二语韩语阅读与自发言语评价的比较

S. Yang, Minhwa Chung
{"title":"二语韩语阅读与自发言语评价的比较","authors":"S. Yang, Minhwa Chung","doi":"10.1109/O-COCOSDA46868.2019.9060846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes two experiments aimed at exploring the relationship between linguistic aspects and perceived proficiency in read and spontaneous speech. 5,000 utterances of read speech by 50 non-native speakers of Korean in Experiment 1, and of 6,000 spontaneous speech utterances in Experiment 2 were scored for proficiency by native human raters and were analyzed by factors known to be related to perceived proficiency. The results show that the factors investigated in this study can be employed to predict proficiency ratings, and the predictive power of fluency and pitch and accent accuracy is strong for both read and spontaneous speech. We also observe that while proficiency ratings of read speech are mainly related to segmental accuracy, those of spontaneous speech appear to be more related to pitch and accent accuracy. Moreover, proficiency in read speech does not always equate to the proficiency in spontaneous speech, and vice versa, with Pearson’s per-speaker correlation score of 0.535.","PeriodicalId":263209,"journal":{"name":"2019 22nd Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA)","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between read and spontaneous speech assessment of L2 Korean\",\"authors\":\"S. Yang, Minhwa Chung\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/O-COCOSDA46868.2019.9060846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper describes two experiments aimed at exploring the relationship between linguistic aspects and perceived proficiency in read and spontaneous speech. 5,000 utterances of read speech by 50 non-native speakers of Korean in Experiment 1, and of 6,000 spontaneous speech utterances in Experiment 2 were scored for proficiency by native human raters and were analyzed by factors known to be related to perceived proficiency. The results show that the factors investigated in this study can be employed to predict proficiency ratings, and the predictive power of fluency and pitch and accent accuracy is strong for both read and spontaneous speech. We also observe that while proficiency ratings of read speech are mainly related to segmental accuracy, those of spontaneous speech appear to be more related to pitch and accent accuracy. Moreover, proficiency in read speech does not always equate to the proficiency in spontaneous speech, and vice versa, with Pearson’s per-speaker correlation score of 0.535.\",\"PeriodicalId\":263209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 22nd Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA)\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 22nd Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/O-COCOSDA46868.2019.9060846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 22nd Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/O-COCOSDA46868.2019.9060846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文描述了两个旨在探索语言方面与阅读和自发语言感知熟练程度之间关系的实验。实验1中50名非韩语母语者的5000个阅读话语和实验2中6000个自发话语由母语评分者评分,并通过已知的与感知能力相关的因素进行分析。结果表明,本研究的因素可以用来预测熟练程度评分,并且流利度、音高和口音准确性对阅读和自发语音都有很强的预测能力。我们还观察到,虽然阅读语音的熟练程度评级主要与片段准确性有关,但自发语音的熟练程度评级似乎与音高和口音准确性更相关。此外,熟练掌握阅读语音并不总是等同于熟练掌握自发语音,反之亦然,Pearson的每说话人相关分数为0.535。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison between read and spontaneous speech assessment of L2 Korean
This paper describes two experiments aimed at exploring the relationship between linguistic aspects and perceived proficiency in read and spontaneous speech. 5,000 utterances of read speech by 50 non-native speakers of Korean in Experiment 1, and of 6,000 spontaneous speech utterances in Experiment 2 were scored for proficiency by native human raters and were analyzed by factors known to be related to perceived proficiency. The results show that the factors investigated in this study can be employed to predict proficiency ratings, and the predictive power of fluency and pitch and accent accuracy is strong for both read and spontaneous speech. We also observe that while proficiency ratings of read speech are mainly related to segmental accuracy, those of spontaneous speech appear to be more related to pitch and accent accuracy. Moreover, proficiency in read speech does not always equate to the proficiency in spontaneous speech, and vice versa, with Pearson’s per-speaker correlation score of 0.535.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信