The Impact of L2 Dialect on Learning French Vowels: Native English Speakers Learning Québécois and European French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how a second language (L2) dialect affects how accurately the L2 is perceived and produced. Specifically, the study examined differences between the production and perception of French vowels /i/, /y/, and /u/ by learners of either Québec French (QF) or European French (EF). These vowels differ across the two varieties, both acoustically and because of assibilation of /t-d/ before /i-y/ for QF versus EF. As a result of these differences, QF has an additional acoustic cue with which to contrast /u/ and /i-y/. Anglophone learners of QF or EF were asked to identify and discriminate both QF and EF vowels and to produce the vowels in several phonetic contexts. Results indicate that QF learners were more accurate at discrimination and identification of these vowels as produced by both QF and EF speakers and that L2 dialect exposure affects how well learners perceive and produce these French vowels.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".