Gender and stylistic variation in second language phonology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicative competence comprises many things, including the ability to use the appropriate pronunciation, based on gender and style. Previous L2 research in phonology has focused on the frequency of nativelike and nonnative forms and variation within nonnative forms, rather than variation within nativelike forms. This study, however, examines variation in nativelike forms by investigating gender and stylistic differences in the English of native speakers and native speakers of Japanese and Spanish. The results of the native speakers demonstrated that there were significant differences based on gender and style. Both groups of nonnative speakers exhibited significant gender differences but only one group showed significant stylistic differences. The results suggest that gender differences are acquired before stylistic differences.Different versions of this article were delivered at the following conferences: EUROSLA, June 1999 in Lund, Sweden; NWAVE, October 1999 in Toronto, Canada; and SLRF, October 2003 in Tucson, Arizona.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it