L2 english vowel learning by mandarin speakers: Does perception precede production?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers argue that inaccuracy in L2 speech perception is the source of L2 accent (Flege, 1995), while others contend that L2 speech perception and production develop simultaneously (Best, 1995).There is little evidence that L2 production can precede L2 perception.Sheldon & Strange (1982) found that Japanese speakers were able to accurately produce the English /l/-/r/ contrast without being able to perceive it.However, that ability might have resulted from prior pronunciation instruction, coupled with a reading task where speakers could more easily attend to articulation.Munro and Derwing's ( 2008) study of Mandarin and Slavic speakers' acquisition of English vowels found learners' production ability improved in the absence of explicit pronunciation instruction.Because their research elicited L2 English production using auditory prompts, we can assume that the learners' ability to perceive English vowels must also have improved to at least the same extent.The purpose of this study is to explicitly investigate the relationship between L2 English vowel identification and production by adult L1 Mandarin immigrants to Canada, using the same auditory stimuli to test both identification and production.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".