The Effects of Accommodation on the Pursuit of Interaction in Naturalistic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Effects of Accommodation on the Pursuit of Interaction in Naturalistic Settings. Aiko Pletch KanashiroAlthough the benefits of engaging in genuine interactions for second language (L2) learning have been widely documented (Mackey, 2009), and students are constantly reminded to take advantage of opportunities to interact with fluent speakers outside the classroom, many L2 learners are reticent to do so.Anecdotes explaining this reticence abound, but there has been little systematic exploration of this phenomenon.This thesis explores this issue in the context of Montreal, a French-English bilingual city where opportunities to interact with target language speakers are plentiful, but learners do not always avail themselves of these opportunities.Using a questionnaire and a Matched Guise task, we surveyed 51 Anglophones and 62 Francophones on their perceptions regarding their prospect for, hopes and fears of, and success in engaging in genuine communication in their L2.Results show Anglophones do not seek out genuine interaction for the purposes of language learning.While Anglophone non-learners expect to be respond to in French after initiating a conversation with Francophones in French, Anglophone learners expect a variety of different responses in the same context depending on the Francophone interlocutor they are speaking with.Overall, the findings paint a complex picture of factors underlying Montreal L2 learners' success or failure to engage in communicative interactions with native speakers of their target language.In this thesis, I will investigate factors that could explain a person's readiness or reticence to use the resources in the out-of-classroom environment to foster language learning.In particular, I will investigate the contribution of accommodation, a central theme in the study of interaction in the field of social psychology.Accommodation is the process by which speakers adjust their speech according to whom they are speaking with during genuine conversations.My goal is to understand the effects, if at all, of accommodation, during interaction, on pursuing those opportunities to interact in the real world.Before describing the details of the study, I will present the problem and then discuss briefly the relevant literature.By reviewing the literature, I hope to present a context for my research questions.Finally, I will describe my research methodology followed by a presentation of the results and finish with a discussion of the results and the implications of this study.Through this research, I hope to make a contribution to the field of second language acquisition (SLA) by identifying some of what may bar, hinder or allow language learning in natural settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".