Interactive Alignment of Multisyllabic Stress Patterns in a Second Language Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the occurrence of stress pattern alignment during peer interaction in a second language (L2) classroom. Interactive alignment is a sociocognitive phenomenon in which interlocutors reuse each other's expressions, structures, and pronunciation patterns during conversation. Students (N = 41) enrolled in a university-level English for academic purposes class completed four collaborative tasks during a 13-week semester. The collaborative tasks were information-exchange quizzes that were seeded with multisyllabic words containing 3-2 (e.g., consístent) and 4-2 (e.g., intélligent) stress patterns (i.e., three- and four-syllable words with the stress on the second syllable). Transcripts were analyzed for alignment, which was operationalized as higher accuracy rates in discourse contexts where an interlocutor previously produced an accurate target stress. The results indicate that alignment occurred when students carried out all four collaborative tasks. Implications are discussed in terms of the potential role of alignment activities in helping L2 speakers practice pronunciation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".