Startseite Comparing the Intelligibility of Different Varieties of English Through Predicting Learners Comprehension: A Phonetic Experimental Approach
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Comparing the Intelligibility of Different Varieties of English Through Predicting Learners Comprehension: A Phonetic Experimental Approach

  • Chao Wu

    Chao WU is currently an associate professor of English (applied linguistic) at Department of Foreign Language of Nanchang Business College (NCBC), Jiangxi Agricultural University. His research efforts are focused on speech production and perception, L2 pronunciation and intelligibility, L2 oral assessment and testing.

    und Fang Gao

    Fang GAO is currently a lecturer of English at Department of Foreign Language of Nanchang Business College (NCBC), Jiangxi Agricultural University. Her research efforts are focused on English language teaching and English Language testing.

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 17. März 2023
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

In this paper, we focus on the need for measuring the intelligibility of English pronunciation using an automated speech system, and the system proceeded in this feasibility study was tested with 18 speakers coming from six countries representing six types of English (China, Vietnam, Egypt, India, South Africa and the Philippines). Those test candidates were selected carefully to stand for a series of intelligibility, two different approaches, transcription and nonsense, were utilized to test and measure their intelligibility. An automated computer pattern developed for speaking proficiency scoring based on suprasegmental measures was set to predict intelligibility scores. The Pearson’s correlation was 0.743 for transcription construct and 0.819 for the nonsense construct between the human assessed and computer predicted scores. The reliable inter-rater Cronbach’s alpha for the transcription scores was 0.943 and 0.945 for the nonsense intelligibility scores. Basing on the type of intelligibility measure, the computer utilized different suprasegmental measures to predict the score. The computer used 11 measures for the nonsense intelligibility score and eight for the transcription score. Only two features were common to both constructs. These analyses and results of this computer experimental pattern can provide researchers of L2 different perspectives of measuring intelligibility in research afterwards.

About the authors

Chao Wu

Chao WU is currently an associate professor of English (applied linguistic) at Department of Foreign Language of Nanchang Business College (NCBC), Jiangxi Agricultural University. His research efforts are focused on speech production and perception, L2 pronunciation and intelligibility, L2 oral assessment and testing.

Fang Gao

Fang GAO is currently a lecturer of English at Department of Foreign Language of Nanchang Business College (NCBC), Jiangxi Agricultural University. Her research efforts are focused on English language teaching and English Language testing.

References

Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Venkatagiri, H. (1994). Syllable duration and pausing in the speech of Chinese ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 807-812.10.2307/3587566Suche in Google Scholar

Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141-201.10.1177/002383099704000203Suche in Google Scholar

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1-16.10.1017/S0272263197001010Suche in Google Scholar

Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399-423.10.2307/3588487Suche in Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (1996). Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing, 13, 208-238.10.1177/026553229601300205Suche in Google Scholar

Ginther, A., Dimova, S., & Yang, R. (2010). Conceptual and empirical relationships between temporal measures of fluency and oral English proficiency with implications for automated scoring. Language Testing, 27(3), 379-399.10.1177/0265532210364407Suche in Google Scholar

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201-223. doi: 10.2307/3588378.10.2307/3588378Suche in Google Scholar

Hirschi, K. (2019, September). Training intonation and word stress through Praat: Techniques and resources for pronunciation practice [Paper Presentation]. Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United Sates.Suche in Google Scholar

Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.10.1093/applin/amm017Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, D. O., Kang, O., & Ghanem, R. (2015). Language proficiency ratings: Human vs. machine. In J. Levis, H. Le, I. Lucic, E. Simpson, & S. Vo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 119-129). Iowa State University.Suche in Google Scholar

Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kang, O. (2012). Impact of rater characteristics and prosodic features of speaker accentedness on ratings of international teaching assistants’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 249-269.10.1080/15434303.2011.642631Suche in Google Scholar

Kang, O. (2013). Relative impact of pronunciation features on ratings of non-native speakers’ oral proficiency. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 10-15). Iowa State University.Suche in Google Scholar

Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554-566.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.xSuche in Google Scholar

Kang, O., Thomson, R., & Moran, M. (2015, March 21-24). Intelligibility of different varieties of English: The effects of incorporating “accented” English into high stakes assessment [Paper presentation]. American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada.Suche in Google Scholar

Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145-164.10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001Suche in Google Scholar

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377.10.2307/3588485Suche in Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73-97.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.xSuche in Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(s1), 285-310.10.1111/0023-8333.49.s1.8Suche in Google Scholar

Nakazawa, K. (2012). The effectiveness of focused attention on pronunciation and intonation training in tertiary Japanese language education on learners’ confidence: Preliminary report on training workshops and a supplementary computer program. International Journal of Learning, 18(4), 181-192.10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v18i04/47590Suche in Google Scholar

Nye, P. W., & Gaitenby, J. H. (1974). The intelligibility of synthetic monosyllabic words in short, syntactically normal sentences. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 37(38), 169-190.Suche in Google Scholar

Picheny, M. A., Durlach, N. I., & Braida, L. D. (1985). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 28(1), 96-103.10.1044/jshr.2801.96Suche in Google Scholar

Riggenbach, H. (1991). Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversation. Discourse Processes, 14, 423-441.10.1080/01638539109544795Suche in Google Scholar

Rounds, P. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643-672.10.2307/3586987Suche in Google Scholar

Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333-342.10.1111/j.1467-971X.1985.tb00423.xSuche in Google Scholar

Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7-9), 905-945.10.1080/01690961003589492Suche in Google Scholar

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by an academic project entitled “World Language and Cultural Research” (2022) granted by China Foreign Language Strategy Research Center.

Published Online: 2023-03-17
Published in Print: 2023-02-23

© 2023 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Heruntergeladen am 20.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2023-0102/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen