Effects of L1 and L2 Communication Apprehension on Speaking Skills of Japanese University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the effect of communication apprehension in both L1 and L2 on proficiency in word stress of Japanese university students. Two structured, closed-ended questionnaires, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) and the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) were utilized along with speaking scores. A target word in an exclamatory sentence was used to examine word stress that affects intelligibility in spoken English. Acoustic correlates of the differences between stressed and unstressed syllables were investigated with four acoustic parameters: fundamental frequency (fo) range, fo slope, duration, and intensity. Results showed that of the four parameters, word stress represented by fo range and fo slope showed a significant negative correlation with L1 communication apprehension. In addition, speaking scores were related to L1 communication apprehension and word stress proficiency represented by fo range. These findings also suggest the effect of communication apprehension on English prosody as demonstrated by fo. In addition, speaking scores were related to L1 communication apprehenison and proficiency in word stress represented by fo range. These findings suggest the effect of communication apprehension on English speaking skills.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".