The Production of English Coda Clusters by Aljouf Arabic Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how Aljouf Arabic speakers deal with English coda clusters containing two consonants, which will help in addressing the modification strategies used by the participants to simplify clusters. In addition, the study aims to examine whether or not markedness—based on the sonority distance—has an effect on the participants’ pronunciation. Fifteen native speakers of the Aljouf Arabic dialect were asked to read a list of twenty-five nonwords that took into account the sonority distance between C1 and C2 in clusters. In general, the results showed that the participants tended to modify English coda clusters. They used two strategies to modify the clusters: epenthesis and deletion. Markedness based on sonority distance did not provide an explanation for participants' performance. Coda clusters in which the sonority distance is two were modified by all participants. On the other hand, some clusters in which the sonority distance is less than two were pronounced correctly by most of the participants. The clusters which were correctly pronounced by most of the participants include nasal- obstruent clusters and an obstruent-obstruent cluster.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".