Identifying Problematic Segmental Features to Acquire Comprehensible Pronunciation in EFL Settings: The Case of Japanese Learners of English
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
The present study examines how to identify problematic pronunciation features for particular EFL learners, namely native Japanese speakers (NJs) learning English, to acquire comprehensible pronunciation, and tests the appropriateness of the selection. The study comprises two phases. In the identification phase, eight English-specific segmentals, /æ, f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɹ/, were selected as the most problematic for NJs by drawing on various cross-linguistic analyses (i.e. a remedial approach) as well as a survey in which the advice of 48 experienced NJ English teachers was examined (i.e. an expert judgment approach). In the experimental phase, the relative influence of these sounds on comprehensibility and accentedness was analyzed. Twenty NJ participants read two types of sentences: sentences containing eight English-specific segmentals and sentences without them. Four native English speakers (NEs) subsequently rated all speech stimuli on a rubric of accentedness and comprehensibility. Significant differences were found between NEs’ ratings of the two types of sentences both in the domain of comprehensibility and accentedness. The results indicate that the eight segmentals determine NEs’ speech perception to a great degree, which in turn provides some support for the validity of the identification procedure (i.e. the combination of the remedial and expert judgment approaches).
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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