The Realization of English Vowels by Kuwaiti Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning to speak a language does not necessarily mean learning to realize all the phonemes of that language. When a sound does not exist in a speakers’ mother tongue, s/he tends to use a phonotactic; hence, either replacing the sound with another that might sound similar, eliminating the sound, or adding a sound to make it possible to realize. In some cases, the orthography of the target language causes confusion and is considered misleading to non-native speakers. There are only 6 vowels in Arabic phonetics, long and short. Yet, there are 20 phonetic vowel symbols in Received Pronunciation, and 16 in General American. The following study investigates the realization of the English vowels by Kuwaiti speakers, and the effect of orthography on such realizations. 64 male and female Kuwaiti speakers are recorded reading 55 words and 10 sentences. The data obtained was analyzed by Praat (qualitative data), and SPSS (quantitative data). Focus group interviews were also conducted to gain further insight into the topic. It was found that not only do the speakers replace the vowels that do not exist in Arabic, but they also mispronounce vowels that exist in Arabic as they are negatively affected by the English orthography.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".