Difference between revisions of "Native Language and Dialect"

Revision as of 07:26, 19 May 2022

Naismith et al. (2018) pdf

Model that measures L2 learners’ lexical sophistication with the frequency list based on the native speaker corpora
Arabic-speaking learners are rated systematically lower across all levels of human-assessed English proficiency than speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.
Level 5 Arabic-speaking learners are inaccurately evaluated to have similar level of lexical sophistication as Level 4 learners from China, Japan, Korean and Spain .
When used on the ETS corpus, essays by Japanese-speaking learners with higher human-rated lexical sophistication are rated significantly lower in lexical sophistication than Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Spanish peers.

Loukina et al. (2019) pdf

Models providing automated speech scores on English language proficiency assessment
L1-specific model trained on the speaker’s native language was the least fair, especially for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers, but not for German speakers
All models (Baseline, Fair feature subset, L1-specific) performed worse for Japanese speakers

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Naismith et al. (2018) [http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/40665/1/EDM2018_paper_37.pdf pdf]
-* a model that measures L2 learners’ lexical sophistication with the frequency list based on the native speaker corpora
+* Model that measures L2 learners’ lexical sophistication with the frequency list based on the native speaker corpora
 * Arabic-speaking learners are rated systematically lower across all levels of human-assessed English proficiency than speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.
 * Level 5 Arabic-speaking learners are inaccurately evaluated to have similar level of lexical sophistication as Level 4 learners from China, Japan, Korean and Spain .