MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366220385 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1125157

A conceptual model of second language pronunciation in communicative contexts: Implications for children’s bilingual education

2023· review· en· W4366220385 on OpenAlexafffund
Youran Lin, Fangfang Li, Andrea A. N. MacLeod, Karen Pollock

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPronunciationPsychologyLinguisticsMultidisciplinary approachPerceptionIntercultural communicationField (mathematics)PedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second language (L2) pronunciation patterns that differ from those of first language (L1) speakers can affect communication effectiveness. Research on children's L2 pronunciation in bilingual education that involves non-English languages is much needed for the field of language acquisition. Due to limited research in these specific populations and languages, researchers often need to refer to literature on L2 pronunciation in general. However, the multidisciplinary literature can be difficult to access. This paper draws on research from different disciplines to provide a brief but holistic overview of L2 pronunciation. A conceptual model of L2 pronunciation is developed to organize multidisciplinary literature, including interlocutors' interactions at three layers: the sociopsychological, acquisitional, and productive-perceptual layers. Narrative literature review method is used to identify themes and gaps in the field. It is suggested that challenges related to L2 pronunciation exist in communication. However, the interlocutors share communication responsibilities and can improve their communicative and cultural competencies. Research gaps are identified and indicate that more studies on child populations and non-English L2s are warranted to advance the field. Furthermore, we advocate for evidence-based education and training programs to improve linguistic and cultural competencies for both L1 speakers and L2 speakers to facilitate intercultural communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207