WIXLIB

John Levis & Kimberly LeVellePronunciation and IntelligibilityListener Reactions to Accented SpeechThe first section, Listener Reactions to Accented Speech, starts with the plenary address byMurray Munro of Simon Fraser University. “Intelligibility: Buzzword or buzzworthy?”examines the contention put forth in an opinion article in Applied Linguistics (Rajogapolan,2010) that intelligibility is a politically charged concept that sounds good but is ultimatelycounterproductive in relation to research and teaching. Munro provides evidence thatintelligibility has a long history both in and outside of linguistics, and that intelligibility is alsoan issue that has real-world implications in fields as diverse as aviation and public serviceencounters.In “(Un)Intelligibility Tales,” Laura Hahn and Patricia Watts discuss narratives provided byteachers and students about times they experienced loss of intelligibility. Most describedexchanges involving NS-NNS interactions or those between two NSs. They analyze theexchanges according to the features of the speech exchange that caused the loss of intelligibility,how the confusion was repaired, and the role context played in remedying the loss.Ghazi Algethami, John Ingram, and Thu Nguyen, in “The interlanguage speech intelligibilitybenefit: the case of Arabic-accented English,” looked at the Interlanguage Speech IntelligibilityBenefit, the hypothesized intelligibility advantage L2 listeners have over native listeners whenthey listen to speakers who share their native language. They found no significant differencebetween L1 Arabic speakers and native English speaking listeners when listening to Arabicaccented speech. They interpret these findings in light of previous findings and suggest thatphonetic features of L2 speech more strongly influence listeners’ perceptions than nativelanguage.In “Language and Nonlanguage Factors Affecting Nonnative Undergraduate Students’ Reactionto ITAs,” Edna Lima investigated the perceptions of international undergraduate studentstoward international teaching assistants (ITAs). In a matched-guise study, students enrolled infirst-year composition classes watched a short video-taped lecture with three guises. Significantresults were found for accent and speaker likeability.Finally, John Levis provides a collection of themes that arose during a panel discussion ofpronunciation experts from around the world in “Assessing Speech Intelligibility: Experts Listento Two Students.” The panel and audience listened to recordings of the English free speech andread speech of two students, a Spanish speaker and a Korean speaker. Panelists discussed theissues that affected the speech intelligibility of the two students. Four themes are examined:The role of listeners’ experience, the features that most impacted intelligibility, the tendency toattribute loss of understanding to accent regardless of the true cause, and the problems withassessing using tasks that employ read speech.Pedagogical ApproachesThe second section of the proceedings includes a variety of papers that address pedagogicalconcerns. In “Upstream Destressing,” Wayne Dickerson argues that destressing, a well-attestedfeature of English pronunciation after the sentence focus, also occurs in phrases in which two orPronunciation for Second Language Learning & Teaching4

John Levis & Kimberly LeVellePronunciation and Intelligibilitymore strongly stressed syllables precede the sentence focus. He discusses how de-stressing thestrongly stressed syllable immediately preceding the focus provides an environment in which thefocused syllable can be heard more clearly and provides pedagogical suggestions for making useof this pattern in teaching focus.Amanda Baker discusses how teachers’ knowledge and beliefs develop and the ways in whichthose beliefs affect their classroom practice in “ESL Teachers and Pronunciation Pedagogy:Exploring the Development of Teachers' Cognitions and Classroom Practices.” She examinesthe cognitions and practices of five experienced ESL teachers and finds that training inpronunciation pedagogy strongly affects not what they know but their confidence. In addition,their own language learning background, teaching experience and work with other teachersinfluence their approach to pronunciation.In “An Integrated Approach to Pronunciation: Listening Comprehension and Intelligibility inTheory and Practice,” Marnie Reed and Christina Michaud argue that the relationshipbetween speaking and listening should be understood in terms of an auditory feedback loop, inwhich production facilitates perception. Four components are proposed for pronunciationteaching to accompany and reinforce other elements of language teaching: connected speech,suprasegmentals, inflectional morphology, and segmentals. Suggestions are given for what suchan approach might look like in the classroom.Veronica G. Sardegna, in “Pronunciation learning strategies that improve ESL learners’linking,” explores how teaching pronunciation learning strategies improved linking within andacross words. Teaching strategies led to initial and long-term improvement for all groups ofstudents. The pronunciation learning strategies that were used are examined in detail andpedagogical implications are given for the use of strategies especially in regard to the teaching oflinking.In “Using Mobile Technologies for Synchronous CMC to Develop L2 Oral Proficiency,” SarahHuffman moves away from a narrow focus on pronunciation to explore how ComputerMediated Communication (CMC) using mobile technologies can help promote oral proficiency.She explores how multimedia mobile technologies have great promise in helping learnersdevelop their L2 oral proficiency. The researcher also provides points to consider to make theimplementation of mobile technologies more successful in teaching L2 oral language andsuggests future research avenues.Pronunciation Acquisition and DescriptionThe last set of papers address descriptions of learner pronunciation and the way pronunciation isacquired. In “The Pronunciation of /s/ in Complex Onset and Coda Clusters in Somali-AccentedEnglish,” Ettien Koffi describes how /s/ in complex onset and coda clusters patterns in thespeech of Somali learners of English, a major immigrant population in Minnesota, a midwesternUS state. He first describes how /s/ contributes to accentedness, and then explains the patternsusing two phonological principles, the Sonority Sequencing Principle and the Coda Condition.Pronunciation for Second Language Learning & Teaching5

John Levis & Kimberly LeVellePronunciation and IntelligibilityAnita Saalfeld analyzes the acquisition of Spanish stress in “Acquisition of L2 phonology inadvanced learners: Does instruction make a difference?” She replicated previous research on theacquisition of Spanish stress with a group of intermediate learners in a Spanish phonetics courseand a control group in another non-phonetics oriented Spanish course. Her results suggest thatwhen students can self-enroll in courses focusing on pronunciation, those who needpronunciation instruction the most are more likely to avoid classes that include phoneticsinstruction.In “Vowel Spaces in Bilingual Haitian American Kindergartners” Stacey Wallen and RobertFox examine the vowels used by monolingual and bilingual Haitian American kindergartners.Because such bilingual speakers are often identified for help with communication disorders whenthey may simply have a communication difference, it is important to identify whether such helpis necessary. They found that vowel production of Haitian American kindergartners differedfrom bilingual Haitians only in production of /o/, and that there were no significant differences inthe vowels of bilingual Haitian American children and native English speaking controls.In “The impact of computer assisted pronunciation training on the improvement of Vietnameselearner production of English syllable margins,” Lucy Pickering, Pam Pearson, and RachelDaSilva look at how computer assisted pronunciation training can be used to improve thepronunciation of Vietnamese learners of English at syllable margins. Thirteen intermediateVietnamese students took part in eight 30-minute tutoring sessions where they used spectrogramsof their own speech to compare their production to the prerecorded spectrograms. Themethodology proposed in the study is put forth as a model for other pedagogical interventionsbased on the reactions of both teachers and students.Manuela González-Bueno and Marcela Quintana-Lara examine the extent to which L2Spanish learners who vary in language proficiency are aware of how Spanish voiced stopsbecome fricatives in particular environments in their paper“Students’ Awareness of SpanishSpirantization Allophonic Rules.” The results indicate that proficiency is strongly related toawareness, with intermediate learners beginning to show awareness, and that the development ofawareness starts earlier for velars and dentals than for bilabials. In production, the sounds notfound in English (velar and bilabial fricatives) were produced more frequently than dentalfricatives (a sound found in English).In “Computer Assisted Pronunciation Learning of French /u/ & /y/,” Viviane Ruellot exploreshow visual feedback improves the pronunciation of French /u/ and /y/ in the intermediate-leveladult learners of French. Because /y/ is not an English sound, learners will not acquire it withoutsufficient exposure. Even though visual reinforcement has been successful for otherpronunciation features, this was not the case for these vowels.ReferencesRajagopalan, K. (2010). The Soft Ideological Underbelly of the Notion of Intelligibility inDiscussions about ‘World Englishes.’ Applied Linguistics, 31, 465-470.Pronunciation for Second Language Learning & Teaching6

Munro, M. J. (2011). Intelligibility: Buzzword or buzzworthy?. In. J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the2nd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Sept. 2010. (pp.7-16),Ames,IA: Iowa State University.INTELLIGIBILITY: BUZZWORD OR BUZZWORTHY?Murray J. Munro, Simon Fraser UniversityIntelligibility is a much-touted concept in current research on second-language pronunciationteaching and in discussions of World Englishes. Some recent commentary has even asserted thatthe term has become a meaningless buzzword. However, interest in this very central aspect oflanguage communication has a long history. Over a century ago, Henry Sweet’s (1900) guide topractical language study made numerous references to it, and throughout the 20th century it hasbeen of interest not only to language teachers, but also to a wide range of researchers andpractitioners in the speech and communication sciences. Intelligibility is a fundamentalrequirement in human interaction, while the costs of unintelligibility range from minorinconvenience to matters of life or death. Although a focus on intelligibility has importantrepercussions for language teaching, social interaction, identity, and even human rights, definingthe concept and determining its underpinnings have posed major challenges for researchers. Infact, many aspects of the notion remain poorly understood. This discussion examines the originsand significance of the construct, and identifies directions for future research on intelligibility thatwill help to establish the most effective ways of achieving it.THE INTELLIGIBILITY CONSTRUCTOf all the ideas embraced by contemporary pronunciation specialists, the notion of intelligibility as asound teaching principle seems uncontroversial. In fact, it almost enjoys the status of a hallowed pursuit.And why shouldn’t it? If, by intelligibility, we mean the extent to which utterances are understandable toa speaker’s audience, it is difficult to conceive of many realistic circumstances in which any speakerwould not want it. Language teachers therefore take it as self-evident that learners want and need todevelop intelligible speech patterns, a fact reflected in the growing interest in how that end can beachieved.Given the wide consensus on these matters, it seems astonishing to see intelligibility identified asa suspicious, politically-charged concept that cannot be justified in applied linguistics. YetRajagopalan (2010) does just that in asserting that intelligibility is merely a buzzword (p. 465) ona par with value-laden adjectives like beautiful, ugly, and primitive, which, according to him,“we have long learned to regard with suspicion” (p. 465). It is possible that his assertions arisefrom a misunderstanding of how the term intelligibility is applied by those concerned withfostering effective communication skills in ESL speakers. But whatever the explanation, hisclaims are patently false.First, let’s consider the statement that intelligibility is a buzzword – voguish and soon to beforgotten. Outside of language pedagogy, that is certainly not true. Telephone companies, soundengineers, architects, speech-language professionals, air traffic controllers and many others havebeen deeply concerned with intelligibility for many decades. The result is an accumulation of

Murray J. MunroIntelligibility: Buzzword or Buzzworthy?thousands of research papers in technically-oriented publications like the Journal of theAcoustical Society of America, many dating back to the early 20th century. If that concern hadnever existed, our daily lives would be much the poorer – telephones would not transmit speechoptimally; school classrooms would have poor acoustics, such that children would havedifficulty understanding their teachers; and patients with speech disorders would have no hope ofcommunicating effectively with family members.It is not known when intelligibility was first discussed in connection with language teaching.However, the term goes back at least as far as Henry Sweet’s (1900) book on practical languagestudy. Sweet saw intelligibility as a guiding principle in the teaching of pronunciation, which, forhim, was foundational in L2 learning. A half-century later, Abercrombie (1949) published hiswell-known article, articulating for perhaps the first time the dictum that second languagelearners should aim for a “comfortably intelligible” pronunciation rather than for a native-likeaccent. Still later in the 20th century, Gimson (1962) published his popular volume on Englishpronunciation. Revised by Cruttenden and now in its eighth edition (Gimson, 2008), it refersextensively to intelligibility, emphasizing that learners need not sound like native speakers.Gimson goes even so far as to suggest how L2 users can be understood by substituting particularconsonants for ones they are unable to produce. Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, intelligibilityhas taken its place in a wide range of pedagogical materials (e.g., Rogerson & Gilbert, 1990), aswell as in research agendas relating to World Englishes (Smith & Bisazza, 1982; Nelson, 2008)and L2 pedagogy (Munro & Derwing, 1995; in press). Intelligibility has been an active area ofdiscussion and study for a very long time. Nor is there any reason to believe that concern aboutthis topic will diminish in the near future. In short, far from being a buzzword, intelligibility is awell-established construct with a firm foundation in empirical and pedagogical traditions.Second, let’s compare intelligible with the adjectives beautiful, ugly, and primitive – all highlysubjective terms. In fact, determining the intelligibility of speech does necessitate a responsefrom an interlocutor, and the concept is evaluative in the sense that the intelligible is preferredover the unintelligible. But the difference lies in the reason for that preference. We preferbeautiful things and disprefer ugly ones as a matter of personal choice; ultimately, not muchhinges on whether our preferences are honoured. As far as I know, no one has ever died fromviewing something and judging it ugly or primitive 1. But a loss of intelligibility has at timesresulted in human tragedy. Over the past several decades, the NASA aviation reporting systemhas documented thousands of cases of communication breakdowns between pilots and air trafficcontrollers, many the result of unintelligibility. In some cases, a specific phonetic ambiguity wasdirectly tied to tragedy. Cushing (1995) provides the following example:ATC cleared the aircraft to descend “two four zero zero.” The pilot read back the clearance as,“OK. Four zero zero.” The aircraft then descended to 400 feet (122 meters) rather than whatthe controller had meant, which was 2,400 feet (732 meters). (p. 3)Tragically, as a result of this stress-related misinterpretation of two as to, four crew died. Evenmore troubling is that, according to McMillan (1998), this specific confusion is common in1Here I am excluding from consideration any of those unfortunates in Greek mythology who looked upon thegrotesque head of Medusa and were turned to stone.Pronunciation in Second Language Learning & Teaching8

Murray J. MunroIntelligibility: Buzzword or Buzzworthy?aviation. Given that sobering fact, I leave it to you – the next time you are in an airplane – toponder how comparable intelligible is to beautiful or primitive.In second language (L2) classrooms, we don’t expect to encounter life and death situations. Butthe ramifications of intelligibility loss for L2 learners are very real and very serious. Here weneed only consider the plight of immigrant language learners who find that people don’tunderstand them. Apart from the personal frustration they may feel, communication difficultiescan damage educational and career opportunities. They can also lead to negative socialevaluation, such that others avoid interactions because conversation seems a difficult chore. Andthat can lead to isolation from the host community and lost opportunities to use the L2. Denyingthat these serious consequences exist is not simply a mistaken view; it is a reckless andirresponsible position that dismisses the communicative needs of L2 learners.EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO INTELLIGIBILITYIn our research program, my colleague Tracey Derwing and I have developed a tripartiteperspective on the study of L2 pronunciation (Derwing & Munro, 1997, 2005; Munro &Derwing, 1995). We distinguish among accentedness – how different someone’s speech seems(often from the listener’s variety), comprehensibility – the listener’s experience of how difficultthe speech is to understand, and intelligibility – how much of the speech is actually understoodby interlocutors. Of these, accentedness is the least relevant to communication because listenersquickly adjust to many divergences from their own speech patterns; many L2 speakers havestrong accents but are perfectly intelligible to their interlocutors. Intelligibility andcomprehensibility, however, are more closely tied to communicative success, and therefore meritcareful attention. One particularly important empirical finding is that it is possible for learners tobecome more intelligible or comprehensible through instruction with no noticeable change inaccentedness (Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998). Furthermore, when aspects of an accent change,there is no guarantee th

A generally accepted goal of pronunciation pedagogy is to help learners achieve a comfortably intelligible pronunciation rather than a native-like one. But what should this goal look like in the kinds of research studies we conduct, in our classroom practice, and in the creation of self-study and computer assisted pronunciation materials?