Production and Perception of Single and Double Consonant Letters in English Words by Korean Learners of English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how Korean students produce and perceive single and double consonant letters in English words. To this end, twenty-eight Korean learners of English participated in the production and perception tests of English consonants /p, b, s, d, k, g/ with single and double letters. The participants were first asked to produce English words with the target consonants spelled with a single or a double letter. Then, the same participants were asked to choose the same words they heard among the two productions of each native American English speaker’ production: the original production and artificially lengthened production of the target consonant sound. The percentages of the correct production and perception for the target consonant sounds with single consonant letters and double consonant letters were calculated to compare the accuracy of single and double letters. The study results demonstrate three factors influencing the production and perception of English single and double consonant letters. First, the Korean participants’ performance of the double letters was significantly worse than the performance of the single letters for both perception and production. This clearly shows that orthographic forms affect the learners’ production and perception of English words. Second, modality effect was attested such that the participants’ perception of the English single and double letters was significantly worse than the production of the same targets. Third, the participants showed worse performance for the voiceless targets than for the voiced targets both in perception and production, thus showing voicing effect. Further, the participants’ production of the voiceless targets was significantly worse than the production of the voiced targets. Finally, pedagogical suggestions were provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".