Difference between revisions of "Native Language and Dialect"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(93) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Loukina et al. (2019) [[https:// | Loukina et al. (2019) [[https://aclanthology.org/W19-4401.pdf 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 disadvantageously for Japanese speakers | |||
Revision as of 08:38, 17 February 2022
Naismith et al. (2018) [pdf]
- a 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 English proficiency than speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.
- Level 5 Arabic-speaking learners are unfairly evaluated to have similar level of lexical sophistication as Level 4 learners from China, Japan, Korean and Spain .
- When used on ETS corpus, “high”-labeled essays by Japanese-speaking learners 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 disadvantageously for Japanese speakers