Academic listening

Edited By: John Flowerdew Chapter 1: Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension an overview. John Flowerdew Comprehension in general Linguistic theory tells us that there are at least five types of knowledge involved in the process of comprehension: pragmatic (knowledge of the world and the context of situation), semantic (meaning within language), syntactic (grammatical rules), lexical (vocabulary) and phonological (intonation) !hey all interact with each other For a long time, scholars concieved comprehension as a "bottom#up$ process, where we decode information at the level of the language (lower level) and then we interpret it in relation to pragmatic knowledge (higher level) Later, scholars worked with "top#down$ models, and said that we start with a pragmatic inferential process and then we pay attention to linguistic data Distinctive features of listening comprehension %eal time processing: a listening texts exists in time rather than in place, it is ephemeral, so it must be percieved as it is uttered !here is redundancy, which means listeners can revise their understanding of an utterance in the light of new information, but listeners do not have the same control over the text as de readers (who can skip parts, re#read, etc) &honological and lexico grammatical features: the listener must recogni'e unit boundaries phonologically (recogni'e irregular pausing, false starts, hesitations, stress and intonation patterns) Differences between lecture listening and general listening (ifferences of degree: the type of background knowledge re)uired (in a lecture it is more specific to a particular sub*ect, in conversation it is more general), the ability to distinguish between what is relevant and what isn$t (this is more important in lectures than in conversation), the application of turn#taking conventions (essential in conversation, not so much in lectures), the amount of implied meaning (lectures have an emphasis on propositional meaning, conversations in interpersonal meaning) (ifferences of kind: the need to concentrate on and understand long stretches of discourse (present in lectures and not in conversation), note#taking (present in lectures, rarely in conversation), the ability to integrate the incoming message with information from other media (happens mainly in lectures with handouts, blackboards, pro*ectors) Micro-skills !here are three sources to analyse these skills Information from comprehension theory, %ichard$s list: ability to identify purpose and topic (related to the content), and ability to recogni'e the roles of discourse markers, key lexical items and the function of intonation (related to form) Information from lecturers, survey: identifying ma*or themes, topic and examples and inferring information (related to content), identifying key vocabulary and the mode of the lecture (related to form) and taking notes and retrieving information from them Information from learners, survey: they mentioned problems with speed of delivery, excessive loads of new terminology and concepts and difficult in concentrating +trategies used: reading texts, peer help, lecturer help, note#taking, etc ote-taking ,

-t is a very important micro#skill in the comprehension of lectures %ost classifies them into four types: topic#relation notes (words or phrases), concept#ordering notes (arrows, marking main points), focussing notes (using parenthesis) and revising notes (deletion) !ecturing style .orrison: formal and informal (udley#/vans: reading style (the speaker reads or speaks as if reading from notes), conversational style (the speaker speaks informally with or without notes) and rethorical style (the speaker presents himself as a performer) 0offman: memori'ation, aloud reading and fresh talk Frederick: participatory lecture (closer to a discussion) !he key parameters to describe and classify lectures are whether the lecture is processed by the speaker in real time or is read and whether it allows for spoken interaction with the audience or not Discourse structure 1lthought lectures are basically monologues, there are interactive acts from the +23 model (markers like well, right, now, let$s go on) 3ook proposed a rank for lectures: lecture, exposition, episode, move and act /ach level is made up of elements of a lower level 3oulthard proposed four ranks: lecture, transaction (focussing boundaries), se)uence (phonological means) and member (syntactic means) 4nowledge of the structure of a lecture helps the comprehension of it 3oulthard and .ontgomery make a distinction between "main discourse$ (informative level) and "subsidiary discourse$ (metapragmatic level) .etapragmatic markers help comprehension (to start with, to conclude, etc) Interpersonal features !hese refer to how the speakers relate to the audience, conveying attitudes and opinions while giving definitions (they evaluate them, say how they fit into the whole of the discourse, etc) For example: anecdotes, asides, )uestions, etc !hey serve to develope an atmosphere cooperative interaction and consensus !e"ico-grammatical features &roblems in linguistic decoding can distract cognitive resources away from the engagement of background knowledge (udley#/vans classify lexis in three categories: technical, semi#technical and collo)uial Lectures can vary from informal to formal, restricted to elaborated, contextuali'ed to decontextuali'ed and involved to detached, depending on the style +poken: that clauses, subordiante clauses, contractions, ,st adnd 5nd person pronouns, etc 6ritten: nominali'ations, prepositions, passive constructions Chapter 8: University lectures macro-structures and micro-structures. Lynne 7oung Model of analysis !he author works with the model of +ystemic Functional 0rammar, which indicates the connection between situational factors and language choices -t shows how different contexts engender different language varieties !he situation consists of three main constructs: the field (what the speakers are doing in a particular context, in lectures it is the sub*ect matter), the tenor (the relationship between speakers, it marks the degree of formality and the purpose) and the mode (channel of communication) !hese correspond to three different metafunctions: the ideational (content, field, verbs and nouns), the interpersonal (speech acts, tenor, mood and modality) and the textual (cohesive features, mode) #hasal description 5

Lectures are structured in six phases (strands of discourse which constitute its macro#structure) !he first three are metadiscoursal (they comment on the discourse): discourse structuring (addressors indicate the direction that they will take in the lecture, using discourse markers, rethorical )uestions to give emphasis, modality), conclusion (lecturers summari'e points they have made throughout the discourse, there is repetition of terms and indicative declarative mood) and evaluation (lecturers evaluate information about to be or already transmited, there is repetition of key terms and ad*ectives) !hey are related to the tenor of the situation (relationship between lecturers and students) !he other three are characteristic of university lectures: there is the interaction phase, where lecturers maintain contact with the audience to reduce the distance and ensure that they understand, by making )uestions (yes8no) !he other two phases are related to the theory: content (the transmision of theoretical information) and examples (the lecturer illustrates concepts through concrete examples) 1ll the phases interspers with each other, they do not occur one after the other Lectures don$t have only one beginning, one middle and one end, but many of each %ecogni'ing phases helps comprehension Chapter 9: Lecture Listening in an ethnographic perspective. .alcolm 9enson Features of lectures !he sociolinguistic features of lectures are: a) it is a performance, given special status by attendance being compulsory: there is a marked way of speaking that sets a frame for what is said (which expresses both content and attitude) and there is an audience that has to grasp a meaning b) it is organi'ed along two axes: the first is the structural one of the university, the department and the lecturer, the second is that of its relationship to the rest of the course (it is based on previous ones, and it has its own structure) c) it is organi'ed in relation to other channels, and students have different preferences among these (like texts, interaction, etc) d) it takes place in a specific context of time and place, characteri'ed by different factors (relationships, expectations, attitudes, styles, norms of behaviour) e) it relies on the norms and rules of the temporary speaking and listening community called "the class$: who takes part, the roles, the relationships !he teacher is constrained in terms of language and content, but is free in the methodology and the distribution of the turn at talk !he student is constrained in relation to the turn#taking, but doesn$t have intellectual and social obligations f) it activates the principles and values and goals which guide the members of the speech community: a lecturer might be seen as a "facilitator$ (providing ade)uate framework for the students) or as a "guide$ (someone who has more knowledge and experience) g) it makes linguistic and cognitive demands on the listener: the listener has to consider linguistic aspects such as vocabulary and syntax, and alterate his knowledge system (by substitution, addition, substraction) according to the new information h) it is patterned into certain classes of communication acts which are recogni'ed by the participants and are capable of being described: a lecture is a culturally organi'ed form of discourse aimed at the production of culturally constitued meaning i) it allows for a specific range of events to occur: listening, note#taking, reading, writing, interaction, group work, etc, which are all involved in the process of learning Chapter 13: Training lectures for international audiences. !ony Lynch !istening comprehension research !he listening process draws on multiple sources of information: schematic knowledge (background and procedural knowledge), contextual knowledge (knowledge of situation and of co#text) :

and systemic knowledge !here is a co#occurence of top#down expectation driven processing and bottom# up data#driven processing -t is important that lecturers giving international classes know how to select culturally accesible examples when giving explanations and how to manage audience )uestions $uestions ;uestions may help comprehension but they may also be a problem 1 )uestion made by a student may sidetrack the speaker to the extent that the lecture loses its intended coherence !hey also posit difficulties for students, since they might feel exposed, or that they are threatening the teacher$s authority Lecturers should make some pauses, to allow listeners time to review what they have heard, and to give the oportunity to make a )uestions !hey should also establish the rules for )uestioning and be able to rephrase or repeat )uestions to make sure they understood them -t is important that they engage the audience and encourage participation %"planations !hey might be done with emphatic gestures, simple sentences, appropirate pauses, illustrations, examples and analogies 1lso with the use of "signposts$ (showing structure, main ideas, transition between sections) and redundancy (paraphrasing, repetition, reformulation, etc) Lecturers should, when adressing an international audience, avoid assumptions of shared knowledge, not to exclude anyone (for example when giving examples) -t is also important to use visual support (blackboards, pro*ectors, handouts)

&eaching #ronunciation
A Reference for Teachers of English to Spea ers of !ther Languages
Part I: "ronunciation #nstruction in "erspective Chapter I: The $istory and Scope of "ronunciation Teaching !he field of modern language teaching has developed two approaches to the teaching pronunciation: ,) 1n intuitive-imitative approach: depends on the learners< ability to listen to and imitate the rhythms and sounds of the target language without the intervention of any explicit information= it also presupposes the availability of good models to listen to (photograph records, tape recorders and language labs, audio, videocassettes and compact discs) 5) 1n analytic-linguistic approach: utili'es information and tools such as a phonetic alphabet, articulatory descriptions, charts of the vocal apparatus, etc -t explicitly informs the learner of and focuses attention on the sounds and rhythms of the target language Direct Method and More recent Naturalistic Approaches -n Direct Method, pronunciation is taught through intuition and imitation, students imitate a model (the teacher or a recording) and do their best to approximate the model through imitation and repetition +uccessors to this approach are the naturalistic methods which focus their attention on learning to listening before speaking= this gives learners the opportunity to internali'e the target sound system he !e"or# Mo$e#ent !he %eform .ovement (,>?@s): this movement was influenced by phoneticians such as Aenrry +weet and &aul &assy, who formed the -nternational &honetic 1ssociation in ,>>B and developed the -&1 (-nternational &honetic 1lphabet) !his alphabet resulted from the establishment of phonetics as a science= for the first time there was a one#to#one relationship between a written symbol and the sound it represented he 19%&s and 19'&s C

!he %eform .ovement played a role in the development of Audiolingualism in the Dnited +ates and of the Eral 1pproach in 9ritain during the ,?C@s and ,?F@s -n both, pronunciation is taught explicitly from the start 1s in the (irect .ethod classroom, the teacher (or recording) models a sound, a word, or an utterance and the students imitate or repeat !he teacher often uses a techni)ue called the minimal pair drill= drills that use words that differ by a single sound in the same position 'ample minimal pair teaching materials (ord drills A *iy* sheep green least meet deed 'entence drills I+ 'yntagmatic drills ,contrast within a sentence(on<t sit in that seat (id you at least get the listG II+ #aradigmatic drills ,contrast across two sentences(on<t slip on the floor (on<t sleep on the floor !he teacher says two words (e g Hsheep, sheepI or Hsheep, shipI) and asks the students to decide if they are the same or different !he teacher can also read a word or words from the list 1 or 9 and ask the student to identify which sound (1 or 9) is being produced !istening , 5 +ame or differentG (sheep, sheep= ship, sheep) 1 or 9G (ship= ship= sheep) ) *i* ship grin list mitt did

Following the teacher model, students practice lists 1 and 9 first in isolation (reading list 1 and then 9), then in contrast .uided /ral #roduction , 5 %ead down column 1, then column 9 (sheep, green, etc) %ead across the columns (sheep, ship, etc)

Finally, the teacher asks individual students to read the lists without a model he 19(&s !he Cognitive approach viewed language as rule#governed behaviour -t deemphasi'ed pronunciation in favour of grammar and vocabulary because on the one hand, native#like pronunciation was an unrealistic F

ob*ective and could not be achieved, and on the other hand, time would be better spent on teaching more learnable items, such as grammatical structures and words he 19)&s !he methods that came to attention during the ,?J@s were: &he 'ilent (ay and Community !anguage !earning &he 'ilent (ay: like 1udiolingualism, it can be characteri'ed by the attention paid to accuracy of production of both the sounds and structures of a target language from the very initial stage of instruction !he difference between them is that in the +ilent 6ay, learner attention is focused on the sound system without having to learn a phonetic alphabet or a body of explicit linguistic information -n the +ilent 6ay, the teacher speaks as little as possible, indicating trough gestures what students should do !eachers tap out rhythmic patterns with a pointer, hold up their figures to indicate a number of syllables in a word or to indicate streedes elements !eachers also use tools like: a sound#colour chart, the Fidel charts, word charts, and coloured rods Community !anguage !earning0 it was developed by 3harles 1 3urran (,?JB) for teaching second and foreign languages -n a 3LL classroom, students sit around a table with a tape recorder= the counsellor (the teacher) stands behind one of them, with hands on the student<s shoulders !he counsellor asks the student to say something in the native language he or she wishes to be able to say in the target language !his utterance in then provided by the teacher in the target language, who takes care to phrase it idiomatically !he counsellor provides the phrase (broken into chunks), the student repeats, and once the student can produce the whole utterance fluently, it is recorded on tape -n the next phase of the classroom, the utterances are played back and students match the new target language with the word#for#word translation provided by the counsellor For further practice, the teacher engages the students in a techni)ue called human computer+ !he counsellor8computer can be turned on or off at will by the student, who can re)uest the correct pronunciation of a given phrase from the computer !his provides the raw data for the student to mimic and repeat until he or she is satisfied with the pronunciation !he human computer techni)ue allows the student to initiate pronunciation practice by selecting the item(s) to practice and deciding the amount of repetition needed Pronunciation eachin* oday !he 3ommunicative 1pproach (,?>@s) holds that using language to communicate should be central in all classroom language instruction !his focus on language as communications urges to teaching pronunciation, since both empirical and anecdotal evidence indicates that there is a threshold level of pronunciation for non#native speakers of /nglish= if they fall below this level, they will have oral communication problems no matter how excellent abd extensive their control of /nglish grammar and vocabulary might be .orley (,?>J) suggests that there are B groups of /nglish language learners whose oral communication needs mandate a high level of intelligibility and therefore re)uire special assistance with pronunciation: , Foreign teaching assistances in colleges and universities in /nglish#speaking country 5 Foreign#born technical, business and professional employees in /nglish#speaking countries : -nternational business people and diplomats who need to use /nglish as their working lingua franca C %efugees in resettlement and vocational training programs F !eachers of /nglish as a foreign language who are not native speakers of /nglish B &eople in non#/nglish#speaking countries working as tour guides, waiters, etc , who use /nglish for dealing with visitors who do not speak their language !he goal of teaching pronunciation to such learners is not to make them sound native#like, but to use it to communicate B

1s we can see, intelligible pronunciation is a necessary component of oral communication, but it is not the only one: the next issue is methodological (how teachers can improve the pronunciation of unintelligible speakers of /nglish so that they become intelligible) 6e can begin to know how to teach pronunciation as the part of the 3ommunicative 1pproach by reviewing the kinds of techni)ues used to teach pronunciation: , +isten and i#itate: (used in the (irect .ethod), students listen to teacher#provided model and repeat or imitate it 5 Phonetic trainin*: use of articulatory descriptions, articulatory diagrams, and a phonetic alphabet : Mini#al pair drills: used to help students to distinguish between similar ad problematic sounds in the target language C Conte,tuali-ed #ini#al pairs: the teacher establishes a setting and presents key vocabulary= students are then trained to respond to a sentence stem with the appropriate meaningful response (a or b) F .isual aids: teacher<s description of how sounds are produced by audiovisual aids such as sound# colour charts, Fidel wall charts, rods, pictures, etc B on*ue t/isters: a techni)ue from speech correction strategies for native speakers J De$elop#ent appro,i#ation drills: second language speakers are taught to retrace the steps that many /nglish#speaking children follow as they ac)uire certain sounds in their first language !hus *ust as they ac)uire 8w8 before 8r8 or 8y8 before 8l8, adults who have difficulty producing 8l8 or 8r8 can be encouraged to begin by pronouncing words with initial 8w8 or 8y8, and then shift to 8r8 or 8l8: 8w8 HwedI# 8r8 HredI= 8y8 HyetI# 8l8 HletI > Practice o" $o/el shi"t and stress shi"t related to a""i,ation : (used with intermediate or advanced learners) the teacher points out the rule#based nature of vowel and stress shifts in etymologically related words to raise awareness: .o/el shi"t: mine (long i) mimic (short i) +entence context: H+treet mimes often mimic the gestures of passerbyI 0tress shi"t: &AEtograph pho!E0raphy +entence context: H- can tell from these photographs that you are very good at photographyI ? !eadin* aloud1recitation: passages or scripts for learners to practice and then read aloud, focusing on stress, timing and intonation -t usually occurs with genres that are intended to be spoken (speeches, poems, plays and dialogues) ,@ !ecordin*s o" learners2 production: audios and videotapes of spontaneous speeches, free conversations and role plays 6hen the 3ommunicative 1pproach began to take over in the mid#to late ,?J@s, most of the techni)ues and materials for teaching pronunciation at the segmental level (getting the sounds right at the word level) were re*ected !eachers and material developers decided to focus their attention on teaching suprasegmental features of language: rhythm, stress, intonation in a discourse context Aowever, !oday<s pronunciation instruction seeks to identify the most important aspects of both the segmentals and suprasegmentals, and integrate them appropriately in courses that meet the needs of any given group of learners -n addition to this, there is the issue of voice )uality seeting: each language has stereotypical features such as pitch level, vowel space, etc that contributes to the voice )uality or HaccentI associated with the language Chapter II: Research on the Teaching and Ac%uisition of "ronunciation S ills he learner !he first issue encountered in designing a pronunciation curriculum is the learner !he teaching of pronunciation is not exclusively a linguistic matter, there are other factors that have to be taken into account, as learner$s ages, exposure to the target language, amount and type of prior pronunciation instruction and the attitude and motivation as regards the learning of the second language J

A*e +covel says that adults are unable to achieve perfect or targetlike pronunciation in a second language !his view coincides with the one that says that prepubescent children with ade)uate exposure to a second language can achieve perfect or near perfect pronunciation with relative ease &enfield and %oberts posit that there is a period (occurring around puberty) after which brain laterali'ation (the assigning of certain functions to the different hemispheres of the brain) is complete !he period prior to the completion of laterali'ation, called the critical period, represents the biological determined period of life during which maximal conditions for language ac)uisition exist 1long with laterali'ation comes an increasing loss of brain plasticity, which renders an individual incapable of achieving nativelike pronunciation in a second language after puberty Flege says there is not enough empirical evidence to sustain this claim, and that the critical period hypothesis overlooks differences between child and adult second language ac)uisition as exposure to the target language, linguistic expectations of interlocutors, ego permeability, attitude and motivation towards the second language 3ognitive scientists propose that there are a number of sensitive periods during which different aspects of language ac)uisition occur !hey says children and adults perceive sounds in a very similar manner and the difference between them is more to the information available (external circumstances) than to innate differences in ability !hey also say that the brain does retain a measure of flexibility or plasticity throughout its life, so the idea of the brain atrophying is an erroneous one +cott demonstrated that auditory perception diminishes with age, and this is a factor that definitely hinders older adults in their attempts to ac)uire target like pronunciation in a second language Jacobs notes that the environment in which adults typically learn a second language (the classroom) may not be as rich as that experienced by children ac)uiring a second language in a more natural, input#rich environment 6e need to build into courses for adults more fluency and confidence building activities, and teacher need to redefine the goal of the pronunciation class as comfortable intelligibility rather than accuracy

E,posure to the tar*et lan*ua*e 1ccording to &ostovsky, 1sher and 4rashen, learners ac)uire language primarily from the input they receive, and they must receive large amounts of comprehensible input before they are re)uired to speak !eachers should try to maximi'e students exposure to the target and encourage them to expand their own domains of linguistic competence, stressing the importance of language exposure in the process of ac)uiring all aspects of language: pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary Aptitude3 attitude and #oti$ation 1ccording to 3arroll there are four traits that constitute language aptitude: , phonemic coding ability: the capacity to discriminate and code foreign sounds such that they can be recalled 5 grammatical sensitivity: the ability to analy'e language and figure out rules : inductive language learning ability: the capacity to pick up language through exposure C memory: the amount of rote learning activity needed to internali'e something

>

Eur main concern here is the first trait !eachers need to be sensitive to such learner differences and not expect all learners to achieve the same level of success in the same amount of time +now and +hapira discount the importance of aptitude pointing out that we have all demonstrated language learning ability via ac)uisition of our native language !here are low#ability learners that have attained fluency in a second language and high#ability learners that have not 0uiora notes that personality (language ego) is at the very core of the language learning process, especially where the skill of pronunciation is concerned Ae postulates that accent or pronunciation is a uni)ue feature of language performance, and it can provide the key to the extent to which the individual is psychologically capable of stepping into a new system of communication +chumman worked on the role that acculturation plays in the ac)uisition of a language, and echoes 0uiora$s hypothesis that ego permeability (the extent to which the ego can be flexible and adapt) and personality factors are at the heart of a second language ac)uisition Ae states that in adults, the development of firm ego boundaries, along with individuals$ attitudinal and motivational orientations, can place constraints on the cognitive process of language learning +chumman$s acculturation model delineates the role that social and affective variables may play in language ac)uisition !his model is based on the premise that certain social and affective variables cluster into a single variable of acculturation, and states that learners will ac)uire the target language to the degree that they acculturate !wo types of determining factors are: a) those concerned with the language learning of a group of people, or sociocultural variables (social dominance patterns, si'e of the foreign language population, etc) and b) factors concerned with individual differences or affective variables (ego permeability, personality, motivation, etc) Ae believes that the affective ones have more wight in the learning process +chumman differentiates between two types of successful acculturation -n the first type, the learner demonstrates integrative motivation, that is, a desire to be socailly integrated in the target culture -n the second type, assimilative motivation, the learner demonstrates the same openness to the target culture, but additionally regards target language speakers as his reference group (this is rare within adults but not within children) Instrumental motivation, in which an individual learns a second language to attain a certain goal, for instance a *ob promotion, does not contribute to successful acculturation he role o" the nati$e lan*ua*e 6e need to consider different aspects of the native language in relation to the ac)uisition of pronunciation in a second language: how the processes of phonological ac)uisition are similar in both languages, how do pronunciation patterns of the first language govern the process of second language ac)uisition, and if there are underlying universals in the ac)uisition of phonology he contrasti$e analysis hypothesis !his theory holds that second language ac)uisition is filtered through te learner$s first language, with the native language facilitating ac)uisition in those cases where the target structures are similar, and interfering with ac)uisition in cases where the target structures are dissimilar or nonexistent !his theory has been challenged on the basis of its inability to predict the degree of difficulty learners would experience with a given item and on the basis of conflicting evidence from error analysis and interlanguage research 6ardhaugh re*ected the strong version (that contrastive analysis would be able to predict all learning problems) and argued for the validity of a weak version (that contrastive analysis could explain the cause

of many, but not all, systematic language#learning errors) .ost researchers agree that interference (negative transfer) is valid in second language pronunciation ac)uisition Error analysis and a$oidance 3ritics of contrastive analysis say it must be complemented with error analysis (analysis of errors that occur in the learner$s interlanguage system) %ichards proposed a three#way classification of language learning errors he believed would shed light on the second language ac)uisition process: , interlingual errors: caused by negative transfer from the learner$s first language 5 intralingual errors: stemming from marked or complex features in the structure of the target language itself and which thus seem to be committed by all second language learners of the target language regardless of their native language : developmental errors: those that reflect the same problems and strategies that young children encounter and use in ac)uiring the target language as their first language -ts critics hold that it tends to focus on learner$s problems rather than learner$s accomplishments, and that it ignores the strategy of avoidance which occurs when learners take advantage of the paraphrase potential of language to avoid the use of words or structures that they find difficult -n /nglish one can avoid using relative clauses by forming a paraphrase with two simple sentences +chachter argued that avoidance did not occur in the phonological level in the way that it did on the syntactic level or lexical level since one cannot avoid certain sounds he interlan*ua*e hypothesis +linker proposed the notion of interlanguage to refer to the linguistic codes of second language learners which, according to +elinker, reflect uni)ue systems -nterlanguage grammar can function independently of the speaker$s native language or the target language, and it follows a system based on first language, second language input, language universals and communication strategies Ae also used the term fossili'ation to refer to a plateau in language learning beyond which it is difficult for learners to progress without exceptional effort or motivation 3order visuali'es interlanguage as a dynamic continuum along which a second language learner can move towards and increasingly targetlike system Mar4edness theory !his theory proposes that in every linguistic opposition there is one member of any pair of opposites that psycholinguistically unmarked (more basic or neutral, more universal or fre)uent, ac)uired first) and one that is marked (more specific, less fre)uent, more limited, later ac)uired) !his theory is helpful in explaining phonological differences among languages /nglish is more marked than 0erman with final plosives (0erman only allows the voiceless) !his theory was first proposed and developed by !rubet'koy and Jackobson (&rague +chool) /ckman applied this theory in his markedness differential hypothesis Ais is a response to criticism of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (that it did not accurately predict which areas of target language phonology would be most difficult for learners of a given language group or predict which exact sounds would be substituted by the learner) Ae proposed constructing a hierarchy of difficulty for phonological ac)uisition that utili'es insights from markedness theory Ais markedness differential hypothesis claims to accurately predict that 0erman speakers will, when speaking /nglish, experience difficulty in producing the marked voiced#consonant forms in final position +an*ua*e uni$ersals Linguists that study language universals assume that all languages share common properties and that their surface differences might actually be )uite unimportant !his )uest has taken two different paths: ,@

Jackobson$s seminal work, which influenced 3homsky$s model of universal grammar with its principles (given elements) and parameters (permitted variations) as well as his arguments for posting an innate language ac)uisition device in all humans= 0reenberg$s typological or implicational language universals, which examine aspects of language that are common to many languages

-n terms of sound systems, both versions start from the observation that given all the sounds the human vocal apparatus could possibly produce, the languages of the world draw on a remarkably finite inventory of sounds and share remarkably similar combinatory and hierarchical principles that explain how natural languages are spoken 1ll languages have vowel and consonant sounds and there are sounds that contrast with each other in predictable ways Jackobson$s hierarchy: stops K nasals K fricatives +tops are ac)uired before nasals and nasals are ac)uired before fricatives Fricatives are replaced by stops /chman combines earlier work on interlanguage analysis, markedness theory and universals in order to apply the interlanguage structural conformity hypothesis to the ac)uisition of pronunciation !his hypothesis holds that implicational universals can be used to explain certain facts about the form of interlanguages without any reference to the learner$s first language Languages can have fricative L stop se)uences without having stop L stop se)uences, and language can have se)uences of two consonants without having se)uences of three consonants in the same position .acken and Ferguson put forward two hypothesis: - &honological ac)uisition, like other forms of linguistic and nonlinguistic learning involves a process of discovering patterns, via form testing, and revising hypotheses (regulari'ing) -1t least some linguistic universals are not due to the operation of an innate language ac)uisition device: rather, they derive from the interaction of the learner and a patterned input In"or#ation processin* theory -t attempts to account for phonological ac)uisition without ignoring the effect of the native language on second#language phonological ac)uisition, derives from work in cognitive science 1ccording to %umelhart and Morman, learners exhibit a distinct tendency to interpret new information in terms of their existing knowledge structures, commonly referred to as schemata +chneider and +chiffrin propose that previously stored information can be processed in one of two manners, either via controlled processing (processing re)uiring attention and awareness) or via automatic processing (processing that is not controlled, modified or inhibited) 1utomatic processing allows several processes to take place at the same time, controlled processing do not -nformation processing theory predicts that in the ac)uisition of second language phonology, learners will exhibit a distinct tendency to interpret sounds in the second language in terms of the set of sounds that they control as part of their first language system !hey will tend to process phonological information automatically, even in the early stages of second language ac)uisition, since the higher#level tasks of conceptuali'ing and formulating in the second language re)uire controlled processing !his theory postulates three modes of learning -n the first mode, accretion, the learners add new structures to their existing schemata or knowledge structures -n the second, restructuring, learners reorgani'e already existing structures and create new schemata based on the preexisting patters -n the third, tuning, learners further modify the new and8or old schemata, making them more accurate, general or specific %ather than substitute the native language phoneme for that of the target language, speakers produce a compromise or middle ground between the two, as in Flege$s phonological translation hypothesis Intonation

,,

9ackman demonstrated that with increased residence in the Dnited +tates and better language proficiency, the more advanced +panish speaker had modified the flatter two#tone intonation contours characteristic of his native +panish such that his intonation in /nglish better approximated the more highly differentiated three#tone contours typical of the 1merican /nglish speaker !hyth# 1ccurate intonation is dependent on accurate rhythm %esearchers conclude that it is possible to learn appropriate syllable duration as well as length and fre)uency of pauses 3hela Flores claims that rhythm, in particular the appropriate lengthening of stressed syllables and shortening of unstressed syllables in /nglish, is the most widely experienced challenge for speakers of other languages Connected speech !he ability to produce appropriately connected speech is another promising area of research involving suprasegmentals %esearchers investigated speaker performance in four areas: ,) alveolar flapping (in words like letter), 5) intersyllabic linking (3#3, 3#N, N#N), :) vowel reduction in unstressed syllables, and C) consonant cluster simplification .oice 5uality /very language has certain audible characteristics that are present most of the time when native speakers talk !his is referred to as voice )uality Laver describes three types of voice )uality settings: supralaryngeal settings (tongue position, lip rounding or spreading, nasality, etc), laryngeal settings or phonation types (whispery, creaky, modal, falsetto voices) and overall muscular tension +panish groups speak with higher pitch and lower volume than Morth 1mericans Noice )uality differences do contribute to a foreign accent and they stem from both linguistic and sociocultural factors &art of pronunciation ac)uisition is awareness of and control over voice )uality setting appropriate to the second language settings, which may be )uite different from those of the first language Conclusion Mative language transfer plays a role but its only one piece of the pu''le !he influence of negative transfer is different from learner to learner &honological ac)uisition is partly developmental and partly universal Learner$s age is a factor in phonological ac)uisition %eadily intelligible (rather than native like) pronunciation should be the pedagogical goal

&he phonology of %nglish as an International !anguage Jennifer Jenkins

Chapter II0 The variation pro&lem '( #nter-spea er variation !he terms veriability, variation and variety have always held certain negative connotations Nariation is defined as "difference, divergence or discrepancy between two or more things or persons$ Auman nature seems to have a strong tendency to favour conformity to standards, uniformity and conservatism, and to disfavour non#conformity, diversity and change 9ecause language is so closely bound up to human identity and attitudes, it is inevitable that we should commonly encounter among speakers of standard /nglish, strongly held convictions as to the superiority of languages which adheres to established linguistic norms and the inferiority of language which departs from them

,5

7et, there is variation in pronunciation, morphology, syntax and lexis within the same speaker that plays various social roles, who may fre)uently display forms of standard and non#standard english in different context Language is inherently variable and variant choices carry clear social meanings 0rammatical variations in interlanguage, both between L, and L5 speakers (inter#speaker) and within the speech of an individual speaker (intra#speaker) is often viewed as something that must be explained in order to be erradicated Inter6spea4er $ariation L5 inter#speaker variation is the type of variation with chich most people are familiar -t involves the transfer of features of the particular L, onto the production and reception of the target language -t is most noticeable phonologically, where the resulting accent tends tends to form a stereotype for the whole L5 groups pf speakers in the collective mind of the L, community L5 speakers are also aware of their inter#speaker variation, both in their own pronunciation and in that of speakers from other L, 6hile homogeneity is on the increase among world englishes, at the lexical and grammatical levels, the gap is widening at the phonological level +o it is important to redefine L5 phonological correctness E0+ $arieties and the interlan*ua*e contro$ersy !here is a distinction between foreign language (/FL) and second language (/+L) varieties of /nglish 4achru proposed a three#concentric circle model of /nglish users, which distinguished between english speakers in the outer circle, for whom english performs essential intranational functions, and those in the expanding circle, who learn the language for use predominantly outside their own country in communication with L, speakers and L5 speakers from other language backgrounds Just as members of the inner circle will find it necessary to make phonological ad*ustments to render themselves intelligible on the international circuit, so will members from the outer circle be obliged to modify their speech in certain ways if they wish to be understood by speakers of varieties of english other than their own Inter6spea4er se*#ental $ariation and its e""ects -t has been widely argued for some years now that segmental (phonemic and phonetic) variation has a rather less serious effect on the intelligibility of L5 english speech than suprasegmental (prosodic: stress, rythm, intonation and features of connected speech) +ounds that are phonetically very different from those in the L, are initally likely to prove most difficult to produce, since the articulations must be activated in new ways En the other hand, where there is any degree of similarity between L, and L5 sounds, there is a tendency to identify the two, and thence to categorise the new sounds in terms of the old /xample: the spanish bilabial fricative Learners have to ac)uire both physiological knowledge of sounds regarding their articulation, and also an understanding of their place in the phonological system !his involves not only the ac)uisition of sounds which do not exist in the L,, but also, the recognition and ability to deal with the overlap between L, and L5 systems !wo distinct phonemes in L, may be reduced to allophonic status in english (like dark and clear l) 1lso, two or more allophones in L, may have phonemic status in english (nasals) +egmental deviation types can be categorised into three groups: +ound substitution and conflation: *apanese 8l8 for 8r8 and vice versa, and both 8@8 and 8s8 pronounced 8s8 3onsonant deletion (or elision): a sound is omitted 1ddition: epenthesis is an intrusive sound placed at the beginning of a word or between two other sounds to facilitate a difficult articulation, paragoge involves the addition of a sound to the end of a word ,:

1n intelligibility problem may result from a uni)ue deviation source within a single word 9ut more commonly, unintelligibility is the result of multiple segmental deviations, either within a single word or among consecutive words (eviations involving consonant deletion and epenthesis or aparagoge are closely related with differences in permitted syllable structure between the languages, with an open 3N structure tending to be universally preferred L, english elision is a highly rule#governed process, and while L5 english consonant deletion is also strictly constrained, it is ogverned by the rules of the speaker$s L, rather than those of english !he ma*ority of the deletions in the data resulted in non#understanding -t is consonants rather than vowels that carry the message at segmental level (eletion in final position is not as problematic as deletion in word initial position, which is not allowed in english Inter6spea4er suprase*#ental $ariation and its e""ects , 6ord stress

(aniel argues that the first neglected priority should be to supply learners of english with ,@ general and powerful stress rules, because it is at the level of word stress that the errors most damaging to comprehensibility occur 9ut this rules have many exceptions and are difficult to learn Mevertheless, english word stress is highly rule#governed, and learners have problems in ac)uiring these rules when they are different and more complex (more marked) from the ones of their language /nglish tends to make greater use of vowel duration than the ma*ority of languages, which rely more on pitch change and loudness !he english system involves far more weakening of unstressed syllables than other languages 9ut word stress errors, in the absence of other error types are not necessarily damaging 6ord stress patterns differ )uite markedly among L, varieties of english, notably %& and 01, and there is no loss of intelligibility !he most serious word stress deviations of all are those that also affect nuclear placement !he nucleus is the most prominent word in a tone unit, it carries the most important part of the message (as signalled by the speaker) !his means that deviations in the placement of nucleus have the potential to affect the listener$s ability to process entire chunks of the speaker$s message .any non#native speaker$s of english fail to place word stress to show contrast, and generally place the nucleus in the last word of the tone unit, regardless of its importance and whether it is a conent word or not /nglish has one of the most rigid word orders, this means that speakers of english can not rely on moving important words to salient positions such as the beginnings pf phrases and clauses in order to emphasise them !o compensate for this restrictions, english allows free stress placement within the intonation group, which is something that not all languages allow 5 %ythm and intonation

!he english system of rythm and intonation, with its alternation of strong and weak syllables and the extra prominence accorded to nuclear stress operates regardless of the degree of formality of the situation, and acts as a guide to the structure of information in the spoken message %ythm is likely to have a significant effect on the intelligibility of "non#native speakers$ varieties of english 1lthough tone universals exist, it seems that the use of tones is also language#specific !he use of tones by L, speakers of english remains elusive in relation to the expression of attitudes and to the expression of grammar and discourse meaning, and is almost always inseparable from speaker and context 6here tones are said to have grammatical functions (a fall#rise for yes8no )uestions and a fall for

,C

wh#)uestions), there seems to be a higher level of agreement as to how they should be interpreted &itch direction is very rarely found to contribute towards unintelligibility 1s regards tone units, they are created and separated by the speaker, it is his choice how to present his message !hey tend to coincide with syntactic boundaries, so the failure to divide the speech stream into these units can result in grammatical ambiguity and misinterpretation !his failure results in problems of nuclear placement and in a lack of pause which reduces the time available for the listener for the processing of information Chapter 3: The variation pro&lem )( #ntra-spea er variation !hose who are aware of L5 intra#speaker variation generally interpret it merely as variation in correctness -n terms of L5 spoken /nglish, variation e)uals error, and the entire /FL endeavor is, in a sense, directed towards the standardi'ing of the learners$ speech to bring it in line with an imagined L, standard !he verb Hstandardi'eI is still very much in use on teacher training courses Mew teachers are trained first to elicit, present or introduce a new linguistic item, be it grammatical or lexical, and then to Hstandardi'eI it with each individual student and8or with the whole class in unison !he purpose of this is to bring the students$ production O pronunciation O as close as possible to that of a Hnative speakerI 1ll this presupposes that, of course that L5 learners of /nglish should be aiming for some sort of monochrome, monolithic /nglish, completely free of any intra#speaker variation in either style or grammatical correctness 9ut L, speakers of /nglish vary their use of the language in both these areas= however, much the ma*ority are unaware they do so -n fact, even specialists in the field of the /L! received their first hint that Hnative speakersI sometimes speak ungrammatically in addition to employing extensive stylistic variation !he term Hstandard /nglishI represents an ideali'ed abstraction far removed from the realities of Hthe diversified and variable data of everyday interactionI -n real life, then, HacceptableI /nglish is Hremarkably variableI and this is so particularly in speech, and still more particularly, at the phonological level 9rown argues: Hwe should not suppose that the second language learner is working towards some )uite unattainable goal O fixed and stable knowledge of the target languageI Far more useful to L5 learners of /nglish is an ability to ad*ust their language in both style and level of accuracy in response to the particular set of circumstances in which an interaction is taking place 1nd, because learners inevitably engage in intra#speaker variation, it makes far more sense to pedagogy to build overtly on this automatic process in order to give them more control over it, instead of trying (and failing) to eradicate variation from their -Ls altogether -t could be argued that intra#speaker variation is a matter of natural ad*ustments in use, as speakers converge towards or diverge from the speech of their interlocutors, and therefore that such accommodative process cannot be taught O or at least do not need to be taught Aowever - believe that /-L is a special case -n international speech setting there will be an instinctive desire to converge as speaker bid for membership of the international community and simultaneously attempt to make their speech intelligible to interlocutors from a range of L,s !he means to converge in this way are unlikely to be within L5 speaker$s repertoires unless there has been pedagogic help in this direction L, and -L intra#speaker variation !he concept of interlanguage as a linguistic system independent of both the native and target language has long been recogni'ed -Ls languages are natural languages and, like all natural languages, dynamic rather than static !hey are thus sub*ect to various influences which, in turn, lead to systematic language variation +uch variation was at first regarded by some scholar as an indication that -Ls were not, after all, systematic and thus an embarrassment for -L theory and its fundamental tenet that -L id a natural language Mevertheless, early studies of -L phonological and morphological variation ((ickersons$ and !arone) were able to demonstrate -L systematicity 6hile 3order (,?J>) brought to the attention of +L1 researchers the fact ,F

that first languages themselves vary systematically along sociological and situational parameters !he focus of -L research thence shifted to the study of its dynamic character .uch of the literature on -L variation draws parallels with the sociolinguistic variation of -L speakers, arguing that the same Labovian motivation of situation and linguistic context are concerned Aowever, the similarity is to some extent one of process rather than one of product, since learners sometimes vary their language in ways not found in either the L, or the L5 -L variation at all but advanced levels of proficiency is characteri'ed by more variability in the production of linguistic HerrorI than by shifts between more or less collo)uial styles !arone distinguishes between L, and -l variation by means of the terms Hstyle#shiftingI and Hregister# shiftingI: in interlanguageP "style#shifting$ should be viewed as distinct from the phenomenon of "register#shifting$O the sociolinguistic ability to speak casually in casual conversations, or formally in formal situations$ +he argues: " the second language learner may learn only one register of the target language, and still style#shift within that register in the sense of paying greater or lesser attention to speech$ and, presumably, speaking in a more grammatical or less grammatical acceptable way !arone: "most classrooms second language learners are likely to be exposed to only a single register$ +ato: "learners do not have access to the second language norms about which linguistic forms are associated with which social parameters$ 6hile such differences between -Ls and L,s undoubtedly do exist, for two reasons the situation seems to be less polari'ed than these writers suggest Firstly, the spoken language of educated L, speakers of /nglish varies not *ust in style and register, it also varies in standardness, that is, in grammatical acceptability (e g : in formal lectures they make grammatical slips in areas like sub*ect8verb agreement) +econdly, for the past twenty years or so, second language classrooms and materials have begun to devote attention to concepts of formality and social appropriacy 1s a result, many learners are likely to be exposed more than one level of formality and to the matching of linguistic forms with social parameters from a relatively early stage of learning L, speakers employ variation in style and register extensively and also, though less so, variation in grammatical (including phonological) standardness For -L speakers is the reverse: while their speech does shift among different levels of formality, this sort of variation is not their most fre)uent -Ls are characteri'ed by a far greater degree of variation in the form of grammatical error than are L,s 3ontributing factors: Q -Ls are susceptible to permeation by both L, (transfer) and aberrant L5 forms during the learning process Q Learners have different degrees of control over items according to the status of these items in their current -L &honological intra#speaker variation and its effects on interlanguage talk -n this section, we will examine some data collected as part of a study what does it happen when Mon 9ilingual /nglish +peaker (M9/+s) attempt to converge on one another$s pronunciation 9ecause the sub*ects are not the L, speakers or fluent bilinguals of most accommodation research, we cannot assume that they will ad*ust their pronunciation in the direction of that of their interlocutors %easons: R %epertoire problem: they are not necessarily able to produce the various phonological substitutions and conflations of their different#L, interlocutors R -L pronunciations (accents) are rarely, if ever, the sub*ect (for reception) and never the goal (for production) of teaching R &sychological fear of ac)uiring peer group pronunciation errors &ronunciation has been fre)uently cited as the ma*or source of intelligibility problem -n an earlier pilot study (Jenkins ,??F) it was predicted that phonological convergence in -L! would take the form of replacement of problematic (for the receiver) transfer, with interlocutors attempting to converge largely on target#language forms, rather than on each other$s pronunciation !his, in turn, would lead to variation in target and non#target forms, relating to the success or otherwise of the transfer replacement process +uch success was thought to depend on : main factors: S the type of transfer involved= ,B

S the amount of attention the speaker was able to give to replacing transfer rather than planning content= S the salience of interlocutor comprehension at any given point in the interaction, which (it was predicted) would depend on the task being performed !he data drawn from a study in which six learners of /nglish, two Japanese, three +wiss#0erman and one +wiss#French all of upper#intermediate8low advanced level were recorded completing various tasks as they practice for the 3ambridge 3ertificate in 1dvanced /nglish +peaking examination, showed that speakers make a considerable effort to replace L, phonological transfer when they are interacting in /nglish with a speaker from another L, as compared with a speaker from their own L, !he data of the first study, along with the data with those speakers of the replication recordings (another study), were examined for evidence of contrasting amounts of phonological convergence in the social conversation and information exchange tasks, where the success of the task is dependent on the mutual intelligibility of the two (L, ((ifferent Language ,) interlocutors !his study of the replication recordings, where a !aiwanese and a 4orean interlocutor are engaged first in social conversation, and then in two different information gap activities, shows that the type of convergence (by replacement of transfer) in -L! really involves the making of ad*ustments according to the needs of the receiver, and not merely an attempt at indiscriminate reduction in phonological (transfer) error 9oth !aiwanese and 4orean languages show a strong preference for 3N syllable structure, and speakers of both have considerable difficulties in producing the many consonant clusters of /nglish !aiwanese sub*ect deals with the problem by means of consonant deletion whereas 4orean$s sub*ect adds a letter or sound (addition of paragoge) to the end of several words 9oth sub*ects admitted reluctantly in the follow#up interviews that there had been occasions when they had not understood one another, and that the main cause had been the other$s pronunciation .ain implications for /-L pronunciation pedagogy: R 6e need to get to grips with the nature of intelligibility as it relates to these specific L5 contexts= R it will be important to identify contrived norms based on a subset of core /-L phonological features, which can then be learnt by all international speakers of /nglish= R 6e must devise methods for classroom pedagogy which build on the instinctive desire of M9/+s to accommodate phonologically to their interlocutors in -L! speech situations Mota: Foreigner talk (F!): it is itself a form of convergence Ene of the main motivations of F! is the "native speaker$s$ desire to be understood by his non#native interlocutor "Aigh risk$ forms: forms which are more likely to cause intelligibility problems for the interlocutor 3hapter C: #ntelligi&ility in #nterlanguage Tal -ntelligibility can mean different things to different people 9amgbose described intelligibility as "a complex of factors comprising recogni'ing an expression, knowing its meaning, and knowing what that meaning signifies in the sociocultural context$ 9amgbose$s three aspects correspond closely to +mith and Melson$s terms "intelligibility$ (reserved for word and utterance recognition), "comprehensibility$ (being used to refer to word and utterance meaning (i e , propositional content, 1ustin$s locutionary "orce)), and "interpretability$ (to refer to the grasping of the speaker$s intention in producing the utterance (i e , 1ustin$s illocutionary "orce)) James contrasts "intelligibility$ with "communicativity$, which he describes as "a more ambitious notion involving access to pragmatic forces, implicatures and connotations$ 3ommunicativity is "a higher order achievement$ involving the transmitting of "the right social information$ 1s it can be seen, there is still no general consensus in the use of the term "intelligibility$ 6hat it is clear is that matters of form are considered to be of relatively minor relevance in spoken communication (and miscommunication) as compared with matters of meaning !he "real$ business of imparting and processing messages involves the top#down processing of contextual phenomena rather than the bottom#up production and reception of linguistic form 9rown argues that "ade)uate communication$ is regularly achieved, despite "the pervasive underspecification of meanings of ,J

utterance$ !his is because speakers are able to construct and interpret utterance in the light of beliefs about the other$s state of knowledge Ef course, this is only possible because there is a presumption that interlocutors are "playing the same game$ !he interest is in discovering how this happens Defining intelligibility in interlanguage talk 3ommunication between fluent speakers takes for granted a certain amount of shared knowledge 1ccording to Aymes, this knowledge can be analysed in terms of four parameters: # 6hether something is formally possible # 6hether something is feasible # 6hether something is appropriate in relation to a context in which it is used # 6hether something is actually performed, and what its doing entails Fluent speakers of a language have developed intuitive knowledge of what are and are not appropriate communicative behaviours in specific speech contexts !hey also have a high degree in linguistic knowledge not only in the 3homskyan sense of grammatical competence but also in terms of attestedness !he primary contextual feature of -(nter) L(anguage) !(alk) is that there are no contextual features K at least in the sense of socio#cultural knowledge 6e cannot expect learners from different native#language backgrounds to share the same perceptions of the social dimensions of /nglish language use !here is little if any shared background information available to interlocutors 1s 6iddowson argues, "those who have little in common have to place greater reliance on the language$ Ef course, it is not only in the lack of shared background knowledge between interlocutors that -L! differs from interaction between fluent speakers of /nglish 9ecause Mon 9ilingual /nglish +peakers (M9/+s) speaks far more slowly than fluent speakers, they make little use of co#articulation and connected speech processes: listeners in -L! are receiving speech sounds that are much closer to their citation form 1nother difference is that M9/+s seem to have an instinctive reluctance to signal non#comprehension -n M+#MM+ (Mative +peaker#Mon#Mative +peaker) interaction this reluctance is probably the result of the M9/+ listener$s desire not to lose face -n -L!, listeners are concerned also about the face#loss of their non#fluent interlocutors 1 central dilemma for -L! is that while in this speech context successful communication depends to some considerable extent in the ability of speaker to compensate for listener$s linguistic and extralinguistic inade)uacies, speakers are not well e)uipped to do so Jenkins also believes that it is important to standardi'e the use of the term "intelligibility$, but she does not believe that the most serious misunderstandings in -L! occur at the level of comprehensibility and interpretability$ "3omprehensibility$ and "interpretability$ both have their place, but such higher#level misunderstandings are relatively rare because of the regularity with which phonological problems "get in the way$ Aer own use of the term intelligibility concerns the production and recognition of the formal properties of words and utterance and the ability to produce and receive phonological form, but regards the latter as a prere)uisite of -L! success at the locutionary and illocutionary level /ven with such an apparently limited interpretation of intelligibility, we are still concerned with the negotiation, with a two#way process involving both speaker and listener !he negotiation of intelligibility consists of "the establishing and maintenance$ of the necessary conditions to achieve understanding -n -L! the "necessary conditions$ are, above all, mutually intelligible pronunciation )ottom-up and top-down processing 1 bottom#up model of speech perception assumes that "we perceived speech by building up an interpretation in a series of separate stages, beginning with the lowest units, and gradually working up to the larger units such as the utterance !his contrasts with top#down processing "which uses knowledge and expectancies to guess, predict, or fill in the perceived event or message$ M9/+s still process speech using a predominance of bottom#up strategies !hey seem to find it difficult to make much use at all of the context underlying and surrounding the speech the receive, at both linguistic and extralinguistic levels ,>

3ontextual information guides the listener to more likely meanings than those of the acoustic signals that he had received Aowever, it seems that in -L! speakers8listeners have very limited access to context to compensate for the inade)uacies of speech perception and production Mor do they fare much better in relation to co#text 6hat happens in -L! seems to be a circular process !he lack of shared socio#cultural background, together with their mutual lack of access to aspects of the co#text, makes them focus on the acoustic signal 1nd pronunciation is often the first#base obstacle to communication beyond which the interaction is unable to proceed in a satisfactory manner 1s a result of this, there is little scope for the higher level pragmatic factors (comprehensibility and interpretability) to enter the e)uation &he role of phonology in I!&0 miscommunication in the I!& data -n -L! miscommunication, grammar errors play a minor role -n L, /nglish interactions, syntactic effects have a very limited role by contrast with lexical effects in the decoding of words !he syntactic context in /nglish does not provide many cues to facilitate the prediction of what is to come or the decoding of what has gone before -L! thus has much in common with fluent8L, interaction in terms of the role of syntactic context in intelligibility in speech perception -n -L! speakers tend to minimi'e the use of L, phonological transfer when they are able to do so Aowever, there appears to be something of a tension between the desire to minimi'e difficulty for the listener and the desire to minimi'e difficulty for self +peakers will opt for the easier route to speech production if they think they can "get away with it$ Language is a guide to context which cannot be activated until the utterance has been heard Listeners have to select potentially relevant information, whereas a speaker, in referring to features of the context, has already selected these features !his means that from a listener perspective context alone may not illuminate language unless language is first used to guide listeners to identify those features of context which will be relevant to interpretation of language 9ut in -L!, the potential for this to happen is heavily constrained as a result of the inability of language to "guide$ reliably because speakers$ phonological difficulties and the inability of listeners to be guided because of their top#down processing difficulties Intelligibility and the spread of %nglish For some time, prophets have been predicting that /nglish will ultimately fragment into a number of mutually unintelli*i7le languages Aowever, this whole topic is so recent that it is difficult to make predictions with much confidence .c1rthur states that the issue can be viewed from three perspectives: the "pessimistic$, the "optimistic$, and the neutral$8"pragmatic$ !he pessimists, i e those people for whom Latin offers a suitable dire analogue of mutually unintelligible "post#/nglish$ languages, are usually conservatives, asserting a "%eceived +tandard$ to which all should adhere or aspire, and which is for them the true /nglish language (Mo habla de las otras dos perspectivas) 6e need far more /-L(/nglish -nter Language)#based information tan is currently available as to whose accents are (un)intelligible to whom and as to precisely which pronunciation features lead to loss of intelligibility %& is not necessarily the most easily understood accent of /nglish 1 series of studies provide further evidence that a "native speaker$ of a standard variety of /nglish is not necessarily either the most intelligible or the best *udge if intelligibility in /-L !his evidence indicates a need for us to redefine phonological error and correctness within the context of /-L rather than within the framework of a standard language ideology Conclusion !he discussion indicates the need for some sort of international core for phonological intelligibility: a set of unifying features which has the potential to guarantee that pronunciation will not impede successful communication in /-L settings ,?

Chapter .I: #dentifying the phonological core Esta7lishin* the +in*ua 8ranca Core !he phonological features which regularly cause intelligibility are those which involve interspeaker variation and some kind of L, transfer -t is necessary for international speakers of /nglish to replace phonological transfer with other forms, those of the LF3 !he LF3 is concerned with international intelligibility, but also with acceptability between "non#native speakers$ -t is a more salient issue for production than it is for reception in /-L contexts 9ther phonolo*ical core approaches !here are L5 phonological features that cause intelligibility problems for different receivers from different L,, and we need to know which these features are to establish a core !he main problem to establish a phonological core is the lack of data on which to base it !here are two possible but opposing approaches in establishing the core: either the identification of the core as common /-L features discovered across varieties, or the specification of the core as an invention drawn, but not derived, from common features 9ryan Jenner talked about the need to establish what all native speakers of all varieties have in common which enables them to communicate effectively with native speakers of varieties other than their own Ais pronunciation teaching priorities for MM+ were as follows: !he consonantal inventory Nowel )uality: long and short +yllabic structure: closed with clusters +yllabic values: strong, weak, reduced %hythmic patterning: stress#timing &rominence and tonicity: location of pitch features !ones: some binary oppositions 1rticulatory setting: laxity and lack of movement Nowel )uality: all vowels should be drawled &itch levels: high, mid and low Ae was one of the first to argue that many learners neither want nor need to sound native#like, and that we should be thinking, instead, of a certain minimum level which would render them intelligible and acceptable to native speakers 9ut intelligibility cannot be guaranteed by pronunciation alone Ene possible way forward may be to identify what all L5 varieties of /nglish have in common, an -nternational /nglish, and to build on that Jenner uses the label -nternational /nglish intentionally because he believes that there is a single underlying phonological system governing all the many varieties of /nglish used around the world !his system is used, or referred to, as much in interaction between native speakers of different varieties as in those between non#native users from different backgrounds 9ut what is not shared is *ust as important as what is shared 1n -/ core must take into account not only what speakers actually produce, but also how listeners process linguistic signals -t should include features that many speakers of /nglish have to ac)uire if they are to achieve international intelligibility L5 speakers from different backgrounds sometimes understand one another$s pronunciation with relatively little difficulty and this cannot be purely the result of exposure -t is most probably the result of an ac)uired ability to make phonological ad*ustments

5@

0imson argues that an international +tandard /nglish will not develop of its own accord, but will have to be artificially contrived 1n artificial model of this kind has three prere)uisites: the model should be as easy to learn as any natural model, and, if possible, easier= it should be readily intelligible to most native speakers of /nglish= and the learner of such a model should thereby posses a base for understanding the ma*or natural varieties of /nglish 9ut he has "M+#MM+$ communication in mind /ven if we were able to identify a completely intelligible core of this kind, it would be extremely difficult to impose such constrains on speakers of /nglish 6e could force them neither to ac)uire these forms, nor to maintain them without elaboration in their subse)uent interactions he ori*in o" the +in*ua 8ranca Core 1ttention was focused on the causes of any problematic discourse that occurred: the extent to which these causes were phonological, which phonological features were most recurrent and, in each case, the relative contribution of speaker and hearer to the problem !he most important areas of preservation of mutual phonological intelligibility to emerge from the data were: o .ost consonant sounds o 1ppropriate consonant cluster simplification o Nowel length distinctions o Muclear stress !he teachability#learnability distinction relates to the fact that classroom teaching does not necessarily bring about classroom learning +ome things are describable and generali'abe, they are teachable (like the distinction between fortis and lenis consonants), but others, like the attitudinal function of intonation, are extremely dependent on individual circumstances and therefore impossible to teach !here seems to be a one#to#one correspondence between what is relevant to the core, and what is teachable !here are certain phonological universals, like the fact that most of the world$s languages have approximately twice as many consonants as vowel phonemes (but /nglish is marked because it has 5C consonants and 5@ vowels) 1nother one relates to syllabic structure: most of the world$s languages have syllables consisting of consonant L vowel, and rarely have consonants in word#final position /nglish is marked in having syllables and words which end in consonants, and in having many complex consonant clusters he se*#ental6suprase*#ental de7ate Nan /Ls says that only an investigation of the relative contribution of both segmental and suprasegmental aspects to a foreign accent can ultimately reveal the relevance of the latter 9ra'il has commented on the interdependence of the segmentals and suprasegmentals, arguing that the work students do in one area supports and reinforces the work they do in the other !he most serious errors involve both levels !he LF3 ams to establish a degree of segmental#suprasegmental balance appropriate to /-L Core "eatures !hese are the precise contents of the LF3: those items that according to the data, are crucial if pronunciation is to be intelligible !hey fall into three main categories: sounds, nuclear stress and articulatory setting , +egmentals a) 3onsonant sounds %& and 01 have 5C consonant sounds in common and the ma*ority is essential in that conflations, substitutions and elisions of these regularly cause a loss of intelligibility +everal of these phonemes 5,

already exist in most other languages, at least in word#initial position Ether do not exist at all in most languages, or they are restricted to certain positions within a word 3onsonant#wise there are two candidates for omission from the core are the dental fricative pair +ubstitution of these phonemes did not cause phonological intelligibility on a single occasion in the data !he other %&801 omission from the LF3 relates to a phonetic rather than phonemic feature !his is the use of dark 8l8, syllabically (little) and before a consonant sound (milk) !he author opted for the rothic variant of 01, since there is only one version to ac)uire and it is always reali'ed Ae also opted for the constant pronunciation of 8t8 in %&, which is different from 01, where intervocalic 8t8 becomes the voiced flap (which can cause confusion since it is more similar to 8d8) !he core includes aspiration of voiceless plosives in initial position in stressed syllables, which makes them easier to be differentiated from the voiced plosives -t also includes the shortening of vowels before a voiceless plosive -n terms of consonant cluster simplification, addition is preferable to deletion (because it is easier to recover the underlying form) +ound in initial clusters should never be deleted= where elision occurs in a final cluster it is preferable to opt for a 8t8 or 8d8 where this is possible (facts, scripts, next)= and although it is permissible to elide a final 8t8 or 8d8 when the following word begins with a consonant or semi#vowel (strict rules), it is not possible to do so when the word begins with a vowel (strict order) !here is one cluster where %& and 01 differ, and the core follows %& !his is the intervocalic "#nt$ (winter, international, twenty), where 01 speakers elide the 8t8 b) Nowels !here are two considerations: )uality and )uantity Nowel )uality is concerned with tongue and lip position, and vowel )uantity with relative length 6hile vowel )uantity is reasonably stable across varieties of /nglish, vowel )uality is not !he long#short situation is not clear cut 1ll long vowels are not as long as each other or short vowels as short as each other Mor is the same long or short vowel e)ually long or short in all phonetic contexts +ince the LF3 has adopted the rothic variety, the diphthong inventory is reduced from > to F, as the three central diphthongs (which end with a schwa) are excluded, and the schwa is substitued with the approximant 1s with monophthongs, it is the length rather than the )uality that is most salient for intelligibility (iphthongues substitution did not normally caused problems in the data Nowel )uality is considered with vowel ,, 5 +uprasegmentals a) 6eak forms +mall structural items posses both a strong form, in which full vowel )uality is retained, and a weak form, in which the vowel )uality is modified and the length reduced, generally resulting in a schwa !he theory is that through the speaker$s weakening of these items, the listener$s attention is able to focus on the more important content words !he author considers that, although it is easy to formulate clear rules for weak form use, they are unteachable, and that weak forms may actually cause problems with intelligibility in /-L Ae proposes two possible solutions: in the strong version, weak forms are omitted altogether, since they are not essential to intelligibility= in the weak version, weak forms are not omitted altogether, but are adapted for /-L Ether features of connected speech that involve assimilatory processes are not included in the LF3, though, like weak forms, they will need to be taught for receptive purposes b) %hythm

55

/nglish is said to have a stress#timed as opposed to a syllable#timed rythm !hat is, stressed syllables are said to occur at roughly e)ual time intervals, with non#stressed syllables being stretched or s)uashed together in order to ocupy the time between stresses En the other hand, in syllable#timed languages, syllables are said to occupt identical time intervals regardless of whether they are stressed or not, or of how many unstressed syllables occur between the stressed ones +tress#timing is not a feature of the LF3 although the lengthening of stressed syllables seems to be crucial to intelligible /nglish pronunciation c) 6ord +tress -t seems to be important to L, /nglish receivers but rarely causes intelligibility problems in the data, and where it does, it occurs in combination with another phonological error 6ord stress rules are so complex as to be unteachable En the other hand, misplaced word stress has a corresponding effect on the placement of nuclear stress, so we cannot *ust dismiss it -t also affects the aspiration of fortis plosives, since it only occurs before a stressed syllable !he LF3 recommends providing learners with a number of general guidelines For example, that the ma*ority of two#syllable nouns receive stress on the first syllable and two#syllable verbs on the second d) -ntonation !here are three areas of interest: pitch movement, nuclear stress and tone units (avid 9ra'il$s theory of discourse intonation has at its centre the falling (proclaiming) tone, which speakers use to indicate that the information is new, and the fall#rise (referring) tone which speakers use to indicate that the information is given 9ut this theory is not applicable to L5 pedagogy because what counts as given or new information seems to involve many situational factors, thus, it is not teachable !he author does not believe that the use of "native#speaker$ pitch movements matters for intelligibility Muclear stress, whether unmarked (on the last content word of a tone unit) or contrastive (somewhere else), is the most important key to the speaker$s intended meaning, thus, it is crucial for intelligibility Learners ac)uire nuclear stress, and even contrastive stress, at the receptive level reasonably fast, but they do not ac)uire it productively for far longer +o nuclear stress production and placement have to be taught overtly (like teaching the extra length of a vowel) 1s regards tone units, although the data does not include problems related to the lack of word grouping, its potential to affect nuclear placement make it necessary to include it in the FL3 : 1rticulatory settings

Languages differ )uite radically in their articulatory settings, with general differences in tension, tongue shape, pressure of the articulators, lip and cheek and *aw posture and movement /nglish has the main focus on the tip of the tongue and the alveolar ridge, consonants are more laxed, a mid#to#forward gravity of the tongue, etc

5: