Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Stefan DuBois

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Independent variables related to speaker characteristics The three columns of Table 2 represent the three principal independent variables of this Table 2

Table 2 Independent variables related to speaker characteristics The three columns of Table 2 represent the three principal independent variables of this Table 2

Related Figures (28)

Colloquial words with lowest DP and highest frequency Table 1 is sorted starting with the most well-dispersed words: DP theoretically ranges Table 1
Colloquial words with lowest DP and highest frequency Table 1 is sorted starting with the most well-dispersed words: DP theoretically ranges Table 1
Frequency of use of colloquial items reported in pilot study The results of this question confirmed the findings of the corpus analysis and further Table 3
Frequency of use of colloquial items reported in pilot study The results of this question confirmed the findings of the corpus analysis and further Table 3
Broadly speaking, the conditional inference tree displays only those predictors which the ‘igure 1 visualizes the conditional inference tree generated for the global language
Broadly speaking, the conditional inference tree displays only those predictors which the ‘igure 1 visualizes the conditional inference tree generated for the global language
As was the case with global language competence, speaker nativeness was once again the most
As was the case with global language competence, speaker nativeness was once again the most
Figure 3: Comprehensibility conditional inference tree 63% of the time. Figure 3 represents the results: Figure 3 demonstrates that comprehensibility followed the same tendencies as global language
Figure 3: Comprehensibility conditional inference tree 63% of the time. Figure 3 represents the results: Figure 3 demonstrates that comprehensibility followed the same tendencies as global language
Factor loadings for personality characteristics The numbers in the table represent how strongly each trait correlates with each of the Table 4
Factor loadings for personality characteristics The numbers in the table represent how strongly each trait correlates with each of the Table 4
each level of speaker register. The full tree is available in Appendix D. Figure 4 represents the neutral level of speaker register. As was the case in Section H, included a higher number of nodes than those in Section I, two separate figures will represent stimulus position once again had a significant effect. When presented first, L2 speakers (Node 7
each level of speaker register. The full tree is available in Appendix D. Figure 4 represents the neutral level of speaker register. As was the case in Section H, included a higher number of nodes than those in Section I, two separate figures will represent stimulus position once again had a significant effect. When presented first, L2 speakers (Node 7
Figure 5 visualizes the results for the colloquial register: Again, stimulus position was a significant predictor. When the colloquial guise was a foreign language.
Figure 5 visualizes the results for the colloquial register: Again, stimulus position was a significant predictor. When the colloquial guise was a foreign language.
Figure 6: Solidarity/dynamism conditional inference tree, female gender Figure 6 represents the results of the conditional inference tree for the female level of
Figure 6: Solidarity/dynamism conditional inference tree, female gender Figure 6 represents the results of the conditional inference tree for the female level of
Figure 7: Solidarity /dynamism conditional inference tree, male gender the most significant predictor for males: Beginning with the neutral register, the male L2 speaker continued the trend established
Figure 7: Solidarity /dynamism conditional inference tree, male gender the most significant predictor for males: Beginning with the neutral register, the male L2 speaker continued the trend established
Figure 8: Appropriateness in formal context conditional inference tree visualization for the appropriateness of stimuli in a formal context is presented in Figure 8: Speaker register demonstrated itself to be the most significant predictor in the formal
Figure 8: Appropriateness in formal context conditional inference tree visualization for the appropriateness of stimuli in a formal context is presented in Figure 8: Speaker register demonstrated itself to be the most significant predictor in the formal
Figure 9: Appropriateness in informal context conditional inference tree higher classification accuracy at 51%. Figure 9 visualizes the results: As was the case in the formal context, speaker register again proved to be the most
Figure 9: Appropriateness in informal context conditional inference tree higher classification accuracy at 51%. Figure 9 visualizes the results: As was the case in the formal context, speaker register again proved to be the most
Figure 10: Appropriateness for L2 speaker conditional inference tree Speaker register proved itself to be the most significant predictor of appropriateness for use
Figure 10: Appropriateness for L2 speaker conditional inference tree Speaker register proved itself to be the most significant predictor of appropriateness for use
Debriefing question #1 opinions according to L1 of colloquial guise
Debriefing question #1 opinions according to L1 of colloquial guise
‘igure 11: Global language competence ratings of distractor (30% classification accuracy)
‘igure 11: Global language competence ratings of distractor (30% classification accuracy)
Related topics:
PsychologySpanishSociolinguisticsLanguage AttitudesMatched GuiseColloquial Language
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved