Japanese Tertiary-level Students' Cognition of World Englishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates vary widely as to the number of people who study English globally, from Kachru and Nelson's (2006)(1)estimate of 700 million, to Beare's (2019)(2)figure of over 1.5 billion. However, these statistics are somewhat misleading as English is not a single entity, but rather a multitude of different dialects of the language (e.g., American English, British English), more accurately described as World Englishes(WE).The current study investigated the cognition of WE among 473 Japanese university students, revealing that while a majority of the participants knew that different varieties of English existed (n=366; 77.4%), they could not describe in detail what those differences were(n=351; 74.2%). Among those who could name some differences, pronunciation was cited the most often(n=99; 81.1%), followed by a small number noting grammatical differences(n=2; 1.6%), and none suggesting syntax or pragmatic factors such as appropriateness as being different among varieties of WE. When asked their preference of English instructor, citizens of inner circle countries (e.g., the USA, UK, Australia, or Canada) were rated the highest (M=3.48), followed closely by Japanese English teachers (M=3.42). Theoretical rationale and pedagogical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".