한국어와 중국어 모국어 화자의 세계영어 발음에 대한 인식과 태도 비교 연구
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the perceptions and attitudes of adult native speakers of Korean and Chinese toward the pronunciation of World Englishes. Fifty-two Korean and 63 Chinese speakers listened to six variations of World Englishes and then completed a questionnaire outlining their perceptions and attitudes toward the different pronunciations. The survey results revealed that Korean adult English learners showed less favorable attitudes toward different pronunciations of World Englishes than Chinese adult language learners did. Korean adult learners preferred American English, but Chinese adult learners preferred Canadian English. Among the three individual variables measured, the first language showed the greatest influence in their responses. The findings of this study imply that, in the context of English education in Korea, it is necessary to raise the awareness of both teachers and learners to the acceptability of World Englishes through exposure to a wide variety of English pronunciations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 teacher head, 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".