a very strong impact on L2 speaker’s manner of speaking (Shabani,2012; Rose, 2008; MacCroskey, 1977, p.78 as cited in Aly & Sterling Gowing, 2001). Nguyen (1993) posits that nonstandard accents, which is a manner of speaking, are discriminated in workplaces than the speaker’s appearance as accent diffuses social information about the speaker (Hansen, Rakic & Steffens, 2014). Another reason L 2 speakers are judged unfairly is due to their lack of pragmatic and strategic competencies ( Roberts, 2010). An extensive literature review was conducted in search of ways in which L2 speakers’ language codes and the manner of speaking are subjected to workplace discrimination in inner circle countries such as the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia. A descriptive approach is employed, with extensive review of related literature and the use of relevant secondary data. Findings reveal that factors such as language anxiety, communicative apprehension affect the language use of second language speakers which is perceived negatively by standard speakers(Shabani,2012; Rose, 2008; MacCroskey, 1977, p.78 as cited in Aly & Sterling Gowing, 2001 ). Furthermore, differences in accent and rhetorical styles as well as pragmatic and strategic incompetence provide grounds for workplace subjugation (Hansen, Rakic & Steffens , 2014; Roberts, 2010 ). As discussed in this paper, it is clear that L2 speakers experience workplace discrimination as their ability is undervalued based on their L2 interactions at the workplace. Thus, there are a number of concerns to be addressed. Most importantly, It is important to reconsider the availability and accessibility of newcomer language programs in Canada to immigrants with all proficiency levels. Furthermore, dominant English speakers need to be more empathetic and effortful in negotiating meaning while differences in L2 interactions should not be seen as deficiencies that judge L2 speakers overall skills and personality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».