Symposium – Accentuating the Positive: Directions in Pronunciation Research
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
Held at the Association canadienne de linguistique appliquée/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Ottawa, Canada; 27 May 2009. Over the past few decades perspectives on second language (L2) pronunciation have evolved from pessimistic appraisals of the capabilities of L2 learners and doubts about the value of instruction to a view of pronunciation teaching as an effective and important part of language pedagogy. Earlier research on the teaching of pronunciation dwelt extensively on the identification of learners' errors (mainly consonants and vowels) through comparative analyses. Until recently, little had been established about the effectiveness of pronunciation teaching, and pedagogical techniques were based more on speculation and theoretical notions than on empirically well-justified principles. More recent work addresses a broader range of issues relating not only to L2 phonological acquisition, but to the social implications of speaking with an accent and engaging with interlocutors, both native and non-native speakers of the L2. Among these are the relationship between accent and intelligibility, cognitive processes underlying phonological learning, the evaluation of L2 speech using impressionistic and acoustic techniques, prosodic influences on perception of accented speech, the role of ethnic affiliation and identity in L2 speakers' oral production, and the identification of misguided applications of knowledge about pronunciation by businesses and governments. These lines of work, along with empirical investigations of pronunciation instruction, engender a more sophisticated view of L2 phonological learning and teaching. Though further research remains to be done, important achievements have been made in identifying reasonable, achievable goals in the pronunciation classroom, establishing appropriate instructional foci, and evaluating outcomes. The presenters in this colloquium highlighted the major achievements of recent years and identified some of the important problems that remain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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