Exploring the ideologies of English on a Taiwan-based online tutoring platform

As the user of communication especially in English, the speaker has to consider the interlocutor’s position in order to achieve good communication. Here, the speakers which include native and non-native English speakers must choose an appropriate language style for the different interlocutors to avoid social consequences. The purposes of this research were to analyze the use of language style of those speakers in The Ellen Show. Also, it focused on the differences and the similarities between those speakers. Last, it focused on the factors influencing the use of language style. The research used the qualitative method which focuses on content analysis. Here, it focused on three native speakers and three non-native speakers of English as the guests in The Ellen Show. The Ellen Show is a talk show program with a casual discussion that talks about a particular topic or issue which consists of a host, the guest(s) being interviewed, the home audience, and the studio audience from which the host might get some responses from.The findings revealed that the native English speakers used all types of language styles. Meanwhile, the non-native speakers used three types of language styles. Then, the similarities were that both speakers applied formal style, consultative style, and casual style in their utterances. However, the difference was the non-native English speakers did not apply frozen style and intimate style. Furthermore, those speakers used language style because it influenced the participant, the setting, the topic, and the function. Therefore, it is concluded that language styles were useful in English utterances either by native speakers or non-native English speakers.
 
 The speaker has to consider the interlocutor’s position in order to achieve good communication. Here, the speakers which include native and non-native English speakers must choose an appropriate language style for the different interlocutors to avoid social consequences. The purposes of this research were to analyze the use of language style of those speakers in The Ellen Show. Also, it focused on the differences and the similarities between those speakers. Last, it focused on the factors influencing the use of language style. The research used the qualitative method which focuses on content analysis. Here, it focused on three native speakers and three non-native speakers of English as the guests in The Ellen Show. The findings revealed that the native English speakers used all types of language styles. Meanwhile, the non-native speakers used three types of language styles. Then, the similarities were that both speakers applied formal style, consultative style, and casual style in their utterances. However, the difference was the non-native English speakers did not apply frozen style and intimate style. Furthermore, those speakers used language style because it influenced the participant, the setting, the topic, and the function. Therefore, it is concluded that language styles were useful in English utterances either by native speakers or non-native English speakers.

Most massive open online courses (MOOCs) are offered in English, including those offered by non-English speaking universities. The study investigated an identified English language dementia MOOC’s accessibility and effectiveness in improving the dementia knowledge of non-native English speaker participants. A total of 6,389 enrolees (age range 18–82 years; 88.4% female) from 67 countries was included in analyses. Dementia knowledge was measured by the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS) before and after the MOOC completion. Rates of completion were also compared. Native English speakers (n = 5,320) were older, more likely to be female, less likely to be employed, and had lower educational attainment than non-native English speakers (n = 1025). Native English speakers were also more likely to care for or have cared for a family member or friend living with dementia than were non-native English speakers. Native English speakers had a significantly higher DKAS score both pre- (M = 33.0, SD = 9.3) and post-MOOC (M = 44.2, SD = 5.5) than did non-native English speakers (M = 31.7, SD = 9.1; and M = 40.7, SD = 7.7 for pre- and post-MOOC, respectively). Non-native English speakers with low pre-MOOC dementia knowledge scores gained significantly less dementia knowledge following course completion than did native English speakers (p <.001, adjusted for age and education). There was no significant difference between the two groups in their likelihood of completing the MOOC. Our findings suggest that non-native English speakers are motivated and able to complete the MOOC at similar rates to native English speakers, but the MOOC is a more effective educational intervention for native English speakers with low dementia knowledge.

English is now used almost exclusively as the language of science. The adoption of a de facto universal language of science has had an extraordinary effect on scientific communication: by learning a single language, scientists around the world gain access to the vast scientific literature and can communicate with other scientists anywhere in the world. However, the use of English as the universal scientific language creates distinct challenges for those who are not native speakers of English. In this editorial, we discuss how researchers, manuscript reviewers, and journal editors can help minimize these challenges, thereby leveling the playing field and fostering international scientific communication. It is estimated that less than 15% of the world's population speaks English, with just 5% being native speakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language). This extraordinary imbalance emphasizes the importance of recognizing and alleviating the difficulties faced by nonnative speakers of English if we are to have a truly global community of scientists. For scientists whose first language is not English, writing manuscripts and grants, preparing oral presentations, and communicating directly with other scientists in English is much more challenging than it is for native speakers of English. Communicating subtle nuances, which can be done easily in one's native tongue, becomes difficult or impossible. A common complaint of nonnative speakers of English is that manuscript reviewers often focus on criticizing their English, rather than looking beyond the language to evaluate the scientific results and logic of a manuscript. This makes it difficult for their manuscripts to get a fair review and, ultimately, to be accepted for publication. We believe that the communications advantage realized by native speakers of English obligates them to acknowledge and to help alleviate the extra challenges faced by their fellow scientists from non-English-speaking countries. Native speakers of English should offer understanding, patience, and assistance when reviewing or editing manuscripts of nonnative speakers of English. At the same time, nonnative speakers of English must endeavor to produce manuscripts that are clearly written. We offer the following guidelines for writing and evaluating manuscripts in the context of the international community of scientists: Nonnative speakers of English can write effective manuscripts, despite errors of grammar, syntax, and usage, if the manuscripts are clear, simple, logical, and concise. (We note that native speakers of English sometimes write manuscripts exhibiting good grammar, yet filled with muddled and confusing logic.) When possible, reviewers and editors of manuscripts should look beyond errors in grammar, syntax, and usage, and evaluate the science. It is inappropriate to reject or harshly criticize manuscripts from nonnative speakers of English based on errors of grammar, syntax, or usage alone. If there are language errors, reviewers and editors should provide constructive criticism, pointing out examples of passages that are unclear and suggesting improvements. Reviewers and editors may also suggest that authors seek the assistance of expert English speakers or professional editing services in preparing revised versions of manuscripts. And finally, all involved should bear in mind that most journals employ copyeditors, whose job it is to correct any lingering errors in grammar, syntax, and usage before final publication of an article. Nonnative speakers of English must be aware that reviewers, editors, and journal staff do not have the time or resources to extensively edit manuscripts for language and that reviewers and editors must be able to understand what is being reported. Thus, it is essential that nonnative speakers of English recognize that their ability to participate in the international scientific enterprise is directly related to their ability to produce manuscripts in English that are clear, simple, logical, and concise. The fact that English is the de facto global language of science is not likely to change anytime soon. Optimizing communication among members of the international community of scientists, and thus advancing scientific progress, depends on elimination of obstacles faced by nonnative speakers of the English language. This ideal can best be achieved when all members of the scientific community work together.

This study explored how users' perceptions and responses to YouTube English learning content vary depending on whether the host is a native or non-native English speaker. To this end, two YouTube channels, one hosted by a native English speaker and the other by a non-native English speaker, were selected, and user comments on the learning content were analyzed using the topic modeling technique. The findings revealed that users of both channels perceived the use of the content as a form of 'learning', studying English expressions, vocabulary, and pronunciation on their own as well as asking questions and checking their understanding through comments. On the other hand, there were clear differences in the comments of the two channels according to the host factor. In the contents of the native English speaker, more comments were revealed that users were aware of the host as a native English speaker rather than a mere content creator. These comments encompassed discussions on authentic English expressions and topics tied to American culture. Conversely, comments on the non-native English speaker’s contents revealed a positive evaluation of the host's personal capabilities and learning strategies. These findings indicated the variability of users' perceptions, reactions, and expectations based on the host, irrespective of similarities in content and delivery format. The results also emphasize the potential of YouTube as a platform for English learning and the significance of host-related factors in shaping user reactions to the content.

Previous studies have found that but and so occur frequently in native and non-native English speakers’ speech and that they are easy to acquire by non-native English speakers. The current study compared ideational and pragmatic functions of but and so by native and non-native speakers of English. Data for the study were gathered using individual sociolinguistic interviews with five native English speakers and ten L1 Chinese speakers. The results suggest that even though the Chinese speakers of English acquired the ideational functions of but and so as well as the native English speakers, they underused the pragmatic functions of them. The findings indicate that there is still a gap between native and non-native English speakers in communicative competence in the use of but and so. The present study also suggests that speakers’ L1 (Mandarin Chinese) and overall oral proficiency in oral discourse affect their use of but and so.

The two studies reported here investigated the notion ofpolitenessas perceived by native speakers of English and advanced learners of English. The questions which concerned us included: (1) Are native speakers of English really aware of the varying degree of politeness conveyed by a given English sentence?; (2) Is there a high correlation between native speakers of English and advanced learners of English in their politeness judgements?; (3) Do native speakers of English really use different politeness strategies in different situations?; (4) Is there a high correlation between native and nonnative speakers of English in the use of politeness strategies? From a theoretical point of view, Study I was concerned with Lakoff's (1973b) claim that politeness increases with decreasing imposition; Study II was concerned with the distance-politeness hypothesis which predicts that one will use polite strategies in situations where he perceives himself as psychological and/or socially distant from his addresee. From a pedagogical point of view, the comparison of the two studies here suggested that the learner's ability ofjudgingpoliteness in the target language does not necessarily mean that he canusepoliteness strategies appropriately in actual communication situations.

The cognitive interview is a widely recommended forensic interviewing strategy which elicits more details than comparison interviews. However, little research has attended to which of its component mnemonics drive the overall effect. Furthermore, some mnemonics—like asking witnesses to recall in reverse order—are cognitively demanding. Responding to cognitively demanding interview mnemonics may be challenging for witnesses who are already under heavy cognitive load, such as non-native English speakers. Speaking a second language is a cognitively difficult task that may leave non-native English speakers with limited cognitive resources to devote to complex interviewing mnemonics. Other mnemonics, though, may be particularly beneficial for non-native English speakers. For example, a transfer of control instruction, emphasizing that the witness has critical knowledge the interviewer needs to know, may help non-native English speakers overcome social barriers to reporting details in forensic interviews. The present study tests the effectiveness of the reverse order mnemonic and the transfer of control instruction compared to control interviews among native and non-native English speakers. Native speakers (N = 64) and non-native English speakers (N = vii 34) watched a mock crime video, completed a language history questionnaire, and were interviewed about the crime video using either a control (free recall + second recall attempt), reverse order (free recall + reverse order recall attempt), or transfer of control (instruction + free recall) protocol. Native English speakers provided more correct units than non-native English speakers, especially in the control condition’s second recall attempt (compared to the reverse order recall attempt). The transfer of control instruction had no effect on number of correct units provided in the first recall attempt of each condition. Accuracy rates were unaffected by language or interview condition, but non-native English speakers, particularly in the transfer of control condition, provided somewhat higher proportions of subjective details than native English speakers. These results suggest that non-native English speakers provide fewer details than native English speakers when interviewed in English, and the two mnemonics tested have little influence on speakers’ output. Future research should develop an interviewing protocol that is sensitive to the challenges faced by non-native speakers.

Numerous studies have documented the decoding difficulties of adult basic education (ABE) students in the United States. However, the native speakers of English (NSE) and nonnative speakers of English (NNSE) in ABE classes present different reading behaviors. To explore this, 90 low-intermediate readers (45 NSE and 45 NNSE) were matched on pseudoword reading (Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; Woodcock, 1987). Their substitution errors in word recognition (Diagnostic Assessments of Reading; Roswell & Chall, 1992) were then classified as phonetically plausible, phonetically implausible, or real words. Both groups made similar numbers of phonetically implausible errors. However, although both possessed comparable pseudoword decoding skills, NSE made more real-word substitutions than NNSE, and NNSE made more phonetically plausible substitutions than NSE. This suggests that ABE teachers should not only be aware of how much decoding students know but also to what extent they actually use that knowledge when reading.

The goal of the study reported in this article is to analyze ways students in the first course of a three-quarter college preparatory sequence in reading and writing write about their experiences in their essays. The student participants were three native speakers of English and three native speakers of Punjabi, who had lived and studied in the United States for between three and five years at the time of the study. In order to assess how these students' writing related to the context of the class and the students' backgrounds, both faculty and students were interviewed. The students were asked about their reactions to their placement, their pre-college educational experiences, and their perceptions of the preparatory class. The reading and writing sections are taught separately and in sequence. The instructors share equal responsibility for assessing the students, so both instructors were asked to evaluate the students' achievement in relation to their expectations for the course. Analysis indicates that, for the students in this study, both native and non-native speakers of English are trying to find ways to make the transition from high school to college. However, in order to succeed, each of these students needs individual orientation to the demands of the preparatory class. Some students need more help with development of ideas whereas others need more help with editing for correctness. In many open-access colleges, high school graduates, whether they are native or non-native speakers of English, take the same test to place them in composition programs. At some of these colleges, all students who are identi- fied as not yet ready for college-level courses are placed in the same preparatory classes. To a certain extent, the attitudes of the students towards this placement as well as their peers and teachers in the preparatory courses influence their progress in writing. These placement practices assume that both native and non-native speakers share experiences that will provide common ground for them to complete the assignments. A comparison of the experiences that both groups of students select to use as content for their essays and the writ- ing qualities they use to do this may indicate aspects of the common ground they share both in high school and in communities in the United States.

This paper considers the position of university language students whose mother tongue is other than the medium of instruction. Specifically, it investigates the attitudes and experiences of non-native English speakers studying either German or Japanese as foreign languages at an English-medium university. The findings indicate that the non-native speakers (NNSs) of English consider themselves to be at an advantage over the native speakers (NSs) of English in the study of German and Japanese as Foreign Languages, despite the fact that the medium of instruction is English, at least in the early stages of the language module. This is primarily owing to the fact that the non-native English speakers are already experienced language learners with an extensive linguistic repertoire. This view is supported by the NSs of English. Some concerns are expressed by non-native speakers of English in relation to an assumed knowledge of culture and society of the host country. The implications of these findings are discussed. Diverging from previous studies, this research focuses on learners of languages other than English and contributes to recent discussions on the increase in linguistic and cultural diversity and its impact within the foreign language classroom.

Over time, second language (L2) speech production changes as the learner gains more experience with the language. Factors such as interaction with native speakers of the learner’s L2 are known to play an important role. It is less clear to what extent, if at all, aspects of social identity influence the development of the L2 (Hansen Edwards 2008:372– 373). This longitudinal study examines the development of the actor Jackie Chan’s L2 (English) phonology. His speech production in two time periods 9 years apart is contrasted: in 1998, before he gained success in the English-speaking world; and in 2007, after he had released multiple Hollywood blockbusters.To check that factors such as age of acquisition were not the only reason for a lack of alignment over time towards English native-speaker norms, another context was taken from 2007, namely, an interview with a French native speaker. In foreigner-directed speech, there exists a pressure to produce more standard variants (Zuengler 1991:234). If Chan uses fewer non-standard variants with a non-native English speaker than with a native English speaker, it would imply that there is some degree of intent in his usage of non-standard forms and that his development, or lack thereof, is not only due to uncontrollable factors of second language acquisition.Two variables are examined: his production of stops in word-final codas containing a single stop and in wordfinal consonant clusters containing a stop as the final consonant. Native speakers of English generally pronounce these stops, whereas native speakers of Chinese often simplify them by deleting or glottalising them (Setter et al. 2010:15, Hansen 2001:340).In 2007, Chan is found to use a greater rate of the standard non-simplified variant than previously; however, he also simplifies his pronunciation by deleting the stop in the codas more often than in 1998. He uses standard forms that align with English native speakers to a greater extent when talking to non-native speakers. After 9 years of working in Hollywood, he would have gained more experience with English due to his social network consisting of more English native speakers, resulting in the expected increased alignment with native-speaker norms. However, his English has developed so that the non-standard variant of deletion is also used to a greater extent; the usage of this variant emphasises Chan’s identity as a Chinese native speaker. This emphasis is possible because of his success in between the two time periods: not only does he no longer have to align as much as possible with English native speakers so as to appeal to the English-speaking market, his success as a specifically Chinese martial artist means that highlighting his identity as a Chinese native speaker has more linguistic capital. Thus, it seems that factors of an L2 learner’s social identity do indeed influence the acquisition and development of their L2.

1 IntroductionThe nature of differences between men and women has always interested humankind. Since our birth we have participated in the process of gender identity acquisition through multiple practices such as wearing a certain type of clothes, playing selected toys, and reading recommended books. These 'rituals' inevitably shape our society and enhance gender identity that further guides our life choices. There are choices that we make intentionally in order to meet society expectations. However, it is highly possible that gender identity could also guide some of our activities without our conscious consent. Normally, we do not pay attention to the way we talk, but our communication style might be correlated to our gender identity.During the last several decades the great interest in nature and existence of differences between men and women has increased. Particular attention has been given to the extent to which males and females use language differently (Newman, Groom, Handelman, & Pennebaker 2008:211-236). The difference in discourse gender patterns can lead to mutual misunderstanding in the course of verbal interaction. Thus, it is important to perceive the existence of certain gender patterns and build our discourse correspondingly.2 Language, gender, influences and discourseAs stated by Newman, Groom, Handelman and Pennebaker (2008:211-236), men and women use language differently. Significantly, it is the process of socialization that plays an important role in shaping gender identities (Gee 1992:19; Rossetti 1998). In other words, the use of language is socially biased and highly dependent on the expectations of society (Tannen 1995:138-148). Girls and boys receive different upbringing, often reflected in their roles and communicative styles (Rossetti 1998). Thus, through communication girls attempt to establish intimacy as a basis of friendship, while boys use language to establish their status and hence try to accomplish different discourse goals (Rossetti 1998). Tannen (1995:138-148) highlights that males use a direct and forceful communicative style, while females have a more indirect and intimate style of interaction, which results from the perception of women's role (females are communal, embodying emotional expressiveness and focused on the needs of others) and men's role (males are agentive, requiring action, self-expression, and individuality). The majority of studies have shown the consensus in the fact that males, in comparison to females, tend to use language more for instrumental purposes of conveying information, while women use it for social purposes with verbal communication serving as the end in itself' (Newman et al. 2008:211-236).The view which is followed in this paper defines discourse as practice that determines the use of language in the light of behaviour (Gee 1992:117; Schiffrin, Tannen, & Hamilton 2001: 538). Since gender identity depends on context (Masaitienė 2006: 295), it may be reasonable to expect that there will be gender differences in the discourse of native and non-native English language speakers (i.e. the contexts in which they learned the English language vary). To exemplify, the study of the discourse of native English speakers showed male dominance in the amount of talk (Masaitienė 2006:297), while the study of the discourse of non-native English speakers suggested female speaking time advantage. What is more, male non-native English speakers managed to utter more words per minute in all types of interactions, while female non-native English speakers tended to talk more only in mixed-gender conversations (Dobrica 2014:12). Dobrica (2014:20) and Masaitienė (2006:300-301) conclude that the discourse of both native and non-native English females strives to use collaboration and to build connections through interruptions and cooperative overlaps. Additionally, Dobrica (2014:21) states that native and non-native English speakers vary considerably in terms of exposing their gender identities in the course of communication. …

In this study, the effect of linguistic experience on the auditory discrimination of words has been examined. 18 subjects, including 6 native and 12 non-native speakers of English, were tested with CID auditory test W-22 in quiet and in the presence of white noise at the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios of +12, +6 and 0 dB. The non-native speakers of English included 6 with 1 year of experience and 6 with 3-4 years of experience speaking Enligsh in the USA. In the absence of noise, the results were essentially equivalent for all three groups. As noise level increased, word discrimination deteriorated for all three groups with non-native speakers of English obtaining results significantly poorer than native speakers of English. Linguistic experience and noise levels were significant at the 0.001 level fo confidence. It appears that at 0 dB S/N, individual variability of non-native speakers of English, regardless of their original linguistic background, was much smaller than that found for native speakers of English. The results of the study tend to indicate that a limited linguistic experience results in a persistent deterioration of auditory word discrimination under impoverished conditions of audition.

Collaborative projects in software engineering span globally. English is the primary language for interaction in software development. Native English speakers can adapt to the rigors of software engineering projects because of their familiarity with the language in code development and communications related to software development. We analyze the communications related to software collaboration using linguistic features. We mine data from online question-answer forum, Stack Overflow and evaluate machine learning approaches to classify contributors as native English speakers vs non-native English speakers.

Hedging means mitigating words so as to lessen the impact of an utterance. It may cause uncertainty in language but is regarded as an important feature in English academic writing. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the style of academic writing in English with particular reference to the significant role of hedging and the linguistic features that mark it. The data was taken from academic articles in the humanities written by native speakers of English, Filipino speakers of English, and Thai speakers of English. It is hypothesized that speakers of English as a foreign language use fewer and different hedging devices than native speakers of English. The result of the analysis shows that the prominent linguistic markers of hedging are the auxiliaries may, might, could, the verbs suggest, appear, seem, and the adverbs perhaps and often. They are divided into three groups according to their stylistic attributes of hedging; namely, probability, indetermination, and approximation. The use of hedging found in the data confirms what Hyman (1994) says; i.e., that hedging allows writers to express their uncertainty about the truth of their statements. It is also found that English native speakers use hedges most frequently. The Filipino speakers of English are the second, and the Thai speakers of English use hedges the least frequency. This implies that hedging is likely to be related to the level of competence in English including knowledge of stylistic variation, and that it needs to be formally taught to those who speak English as a second or foreign language.