Editorial: L2 Phonology Meets L2 Pronunciation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic L2 Phonology Meets L2 PronunciationThe theme of this collection is "L2 Phonology Meets L2 Pronunciation."Such an interdisciplinary approach, of course, runs the risk of any gathering of friends at which you discover that your chessclub friends having nothing to say to your ultimate-frisbee teammates.We are sure, however, that these papers reveal this not to be the case here.In various guises as researchers and teachers, the three editors have tackled the question of what is easy and what is difficult in both learning and teaching (the sub-theme of the collection).We hope you find our introductory mini-reviews helpful in setting the stage.One is on pronunciation teaching (O'Brien), one on functional load (Sewell), and one on L2 phonology (Archibald).There are clear similarities in what L2 phonologists are interested in, and what L2 pronunciation teachers are interested in.All three of these themes are intertwined in the collection.What we have assembled here are papers written by people who have been fascinated by these same questions.In these nine papers, there are some which focus on consonants (Cardoso et al.; Stefanich and Cabrelli; Zhang and Levis), some on vowels (Cebrian et al.; Munro), some on prosody (Ghosh and Levis; Liu and Reed), and some on teaching (Colantoni et al.; Kostromitina and Kang).We group them in this way to reflect the Commentaries by eminent scholars that appear after the papers.We thank Shea, Thomson, McGregor, and Sonsaat Hegelheimer for accepting our invitation to round out the Research Topic.Of course, many of the papers reveal that the boundary line between phonology and pronunciation is really quite blurry.Such is the reality of scholarly life.Stefanich and Cabrelli look at the production of the Spanish alveopalatal nasal/ɲ/by L1 English speakers.They illustrate the complex developmental path of acquisition of this new sound.Zhang and Levis look at a less-studied consonantal pattern: the effects of a merger of/n/and/l/in the Southwestern Mandarin dialect of Chinese.They demonstrate that this L1 property affects production in Standard Mandarin differently than it affects English production.Cardoso et al. look at the effects of different types of instruction on the acquisition of consonantal sequences.They show that the group which received instruction on the most marked structure fares the best.Munro presents a fascinating data set of Cantonese learners of English tense/lax vowels, and shows that there is a great deal of individual and lexical variation which makes it very challenging to talk of a monolithic notion of difficulty.Cebrian et al. probe the relationship between perceived similarity judgments of English tense/lax vowels by Spanish/Catalan native speakers and their perception and production.They discover that perceived similarity is not always a good predictor of discrimination ability.Colantoni et al. draw on the pronunciation literature, and set out and illustrate some design principles for enhancing L2 Spanish intelligibility in the classroom.
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 | 0,008 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,022 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,015 |
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 ».