Arab EFL Learner Perceptions of English Phonemes: A Cross-Language Phonetic Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extant studies addressing second language phonetic perception assume that second language phonemes are perceived to be similar to first language phonemes, and tend to be substituted by learners of English as a foreign language. This study aimed to assess the perceptual relationship between the phonemes of English and the sound units of Omani Arabic of the Al-Dakhiliyah region to discover the extent of the influence exerted by Omani Arabic on the perception of English phonemes by Omani learners. Two instruments were constructed to achieve this goal: first, the Omani phonetic system was elucidated via a questionnaire and the consonants and vowels uttered by the Omani people were archived as a phonetic dialect; second, a test was created to examine the perceptual phonetic distance between Omani Arabic and English phonemes. This investigation was designed to test the hypothesis of the revised speech learning model. The results confirmed the model’s postulation that learners instinctively and reflexively associate the second language sounds to the phonetic groups of their first language.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".