Linguistic Dimensions of Accentedness and Comprehensibility: Exploring Task and Listener Effects in Second Language French
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
Abstract This study explored the effects of task and listeners’ linguistic background on judgments of accentedness and comprehensibility in second language (L2) French. Forty Spanish speakers of L2 French recorded a picture narrative and answered an interview question. These audio samples were assessed by native French listeners with (n = 10) and without (n = 10) knowledge of L2 Spanish using 1,000‐point sliding scales to evaluate accentedness and comprehensibility, as well as nine linguistic variables targeting pronunciation, fluency, lexis, grammar, and discourse. In the picture narrative task (cognitively less complex), accentedness could be distinguished from comprehensibility at the level of the linguistic dimensions associated with each construct. While accentedness was related to pronunciation and fluency (consonant and vowel errors, intonation, speech rate), comprehensibility was additionally linked to lexis (accuracy, richness), grammar (accuracy, complexity), and discourse richness. However, in the interview task (cognitively more complex), both accentedness and comprehensibility had similar linguistic profiles, associated with all nine linguistic variables. Listeners’ experience with L2 Spanish had little impact on listener ratings of accentedness or comprehensibility in both tasks. Findings are discussed in relation to L2 instruction and the role of task complexity in targeting various dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility.
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 | 0.000 | 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