Lingua Franca Intercultural Communication in Asia Pacific: Issues of Phonetic Competence, Phonological Transfer, and Perceptual Adaptation Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explores the challenges of lingua franca intercultural communication in Asia Pacific in view of non-native speakers’ communicative (phonetic) competence in English. With the eastward shift of the global economy, and the advancement of English as the intermediary language in East Asia, strong demands in achieving high English proficiency have been imposed upon non-native interlocutors involved in lingua franca communication in the region. However, East Asian mesolect speakers of English tend to demonstrate particular features in their accent, which may somehow impede communication. The authors proceed from the assumption that accent in late bilingualism may be attributed to cognitive constraints mandatory for processing linguistically important phonological information of the speakers’ native language, and, thus, should be viewed as a likely feature of non-native (L2) phonetic competence, i.e. phonetic organization of speech by functional language users. Phonetic competence, treated in the present article as part and parcel of overall human ability to communicate, is regarded especially important in the context of intercultural interaction via intermediary language. Given the intrinsic relation between the sound system of the language and mental structures (mapping of sound representations and meanings), as well as cognitive and mental computational processes characteristic of human speech, the role of phonetic means is argued to be vital for achieving real-life communicative goals, such as conveying a message, signaling interrupting, asking for clarification, changing the subject, concluding an argument, etc. The findings of the research on intelligibility of East Asian English accent, which involved a shadowing experiment with participation of non-native and native speakers of English, and of the survey on East Asian English comprehensibility, are presented. The importance of developing L2 phonetic competence and perceptual adaptation strategies in lingua franca intercultural communication is discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".