Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".