A Contrastive Study of English and Arabic Vowel Phonemes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Consequently, the present study sheds light on a very important aspect that is a contrastive analysis of segmental vowel phonemes of both L1 and L2. As one of the Problems, that is affecting the teaching/learning process of ELT. Then to clarify the different areas between the segmental vowel phonemes of Arabic and English. It also aims at making a comparative segmental analysis in the vowel phonemes of both L1 - L2, in order to shed light on the areas of difficulties. Taking into account the different forms of sounds in relation to their spellings. Also the sound systems of both languages L1 and L2. Particular the areas of common mistakes. Thus, it encourages teachers to check English pronunciation before teaching and predict problems before they happen. Also the use of advanced methods and pronunciation dictionary for (IPA). It also helps learners to master all the significant sound features and basic structural patterns. On the phonological levels, differences cause difficulties e.g. The areas of Arabic /p/ and /v/ ,and English front vowels phonemes /i:/-/i/- /e/- /æ/, central /ə:/- /ə/-/Λ/,and back/a:/-/o/-/ ﬤ:/-/u/-/u:/ phonemes in English, they do not exist in Arabic. In addition to the English vowel /e/ which doesn’t exist in Arabic. This observation can't be only linguistically, but it will also confirm by L2 learners. These theories need to be clarified in order to allow rules to be expressed. In the English language, there are 26 alphabetical letters which are totally different than their sounds. Another drawback is the alphabetical method which is intended to teach reading by means of spelling. There is no one –to- one correspondence between sounds and letters. That is to say, each different sound cannot be represented by the same letter. There are also words which are spelt differently but sound the same. Therefore, the present study concentrates on the difficulties that Learners and beginners face in using English segmental vowel phonemes. It also tries to get new methods and new ideas. This study is based on the practical experience of the writer, being specialized in English phonology, a lecturer and an author of a phonetics textbook for beginner learners who learn English as a foreign language. And as a supervisor who follows undergraduate students in the field of experience. That is, in order to find out possible remedial solutions, better suggestion and recommendations. Then follows a descriptive method to achieve this purpose. With the sample of twenty student girls. As a case study of undergraduate trainees of Majmaah Universitiy in the training field, to collect data from the subjects’ real environment during talks, speeches, presentations and teaching in the Field Experience. The results were recorded to be analyzed. In particular, the areas of English vowels and diphthongs that are totally different than in Arabic.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».