Intelligibility in English as a lingua franca – The interpreters’ perspective

2.1.1 Background knowledge

The essential role of prior topic-specific knowledge in the comprehension process is widely recognised (McNamara et al. 2007). In ELF studies, the question of background knowledge is closely related to the notion that shared knowledge enables experts from a domain to communicate effectively with each other using ELF in their community of practice. It has been assumed that experts in the field of the study described in Section 3 – business communication – can overcome linguistic barriers thanks to their specialisation in the respective field (e.g. Kankaanranta and Louhiala Salminen 2018). Poncini (2004) found a culture of its own at business meetings, a groupness that evens out difficulties arising from the speakers’ different levels of English proficiency.

Turning to experimental findings from other relevant fields of linguistics, early studies (Gass and Varonis 1984; Smith 1992) also showed that prior knowledge increased the intelligibility and interpretability of ELF users.

Interpreters’ prior knowledge cannot be assumed to equal their clients’ expertise, since they are usually not part of the expert groups they work for. Therefore, interpreters try to acquire as much subject knowledge as possible during preparation for a specific task or for domains they regularly work in (Kalina 2005). In an experimental study (Díaz Galaz et al. 2015), thorough preparation and thus acquisition of background knowledge was shown to lead to better quality in interpreting difficult technical segments. Scholars believe that preparation also helps when source text difficulty arises from non-standard input (Albl-Mikasa 2013; Huh 2017; Reithofer 2018) and practising interpreters likewise see it as a potential coping strategy (Chang and Wu 2014).

2.1.2 Knowledge of ELF users’ first language

One recurring feature observed in ELF contexts is that speakers creatively apply elements of their first language (L1) also when speaking English (e.g. Guido 2012). Many studies have thus investigated whether intelligibility of ELF users is higher when speakers and listeners share an L1, i.e. whether a German listener understands a German speaker of English better than a Spanish or an American listener would.

In this respect, Bent and Bradlow (2003) proposed the concept of the matched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit, an advantage resulting from the interlocutors’ common knowledge about consonant and vowel categories, emphasis patterns, intonation, etc. Another explanation for this hypothetical advantage could be that persons with the same L1 typically share a common culture in the sense of common knowledge about (linguistic) conventions and the like (Kachru 2008: 311) and thus understand each other better in an ELF context.

This advantage was confirmed in various studies in the field of ELF and beyond with very different designs (Jenkins 2000: 57; Lee 2004; Smith 1992; Wang and Van Heuven 2015; Yule et al. 1990). However, Hansen Edwards et al. (2018) found that it depends on the language proficiency of listeners whether a shared linguistic background is beneficial to intelligibility or not. Tauroza and Luk (1996) also failed to find what they call an own accent advantage.

In the field of interpreting, Chang and Wu (2014) as well as Katikos (2015) concluded that interpreters understand ELF users from a common L1 background best and find those with significantly different language backgrounds most difficult to interpret.

Furthermore, there is evidence for a benefit of knowing a speaker’s L1, that is, not having the same L1, but understanding the speaker’s L1 very well. Several interpreting studies (Kraus 2011; Kurz and Basel 2009) examined this phenomenon and all found that knowing an ELF user’s L1 well or having it as a working language immensely facilitates the interpreter’s task. In reference to Bent and Bradlow, Albl-Mikasa (2013: 105) called this the shared languages benefit.

2.1.3 Familiarity with use of English

Studies from various linguistic sub-disciplines on familiarity with non-standard English will be reviewed in this section. Although not all of them are based on the ELF paradigm, I believe their findings are nevertheless relevant for this paper.

Some linguists believe that non-L1 listeners generally understand other non-L1 speakers better than L1 listeners of the language that is being spoken do. They see the reason for this in the fact that non-L1 listeners are familiar with non-standard use of the language and know and recognise strategies employed by non-L1 speakers. Bent and Bradlow (2003) coined the term mismatched interlanguage speech benefit for this hypothetical phenomenon.

Several scholars looked at how familiarity with non-standard speech in general affects comprehension. It has been observed that ELF users are more intelligible for listeners with previous exposure to non-standard speech (Kennedy and Trofimovich 2008), be it through international experience (Hansen Edwards et al. 2018) or contact with ELF use at work, through (social) media or while travelling or living abroad (Wilang and Teo 2012b).

Regarding familiarity with a specific accent or rather similect (Mauranen 2018), several studies showed that it increases the ability to understand the similect (Derwing and Munro 1997; Munro and Derwing 1999; Wingstedt and Schulman 1987).

Smith and Rafiqzad (1979) suggested that this familiarity materialises already after a short time of exposure. Weil (2001) indicates a period of four days, after which even different speakers with a similar accent are more intelligible. Clarke (2004) found that this normalization can become apparent after only a few hours or even after only 1 min or two to four sentences of exposure to the same speaker.

Practising interpreters confirm this and claim they are able to adapt to a specific accent in a few minutes (Chang and Wu 2014: 176–177). Student interpreters reported similar effects (Huh 2017: 73).

Familiarizing interpreters with different similects is frequently mentioned as a potential training strategy for ELF settings. Scholars assume that frequency of exposure allows for the storage of the specific linguistic patterns in long-term memory, which then facilitates the interpreters’ listening effort (Huh 2017: 60).

Other linguistic studies (Clarke 2000; Munro et al. 2006), however, rebut the advantage of this type of familiarity or find only weak evidence of a link to intelligibility.

2.1.4 English proficiency of listeners

Another variable that some researchers believe affects the intelligibility of ELF users is the listeners’ proficiency in English. Listeners with higher proficiency in English are thought to have fewer problems understanding ELF users.

Smith (1992) showed that listeners’ language proficiency influences intelligibility of ELF users, but that this does not mean L1 listeners are best able to understand ELF users. Wilang and Teo (2012b) found ELF listeners’ exposure to English in education to correlate with comprehension of ELF users. In their experiment, listeners with graduate studies in English were better at understanding ELF users. Matsuura et al. (2017) also found listeners who were more proficient in English to be better at understanding ELF users, since they relied less on the phonological input and were able to use contextual clues.

Turning to ELF settings typical for interpreting assignments, variables such as background knowledge, familiarity with ELF contexts or proficiency in English can be analysed by using data from a study which will be described in the following chapter.

3.6.1 Background knowledge

Background knowledge or prior knowledge of the topic also referred to as subject-matter expertise has frequently been cited as a facilitating factor for ELF intelligibility (see Section 2.1.1). The business students were expected to share relevant knowledge with the speaker and thus understand him better than the interpreting students.

Apart from their expertise resulting from their field of study, FH1 and FH2 students also considered themselves to be more familiar with the subject of the speech than CTS students. In their responses to the question “How familiar were you with the topics discussed in the speech? (from 1 = very familiar to 7 = not familiar at all)”, there was a two points difference between the median of CTS and FH1 students and a one point difference between the CTS and the FH2 groups (cf. Table 3).

Nevertheless, the results of the comprehension test for the three groups showed that the non-experts from CTS had reached the highest score at 8.3, compared to 8.1 by FH and 5.7 by FH2 (cf. Table 4). Thus, even though FH1 and FH2 students participated in a course in the domain of the speech and claimed to be more familiar with the subject, the interpreting students achieved better results in the comprehension test.

3.6.2 Familiarity with ELF use

Several studies indicate that listeners who have more experience in ELF settings and with ELF users of any linguacultural background also find them more intelligible (see Section 2.1.3).

Therefore, in our study, the participants were asked “How often do you speak English with persons who use English as a foreign language?”.^[1]

The answers (very often, often, sometimes, rarely, never) were grouped into two categories: participants with more contact with ELF users (very often, often), and those with less (sometimes, rarely).

In all test groups, respondents in the “more experience” category achieved better test results: in FH1 by 2.6 points, in FH2 by 2.1 points and in CTS by one point (cf. Table 5). A t-test showed a significant difference in the FH1 scores for less contact (M = 6.82, SD = 2.4) and more contact (M = 9.43, SD = 3.6); t (25) = 2.24, p = 0.035. Because of the small number of participants in FH2, no t-test was conducted, but the 2-point difference is a highly meaningful descriptive outcome. Hence, the participants who spoke with ELF users (very) often also understood the Italian speaker better.

3.6.3 Familiarity with the speaker’s ELF similect

Another variable that, according to several studies, influences the intelligibility of ELF users is the listeners’ familiarity of the speakers’ specific accent or similect, in our case Italian English. For this reason, respondents were asked to indicate (on a 5-point ordinal scale) how often they had heard Italians speak English.

In the FH1 group, 19 participants reported prior experience with Italian users of English. Surprisingly, the participants who stated that they had never heard an Italian speak English achieved the highest test score. This is in stark contrast to the findings discussed in Section 2.1.2. On the other hand, for those with experience, the test score increased with more experience. The results are, therefore, contradictory. It should be noted, however, that the group sizes were very small, and no one had chosen the answer option “very often”.

The FH2 and CTS groups did not show a clear picture either. No linear correlation was found in scatter plots. Due to the very small group sizes, no inferential statistics were carried out.

Thus, in this study, familiarity with the specific accent could not be confirmed as a factor positively influencing intelligibility.

3.6.4 Listeners’ L1

Overall, the number of participants grouped by their L1 is too small for general statements or statistical calculations about the influence of L1. They will be presented here to show a certain trend, but cannot necessarily be extrapolated.

Almost all students in FH1 and FH2 indicated German as their L1. In the CTS group, five test participants shared the first language of the speaker – Italian. However, they achieved a lower test score than the other listeners. The shared languages benefit therefore did not materialise (cf. Table 6).

Participants who did not indicate German or Italian as their first language achieved the highest score. It is not known if they were foreign students living in Austria or Austrians with a different L1. In both cases, it can be assumed that these participants were more used to creatively using their multilingual repertoires and might thus have been better at understanding such strategies employed by the speaker.

3.6.5 English proficiency

The influence of listeners’ English proficiency on the intelligibility of ELF users was tested using various results. First, it was evaluated based on the participants’ self-assessment of their English skills. In the questionnaire participants were asked to rate their English listening skills on a 7-point scale from 1 = very good to 7 = very poor. The results indicate good, above-average listening skills (cf. Table 7).

The self-reported English skills of CTS and FH2 participants showed only a low to very low correlation with their test scores. For FH1, however, results of a Spearman correlation indicated that there was a significant moderate correlation between self-assessment of language skills and the test score (r_s = −0.47, n = 27, p = 0.007). Thus, in one of the groups, participants with a better knowledge of English were able to achieve better results.

Furthermore, the influence of English proficiency on the score was assessed using additional data. Some of the respondents from FH1 attended a bilingual version of their MA programme with a strict selection procedure at the beginning of the course and many classes in English. One can assume that they were more proficient in English than the other FH1 students. A comparison of their mean values in the listening comprehension test shows that the score of the bilingual students was more than half a point above that of the German-speaking students (cf. Table 8). However, this difference was not statistically significant.

These results indicate that in this study, the English proficiency of the participants had only a limited effect on the comprehension test scores and their understanding of the ELF user.