Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Need for Accent Variation Within ELT Resources from the Perspective of Chinese L2 Learners
A report presented as part of the requirement
for the degree of BA (Hons)
Harry P. Caulton
English Language and Japanese
Word count: 6552
May 2015
1
Abstract This research addressed the question of Chinese English learners’ ability to distinguish between native speakers and non-native speakers of English; investigated Chinese English learners’ opinions about different native and non-native accents, in relation to English language teaching (ELT) to support the necessity of greater accent, both native and non-native varieties, usage in ELT resources. 19 Chinese participants listened to 5 different English accents: General American (GA), Japanese, Malaysian, Nigerian, and Standard Southern British English (SSBE) and rated the speakers on a scale of 0-10 based on whether or not the speaker was deemed to possess a listed trait. This study found that participants were able to distinguish between native and non-native speakers of English. Speakers of GA and SSBE were rated as having better pronunciation, being easier to understand, speaking in a more proper manner, and would be better English teachers than the other native speakers and the non-native speaker. It is argued that these results are heavily influenced by the usage of General American and Standard Southern British English within ELT resources and this highlights the necessity of a greater range of accents used in ELT resources. Acknowledgements I would like to take this time to thank my supervisor, Indu Meddegama, for her assistance, her advice, and her support throughout this entire research project. I would like to extend my thanks to Rosie Hedger and Indu for their help in the acquisition of participants. I wish to thank my speakers for their invaluable contribution to this research, and all of the participants who volunteered their time to participate in this research.
2
“I, Harry Caulton, declare that I am the sole author of this assignment and the work is a
result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. All references have been
duly cited.”
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature Review
2.1. A Note to the Reader 5 2.2. Listening in the L2: Models of Aural Comprehension 5
2.3. Nativeness Principle vs. Intelligibility Principle 10 2.4. Conflicts within ELT 12
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design 14 3.2. Profile of participants 15 3.3. Profile of Speakers 15 3.4. Ethics 18 3.5. Procedure 19
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1. Chinese L2 English Learners’ Opinions About Different Accents in
Relation to ELT 20
4.2. Chinese L2 English Learners’ Ability to Distinguish Between NS and NNS
of English 26
4.3. Chinese L2 English Learners’ Opinion of Own Accent 28
4.4. Nativeness vs. Intelligibility from the L2 Perspective 29
5. Conclusion 31
3
References 33 Appendix 1 37 Appendix 2 40 Appendix 3 42 Appendix 4 43 Appendix 5 45
4
1. Introduction
There is already a significant amount of research into second language learners
within linguistics, with particular focus on the perspective of the learner. There have been
many research papers making observations of learners’ accent preferences which could be
used to justify the continuation of native speaker models used in English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) classrooms in line with learner accent preferences (Kirkpatrick and Xu,
2002; McKenzie, 2008), or to propose a greater variety of accents used within EFL
resources (Matsuda and Friedrich (2012)). Scales et al.’s (2006) research titled Language
Learners’ Perceptions of Accent highlighted a lack of consistency in learners’ ability to
identify and distinguish between various accents of spoken English, and from this proposes
that there is a need for greater emphasis on accent within learning environment.
This research is in response to Scales et al.’s (2006:735) recommendation of other
researchers testing their results in varying contexts with participants of varying
nationalities. Their research included nationals from five Asian countries but there were no
participants from China. This research project attempts to address the question of Chinese
English learners’ ability to distinguish between native speakers and non-native speakers of
English; to discover Chinese English learners’ opinions about different accents, both native
and non-native, in relation to English language teachers; and will be used to either support
or oppose the necessity of greater exposure to varieties of English within the classroom.
The literature review provides an overview of aural comprehension theories, the issue of
nativeness and intelligibility in the field of teaching English language teaching (ELT), and
highlights the still unresolved issue of conflicting interests in the field of ELT. The study is
then outlined, and the data collected analysed and the implications of this data discussed.
5
2. Literature review
2.1. A note to the reader
The usage in this research of “L1”, first language, is to be seen as interchangeable
with the below defined “native speaker” [NS] as both are used in this research paper.
“A NS is someone who has learned a language (or languages) through the normal processes
of child language acquisition.” (Michelioudakis, 2014)
Similarly, “L2”, second language, holds the below definition of a non-native speaker
[NNS] and are thus to be seen as interchangeable terms. These two terms will also both be
used in this research paper.
“A NNS lacks... this. Most come to learn a foreign language ‘top down’, usually beginning
with the adult standard dialect and prestige accent of that language, and focusing on the
formal and informal varieties felt to be most useful to their communicative needs.”
(Michelioudakis, 2014)
2.2. Listening in the L2: Models of aural comprehension
Listening is undoubtedly an important aspect of language learning, especially in
regards to oral communication. If learners cannot understand the spoken word, how can a
learner then hope to successfully communicate with other users of that language? It would
be unreasonable to suggest that it is possible, in every context, to maintain successful and
meaningful communication if one of the interlocutors is unable to aurally comprehend the
other.
One widely accepted model of communication is the Code Model of Communication
(CMC). The CMC, despite being a compilation of three distinctive models of communication,
6
can be summarised succinctly. The CMC “characterizes communication as a process
wherein a source (encoder) conveys a message to a receiver (decoder) through the
transmission of a signal [phonetic information]. Communication is considered successful if
the message received is the same as that sent.” (Blackburn, 2007). A simple example of
successful communication would be that a speaker (encoder) orally transmits the following
encoded signal to a listener (decoder):
/pli zː sɪt daʊn/
Which the listener then decodes into “Please sit down”. In accordance with
Blackburn’s above depiction of how communication is achieved, a successful act of
communication has taken place between two interlocutors.
Field (2008) takes the decoding of aurally received language further and provides
much greater detail of the process of decoding than the CMC. He divides the decoding
process into the following levels:
Stage Example Decoding processes
involved
Phonemic /hə̍ləʊhaʊɑːju tːə̍deɪ/ - Identification of
vowels and
consonants;
- Adjusting to an
individual’s voice.
Syllable /hə̍l+əʊ+haʊ+ɑː+ju +ːtə̍+
deɪ/
- Recognising syllable
stress and structure;
- Using weak syllables
to locate function
words.
7
Word-form hello how are you today - Accounting for
elision;
- Matching phonemes
to known lexical
information;
- Distinguishing
known and unknown
lexemes.
Chunk [hello] + [how are you] +
[today]
- [Grouping together
known lexical
chunks/set phrases]
Syntax Formulaic expression +
adverb + auxiliary verb +
pronoun + adverb
- Recognising where
phrases start and
end;
- Anticipating
syntactic patterns;
- Understanding
functional language;
- Making inferences
based on syntax.
Intonation Noting where and how the
intonation fluctuates
- Making use of
sentence stress;
- Using intonation to
support syntax.
(Sample of processes occurring at each stage of decoding, revised for the purposes of this
study, from Field, 2008:115, 336-7)
8
L1 language users are considered to be experts in this decoding process. For them,
these processes are automatic; the matching of received phonetic information (phonemes)
and phonemic compositions of known lexemes is, excluding situations wherein the noise
level is enough to cause interference, accurate; rapid; and demanding of minimal mental
attention. L2 language users may require greater time to pair the received phonetic
information with known lexemes, which takes from the time required to fulfil the final
stage of comprehension - meaning building.
Being able to decode the received phonetic information accurately into the intended
sentences is the first stage of a listener’s comprehension. The acquisition of automatic
decoding of phonemes is arguably essential for complete and consistent comprehension,
one which Field (2008:119) correctly notes, “is a slow affair”. The meaning of an utterance
cannot simply be a face-value sum of its components, and so, similarly to the decoding
process, Field proposes a 12 staged model of meaning comprehension with multiple
processes at each stage (338-9). An abridged example is shown below:
Stage Processes which occur
Word, syntactic, and intonational meaning - Dealing with word ambiguity and
inferring meaning of unknown
words;
- Relating syntax to context and
speaker’s functional intentions;
- Using intonation to perceive
functional language i.e. requests,
questions etc.
Derivation of meaning - Analysis of the literal meaning of
the utterance;
- Approximating speaker’s intended
meaning.
9
Addition to the meaning - Making inferences from the
utterance;
- Dealing with ambiguity and
vagueness.
Selection of information - Analysis of utterance and
distinguishing between relevant
and irrelevant (redundant)
information.
Integration of other information - Making links between what has
previously been said and current
utterance.
(Sample of processes occurring at each stage of meaning building, revised for the purposes
of this study, from Field, 2008:117, 338-9)
There is evidence that L2 learners rely more on contextual knowledge at first,
decreasingly so as their decoding skills increase in proficiency. For instance, Tsui and
Fullilove’s (1998) study of 20,000 Hong Kong examination candidates found that the more
successful listeners were those more adept at answering questions which required less
world knowledge. It was noted that this was something which the less proficient listeners
tended to fall back on i.e. the weaker listeners tended to rely more on contextual
information if they find themselves lacking in comprehension from decoding. There is some
contradictory evidence to this however (Field, 2004), which claims that L2 learners tend to
build hypotheses based on disjointed and isolated known, or assumed to be recognised,
lexical items without combining the received lexical information with available contextual
information.
Using Field’s proposed model of the process of decoding, it could be argued that an
error of comprehension at the phonemic level almost ensures an error in communication of
the uttered sentence. Errors at the word forming stage due to resyllabification, the
10
transference of a consonant from the previous syllable onto the next (eg. made out = may
doubt, great ape = gray tape) would also cause errors of comprehension. Factors which
could induce this include accented speech. A solution would be greater exposure to
accented speech and, in the case of English learners, this can be accomplished by using a
wider range of accents in teaching material.
Field (2008:160) suggests a way of accelerating the process of normalisation
(adjustment) to individual accents in the L2 language classroom involving an emphasis on
the teacher’s voice; a range of male and female voices of a standardised variety; gradual
introduction of varieties, preferably widespread varieties; an expansion on those to a range
of L1 accents; and then exposure to L2/3 accents. The notion behind this is to stress to the
learners that significantly more communication occurs between L2 users of English, than
L1 and L2 users. The practical applications of such a proposal would be that it would
greatly accelerate the process of L2 normalisation, wherein a listener adjusts to the
speaker’s speech rate, intonation patterns, loudness etc., all of which occurs within seconds
for an L1 listener.
2.3. Nativeness Principle vs. Intelligibility Principle
The issue of NS models has long been debated. There are two sides to this debate:
those who support the Nativeness Principle (NP), and those in favour of the Intelligibility
Principle (IP). Those in favour of the NP retain beliefs that only a NS model can provide a
realistic and representative speech and grammar model for the students and that it is these
to which learners should aspire to. In the contrasting position lies IP.
Smith (1992) critically highlighted that the issue of intelligibility is not as simple as
merely understanding what has been said. He noted that “intelligibility is not a one-way
process” (Kirkpatrick et. al. 2008) involving only the listener, but an interactional process
between the interlocutor and the listener in a tripartite definition of intelligibility. Smith
(1992:78) distinguishes three distinct levels of understanding - “intelligibility”,
11
“comprehensibility”, and “interpretability”. For complete understanding of an utterance the
listener must:
● be able to accurately recognise and distinguish between individual words
(intelligibility);
● have the ability to understand the utterance in context (comprehensibility);
● and be successful in discerning the true purpose of the utterance, the
illocutionary force behind said utterance (interpretability).
In the case of Grau (2005), he interviewed future ELT professionals at a German
university, and concluded that they recognise that the NS models used in ELT, are
unrealistic and that the accents are (largely) unobtainable. There was a general receptivity
to the notion of international intelligibility, rather than focussing primarily on obtaining a
near native accent. However, it must be noted that when questions regarding corrections of
learners’ English were asked, participants tended to favour the NS variant for what was
deemed “correct”. This, according to Grau, is likely attributed to the lack of acceptance of
non-native speaker models within ELT and a continued dependence on NS models (Grau,
2005).
A potential consequence of NS models and the NP, is that L2 learners may well begin
to assume that a Standard Southern British English (SSBE) or General American (GA) is
essential, fearing L1-speakers and fellow L2 learners of English will be unable to
understand them otherwise. This is despite studies showing that not all L1 varieties of
English are in fact internationally intelligible and that certain non-L1 speaker variants are
actually more so (see: Smith and Rafiqzad, 1979; Hung, 2002; Deterding, 2005; Deterding
and Kirkpatrick, 2006). It must also be noted that SSBE is merely one of many accents
within the British Isles, inherently no more correct than accents such as Liverpudlian or
Mancunian. Estimates from Trudgill (2002:171-2) arrive at 3-5% of the population of
12
England actually possessing a SSBE accent. As noted a decade later, “it seems unlikely that
it has increased since then” (Hughes 2012:4).
2.4 Conflicts within ELT
Given the diversification caused from the global spread of English, it is perhaps
unsurprising that there are questions which have been raised about the relevance of L1
speaker norms for modern international L2 and L3 learners. Recent research (see: Cogo
(2012); Jenkins (2012)) raises the issues surrounding current issues in ELT. Their research
highlights the need to separate ourselves from the dated teaching methods whereby L1
speakers are held in high esteem and instead, focus on granting students more exposure to
the modern day diversification of English; introducing and placing greater emphasis on
multilingualism; and development of strategies to aid students in using their English in a
manner which promotes mutual intelligibility, rather than modelling L1 speakers.
Kumaravadivelu (2012) stresses the need for an epistemic separation from dominant L1
norms in the L2/3 classroom, and Matsuda (2002) and Matsuda and Friedrich (2012)
discuss the need for a greater diversity within the modern English curriculum, expressing
concerns about NS speaker models and the need of greater exposure to the diversity of
English which would likely be to the benefit of the learner.
Graddol (2006) summarises that the majority of English speakers are no longer L1
speakers, but those of other languages, using English primarily as a medium of
communication between other international interlocutors. Indeed, Crystal (2010, cited in
May, 2012) furthers this by estimating that approximately “400 million [people] use
English as a first language [L1], 600 million use English as a second language [L2], and a
further 600 million use it fluently as a foreign language [L3]”. Despite the fact that the
majority of speakers of English no longer fall within the classification of L1 speakers, the
belief that L1 speaker models are the pinnacle to which L2 and L3 students must aspire to
still permeates within many countries.
13
Certainly, there is profound evidence which supports the NS models from the
perspective of the learner. There are many cases where learners have been noted to have a
NS-model preference (Crismore et al., 1996; Kirkpatrick and Xu, 2002; McKenzie, 2008).
Even distinctions therein of GA preference (Van der Haagen (1998); Bayard et al (2001))
and preference of SSBE (Ladegaard and Sachdev (2006)) can be found. Despite this
preference, the fact remains that English as a medium of communication is used more
frequently between L2 and L3 speakers than between L2 and L3 speakers and L1 speakers.
Whilst the learners’ preferences are noteworthy of research, the reality of the practical
applications of English highlights the need to break from NS models.
14
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
The format of the quantitative questionnaire used in this research is a modification
on Scales et al’s (2006) four point Likert scale, in that it too measures participants’
perceptions of which traits speakers display, but the participants used a scale of agreement
from 0-10, rather than four levels of agreement. It was thought that to gain more insightful
data, a larger numerical scale would be more suitable for interpreting speaker opinions.
When using a five or seven point Likert scale as a data collection tool, there is the
option for the participant to choose the middle value, typically represented by a three, and
thus remain neutral in their responses. By using a Likert scale with a greater number of
options, it was thought that respondents' use of the middle value category would be
decreased, as was proven by Matell and Jacoby (1971). In concurrence with this, despite
there being debate about the omission/inclusion of a middle value (See: Komorita (1963),
Garland (1991)), it was decided that the omission was unnecessary. The scale used in this
research was an eleven point scale from 0-10 which rated the perceptions which Chinese
L2 English learners had in regards to the possession of listed traits held by five speakers.
There were two qualitative questions in the personal information form (See:
Appendix 1), one of which was to state which accent they wish to attain, American, British,
or retain their own. This question was included in order to understand the learners’ accent
goals - if they wish to retain a Chinese accent, or try to obtain a native accent. The other
question which required qualitative answers from the participant was to state whether or
not the participant liked their English accent, with a space below to expand upon their
selection.
Some of the questions asked of the participants (See: Appendix 2) might be seen as
more suited to a yes/no response type question. One might think that a person either IS or
IS NOT a native speaker. I would argue that, whilst that view is certainly realistic, for the
sake of this research the use of a scale of 0-10 was to negate the risk of the participants
15
simply guessing the answer and getting it right, especially in regards to the question of
speaker nativeness. This effect would be negated should the research have been carried out
with a much larger number of participants, and the design of the questionnaire would be
modified accordingly, but using a scale of 0-10 was deemed suitable for a small number of
participants.
3.2. Profile of participants
The participants were 13 male and 6 female non-native English language learners
from China who were studying at an English university in the north of England at the time
of data collection. All participants in this study were between the ages of 20 and 26 years
old.
3.3. Profile of speakers
Speaker one
This NS is a 21 year old woman from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Although she listed
English as her first language she is highly proficient in Malay, quite proficient in Japanese,
and can speak Mandarin Chinese well enough to function in day-to-day conversation.
During her childhood she was exposed to three dialects of Chinese: Cantonese, Hakka, and
Mandarin, in addition to English and a little Japanese. She has lived in Malaysia for 18 years,
Japan for one year, and has lived in the UK for over one year.
She displays phonological features such as the inability to consistently realise the
final voiced phoneme of words. Examples from the recording include food - /fu /ː, good -
/ɡʊ/, and hundred - /̍hʌndrə/. Her speech also contains many glottal stops, which “occur
inappropriately” (Yong, 2001:281) within her speech. This speaker also realises the
phoneme /ð/ as /d/ in examples such as: they’re - /̍deɪə/. These features of spoken
16
English are in accordance with Yong’s (2001:279-295) depiction of an English speaker who
has Malay as a first language. Whilst this speaker claims English as her sole first language, it
is the researcher’s belief that the influence and usage of Malay and Chinese (Mandarin)
during her childhood and education have contributed to her accent containing the
realisation of the phoneme /v/ as a /w/, noted by Chang (2001:311) as a feature of spoken
English found in people from Malaysia, in addition to the above described features. The
Malaysian accent was chosen for Malaysia’s (relative) geographical closeness to China, and
because within Malaysia, there is a significant population of people with Chinese ethnicity.
These were taken as possible reasons for the participants being familiar with the Malaysian
accent.
Speaker two
Speaker 2 is a 21 year old native American English speaker who has lived in the
United States for 18 years, UK for nearly 3 years, and France for 6 months. She is highly
proficient in French, having studied the language formally for over 9 years. Her exposure to
other languages during childhood extends as far as Spanish and German.
This speaker’s speech displays features notable of a GA accent. GA is a rhotic accent
and as such, the /r/ phoneme before a consonant is realised. An example of this in the
recording is the realisation of the word card in this speaker’s accent is /kärd/, instead of
Speaker 4’s non-rhotic SSBE /kɑːd/. Another distinguishing feature is the /kant/ vs.
/kɑːnt/ feature of GA vs. SSBE. The shortened realisation of the /ɑː/ of SSBE to /a/ in GA is
a very marked feature. These are in accordance with Borner and Neubert’s (2004)
depiction of what constitutes as a GA accent. GA was selected as it is an easily recognisable
accent to students of English as students are very likely to have been exposed to it from
ELT resources and media sources.
17
Speaker three
This speaker is a 31 year old woman who originated from Nigeria and has been
exposed to English for her entire life. It must be noted that the speaker listed English,
Nupe, and Hausa as her first languages, and as such is considered a NS of English. Her
accent is influenced by her having lived in Nigeria for 21 years, UK for six years, Malaysia
for three years, and India for one. It is also influenced by the languages which she was
exposed to as a child, which were English, Nupe, Hausa, Yoruba, Hindi, Arabic, and
Kakanda.
This speaker demonstrated traits depicted by Tregidgo (2001) as belonging to a
speaker of a West African language who is speaking English. The speaker occasionally
pronounces the phoneme /ð/ as /d/, the definite article /ðə/ as /de/, and displays a
limited distinction of vowel length with single vowels. Specifically she was chosen as it
seemed unlikely that there would be a great deal of familiarity with this accent amongst the
Chinese, and to display another NS who did not belong to countries such as UK and USA.
Speaker four
This speaker is a 23 year old woman who has English as her first language, but has a
high proficiency in the Japanese language, having studied the language at university, via
self-study, and studying in Japan. She has lived in Japan for a combined duration of sixteen
months. The exposure to languages throughout childhood was limited to European
languages, French and German, and the speaker has studied both languages but claims that
she has limited capabilities in both.
In the recording, this speaker’s SSBE accent is made apparent due to her clear
distinctions between voiced and unvoiced plosives and fricatives. The noted distinct pairs
are: (plosives) /p/ and /b/, /t/ and /d, and /k/ and /g/; (fricatives) /f/ and /v/, /s/ and
/z/, and /θ/ and /ð/. This is in line with Roach’s (2004:239-245) depiction of the SSBE
accent. Another noted feature was a “very marked difference between weak, unstressed
18
syllables […] and strong syllables (stressed and unstressed) which are fully pronounced”
(Roach, 2004:243). These, combined with the researcher’s own experience with the SSBE
accent and how it sounds, made this person an ideal candidate for the SSBE speaker role.
The SSBE accent was chosen as it is likely one that is easily recognisable to students of
English as they’re likely to have heard it from ELT resources and the media, for example the
BBC.
Speaker five
This speaker is a 21 year old Japanese woman who has been learning English for 11
years. Before living in the UK the speaker studied English for an average of 6-15 hours a
week. This speaker’s accent is likely to have been influenced by English exposure during
childhood from media and cram school, as well as having lived and studied in the UK for a
year.
The Japanese native who volunteered to be recorded for this research demonstrated
traits typical of a Japanese English speaker. Those being the well known /l/ and /r/ being
mispronounced “a flap almost like a short /d/” (Thompson, 2001:298), the pronunciation
of the /v/ as a /b/ eg. very/berry, and the phoneme /ð/ being replaced by a /z/. These
traits are in line with Thompson’s (2001:296-309) depiction of which phonological
features of English a typical Japanese learner would demonstrate. The Japanese accent was
selected as Japan is geographically close to China and there is a greater chance of the
participants having been exposed to this accent before and thus the participants might be
more familiar with this NNS accent.
3.4. Ethics
Before the participants’ data was collected, the main ethical considerations were
orally explained. The participants were informed of the right to withdraw from the
research at any given time, with no explanation necessary; and the anonymisation of the
19
participants’ names to protect their privacy. Included in the personal information form was
a declaration (See: Appendix 1) wherein all of the orally communicated information was
depicted in written format.
3.5. Procedure
A detailed outline of the research, including the purpose behind the research and
procedure of data collection, was explained to the participants. The participants were
asked to sit separately and not to discuss their answers with each other so that individual
opinions would not be influenced by their peers. They were then asked to complete a
simple questionnaire detailing their personal information (See: Appendix 1).
After completion of the personal information form, the participants were played
each recording twice, with a one minute pause between each recording. The participants
were asked to “rate” the accents on listed traits using a scale of 0-10, with 0 indicating
absolute certainty of the speaker possessing the trait listed next to 0, and 10 indicating
absolute certainty of the speaker possessing the trait listed at 10.
The same transcript (See: Appendix 3) was used in each recording. The transcript
was taken from an elementary EFL student resource which had the transcripts of the
listening passages at the back of the book. Each recording was played twice, to allow time
for the learner to become normalised to the accents and to facilitate comprehension. The
recordings ranged in duration from 51-67 seconds and were played in order of ascending
length.
20
4. Quantitative Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1. Chinese L2 English Learners’ Opinions About Different Accents in Relation to ELT
(Graph 1 - Comprehensibility)
In terms of comprehensibility, Speaker 4 was deemed the easiest for the
participants to understand, followed closely by Speaker 2. That SSBE (Speaker 4) and GA
(Speaker 2) are rated as being easier to understand is perhaps unsurprising given that
within ELT, in regards to the coursebooks and audio materials, “a native-speaker model -
usually American, British or Australian - is adopted” (Buckledee, 2010:141). The results
imply that exposure to SSBE and GA has lead to a familiarity with these accents, and this
familiarity has lead to these accents being easier to understand from the perspective of the
learners.
The collected results for Speakers 1 and 5 imply that these accents were not found
to be especially difficult to understand and this could be due to the accents’ realisation
being similar to the Chinese accent, with only Speaker 3 being slightly below middle value.
21
A potential explanation of this could be due to a lack of familiarity with this accent from the
EFL classrooms (Speakers 2 and 4) or from accent similarity (Speakers 1 and 5), but even
so, the Nigerian accent was perceived as neither difficult to understand, nor easy to
understand.
(Graph 2 - Pronunciation of Speaker)
Speakers 2 and 4 are noted to have markedly better pronunciation over the other
three speakers, indicated by the distinction shown in Graph 2. An explanation of this is that
the usage of the predominant NS models within the Chinese ELT classrooms would dictate
that native speakers realise words “correctly”, and the participants would be inclined to see
these native speakers as people with “good” pronunciation, in comparison to the other
accents, native English speakers or not. This claim is supported by Tomlinson (2006:131)
who stated that all of the coursebooks “still use one of these prestige standards [GA and
SSBE] as their model of correctness”.
22
(Graph three - Speaks properly or not)
The term “properly” was deliberately used here to ascertain what is deemed by
Chinese L2 learners of English as “proper” and “improper” English. The results show that
SSBE is rated higher than GA, which might be explained by the historical prestige of British
English over American. Graph 3 could be interpreted as Chinese learners perceiving
“proper” English as being that of speakers who possess a SSBE and GA accent. The inverse
could also be interpreted, that speakers without a SSBE or GA accent speak in an
“improper” manner.
It is the Malaysian accent which is interesting here. It is rated noticeably higher
than the Nigerian and the Japanese but rated much closer to GA in this category than any
other in this research. The participants’ response to the Malaysian accent could be
explained through a combination of multiple factors. It may be that the speaker, having
lived and studied at a university in the UK for over a year, holds some Britishisms in her
speech and that the Chinese students, having had British speakers as speech models, have
noticed these and have rated her speech higher due to the prestige carried in her voice. In
23
addition to this, it is important to note the colonisation of Malaysia and the impact which
British English has had (See: Lowenberg, 1991) in relation to the English used in Malaysia.
However, as her speech is not seen as from someone from an obvious native speaker
country, such as Speakers 2 and 4, it was still considered less “proper”.
(Graph six - Speaks too fast)
The passage which the five speakers read out contained a total of 182 words. This
means that the five speakers spoke at the following rates:
Speaker 1 - 182/51 = 3.57 words per second
Speaker 2 - 182/53 = 3.43 words per second
Speaker 3 - 182/57 = 3.19 words per second
Speaker 4 - 182/63 = 2.89 words per second
Speaker 5 - 182/67 = 2.72 words per second
24
The data above shows that Chinese L2 English learners deem a speech rate of 3.57
words per second as too fast. The responses for the other four speakers are all rated above
the middle value, indicating that the participants perceive a speech rate slower than 3.57
words per second as more suitable.
There is preference displayed for a speech rate of 3.43 and 2.89 words per second.
These two speakers are the GA and SSBE speakers, and it is felt that this influenced the
participants’ judgements slightly. This is reinforced by the fluctuation, with two peaks
corresponding to Speakers 2 and 4, displayed in line with the gradual decrease in words
per second, rather than the gradual increase of response scores until the graph flatlined to
signify the optimal speech pace, which is what one might expect.
(Graph seven - Speaks too slowly)
Given what the data in Graph 6 has shown, the data shown in Graph 7 in regards to
Speaker 1 is contradictory. It does not make sense that a speaker with a speech rate of 3.57
words per second can simultaneously be seen as speaking both too fast and too slow. One
25
of these findings must be invalid, and it would take further research to dictate which. The
participant responses of Speakers 2, 4, and 6 are consistent with the findings of Category 6.
Speaker 3 however was marked as slightly below the middle value, instead of being
noticeably above the middle value. These inconsistencies between the two sets of data have
lead the researcher to question the validity of this data. Due to this, the researcher calls for
research into the optimal rate of speech as seen from the perspective of Chinese L2 English
learners.
(Graph eight - Would be a good English Language Teacher)
From this data we can take that, according to Chinese L2 learners of English,
speakers of GA and SSBE would make better English language teachers. The participants
might have had English teachers of GA and SSBE accents in the past and simply prefered
them to other teachers. This is very plausible, especially in line with Kirkpatrick’s
(2006:76) statement in regards to ELT advertisement, “the People’s Republic of China
routinely advertise for speakers of English who are ‘native speakers’”.
26
4.2.Chinese L2 English Learners’ Ability to Distinguish Between NS and NNS of
English
(Graph four - Native speaker or not)
The differences in the data here is not as clear cut as it might have been if the
participants selected yes, no, or I don’t know, to the question of Is this speaker a native
speaker of English?. However, the key factor represented on the graph is the participants’
degree of certainty to their belief of each speaker being a NS or a NNS.
The responses for Speakers 2 and 4 were less uncertain, which could be explained
by NS-models being used in the ELT classroom (Tomlinson, 2006:131; Buckledee,
2010:141). The response for Speaker 5 also showed that the participants were more
certain that she was a NNS of English.
The speakers that the participants were unsure of, as evidenced by the closeness to
the middle value, are Speakers 1 and 3, the Malaysian and Nigerian accents. Taking into
consideration the responses given to Speakers 2, 4, and 5, it is argued that the degree of
27
certainty in relation to whether an individual is a NS or a NNS would increase following
greater exposure to NS and NNS varieties.
The above data carries the implication then of the Chinese learners being able to
accurately distinguish between native and non-native speakers of English, but with varying
degrees of certainty. Whilst it would be necessary to repeat this research on a significantly
larger scale in order to ascertain these claims are representative to Chinese L2 English
learners as a population, the data collected here certainly indicates the possibility of such.
(Graph five - Sounds like a native speaker)
The wording of this question could have been interpreted in two ways, foreign to
the researcher (a British male who speaks a variant of SSBE), or foreign to the participants.
It was decided that this question was interpreted as foreign in comparison to their
perspective of a NS, and that these results indicate a lack of certainty as to what a NS
sounds like. That is, unless the speaker uses GA (Speaker 2), which peaked the most. This
peak is interpreted as a peak of certainty that Speaker 2 sounds like a NS. This, again, is
28
likely due to exposure to the American accent in not just the EFL classroom, but via media,
the internet, and other sources.
That the Malaysian accent was noted as sounding like she possessed a foreign accent
raises questions. The results in Graph 5 indicated that the participants saw the Malaysian
speaker as a NS, but in Graph 6, the data indicates that the participants believe she has a
foreign accent. This contradicts the results of Scales et al. (2006:729) who found that
“being rated as a native speaker was negatively correlated with having a foreign accent”
with their sample of L2 learners. This data indicated that Chinese L2 English learners do
not follow this particular trend. It is argued that this calls for greater exposure to varieties
of NS English in the EFL classrooms.
4.3. Chinese L2 English Learners’ Opinion of Own Accent
To discover a much more representative answer this question, a significantly larger
participant sample would be appropriate. That having been said, even amongst the
responses given from this sample, clear themes have emerged from both sides.
When asked why participants like their own accent, reasons such as “because is my
accent” (participant 9) and, “because I am Chinese” (participant 16) were listed (see:
29
Appendix 4). The general overview was that their accent was very much their own, and
that an implication that other accents are perhaps more intelligible or preferable was not
well received. This is in support of Porter and Garvin’s (1989) report of some learners
preferring to retain elements of their L1 accent.
On the other hand, there is noted dislike for the learners’ own accents. This dislike
was mostly based around their ability to realise words in what the learners’ deemed the
correct way. Examples from the participants include “I think my problem is pronunciation”
(participant 5), “I think it’s not standard” (participant 2), “being Chinese pronounce”
(participant 12), and “I think I speak Chinese style” (participant 11) (See: Appendix 4). This
likely stems from the learners’ belief that the way NSs pronounce words is the correct way
(See: Graph 3).
4.4. Nativeness vs. Intelligibility from the L2 Perspective
The participants involved in this research had opted to study at a British university
and consequently, their desire to sound like a Briton comes as little surprise. Reasons
expressed to explain these desires are mostly related to pronunciation. Data collected
includes responses such as: “sounds cool” (participant 2), “because British accent is more
30
attractive” (participant 9), and “I like pronunciation” (participant 11) (See: Appendix 5).
The desire for intelligibility is also strong amongst the Chinese learners, as
represented by the yellow section in the pie chart. The learners show a great insight into
the issue of intelligibility, justifying their choice with comments such as “The function of
language is let others know what you think” (participant 1), “The language is used to
communication” (participant 12), “I don’t want to be sound like a British or American just
let people understand me”(participant 19) (See: Appendix 5). It should be noted that whilst
the participants in this study are highly likely to be biased towards wanting to sound like a
Briton, the permeance of the desire for intelligibility has been noted and it is believed that,
should this question be asked to learners in China, this section will be the most opted for.
31
5. Conclusion
From this research there is an obvious level of understanding of the importance of
intelligibility in the increasingly multilingual world and this is reflected in the results of the
Chinese L2 English learners’ accent goals. Despite this understanding of the need for
intelligibility, there is still a lot of indecision amongst the Chinese L2 English learners in
relation to their own desired accent. This research has found a roughly equal divide in
opinion as to whether the learners wish to retain a Chinese accent, or realise their words
similarly to a NS without any L1 interference. The data in this research indicates however,
that Chinese L2 English learners are able to correctly distinguish between NSs and NNSs of
English, with varying degrees of confidence. This particular result calls for greater research
using a much larger and varied sample size, and a greater variety of accents to establish
whether this is in fact a skill which Chinese L2 English learners possess, or if these results
have been influenced by some elements of chance.
It has been shown that Chinese L2 English learners deem speakers of SSBE and GA
as being better English teachers than speakers of other native speaker and non native
speaker varieties. In line with this, it has been noted that Chinese L2 English learners rate
speakers of SSBE and GA as easier to understand, having better pronunciation, and
speaking more properly, than speakers of the other English accents used in this research.
Considering that NS models are still the most prominent accents used in ELT resources,
this holds a heavy implication of this being a key contributing factor to the preference
indicated by these results. Despite these findings in all areas of this research suffering from
the limited range of accents and participants used in this research, this research supports
the need for greater exposure to accents in ELT resources, both NS and NNS varieties, to
facilitate aural comprehension in the present multilingual world. The researcher invites
others to replicate this research using a greater number of participants from various
occupations and ages, using a greater selection of accents in order to test the findings from
this research.
32
References
Bayard, D., Weatherall, A., Gallois, C., 2001. Pax Americana? Accent attitudinal evaluations in New Zealand, Australia and America. J. Sociolinguistics 5 (1), 22-49. Blackburn, L.P. (2007) The Code Model of Communication: A powerful tool in linguistic
metatheory. Available from:http://www.sil.org/silepubs/abstract.asp?id=92847459249
[accessed 30/04/2015]
Borner, D. and Neubert, E. (2004) Phonological Characteristics of American English, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/37734/phonological-characteristics-of-american-english Buckledee, S. (2010) Global English and ELT Coursebooks. In: Gagliardi, C., & Maley, A. (Eds.). EIL, ELF, global English: teaching and learning issues (Vol. 96). Peter Lang. pp.141-152 Chang, J. (2001) Chinese speakers. In: Swan, M. and Smith, B. Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other problems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 311. Cogo A. 2012. ‘English as a Lingua Franca: concepts, use, and implications’. ELT Journal 66/1: 97–105.
Crismore, A., Yeok-Hwa, K., Ngeow, E., 1996. Attitudes toward English in Malaysia. World Englishes. 15 (3), 319-335 Crystal, D. (2010) as cited in: May, S (2012). Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 207. Deterding, D (2005) Listening to Estuary English in Singapore. TESOL Quarterly 39, 425–40 Deterding, D., and Kirkpatrick, A. (2006) Emerging South-East Asian English and intelligibility. World Englishes 25, 391–409 Field, J. (2004) ‘An insight into learners’ problems: too much bottom-up or too much top down?’ System, 32:363-77
33
Field, J (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing bulletin, 2(1), 66-70. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London : British Council. Grau, M., 2005. English as a global language: what do future teachers have to say? In: Gnutzmann, C., Intemann, F. (Eds.), The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tubingen: Gunter Narr pp.261-274 Hughes, A, Trudgill, P., Watt, D. (2012). English Accents and Dialects. 5th Ed. Croydon: Hodder Education Hung, T. (2002) English as a global language and the issue of international intelligibility. Asian Englishes, 5: 4–17. Jenkins J. 2012. ‘English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom’. ELT Journal, 66 (4): 486–94. Kirkpatrick, A. (2006) Which Model of English: Native-speaker, Nativized or Lingua Franca? In: Rubdy, R., & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles. Chippenham:Continuum pp.71-83 Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D. and Wong, J. (2008), The international intelligibility of Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27 (3-4): 359–377. Kirkpatrick, A., Xu, Z., 2002. Chinese pragmatic norms and China English. World Englishes. 21 (2): 269-280. Komorita, S. S. (1963). Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale. The Journal of social psychology, 61(2), 327-334. Kumaravadivelu, B.. (2012). Individual Identity, Cultural Globalization, and Teaching English as an International Language: The Case For an Epistemic Break. In: Alsagoff, L., Mckay, S. L., Hu, G., Renandya, W. A. Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. New York: Routledge. pp.9-27.
34
Ladegaard, H.J., Sachdev, I., 2006. “I like the Americans... but I certainly don’t aim for an American accent”: language attitudes, vitality and foreign language learning in Denmark. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 27 (2), 91-108. Lowenberg, P. H. (1991) Variation in Malaysian English: the pragmatics of languages in contact. In Cheshire, J. (Ed.). English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge University Press. pp.364-375 Matsuda, A., 2002. ‘International understanding’ through teaching world Englishes. World Englishes. 21 (3), 436-440. Matsuda, A., Friedrich, P., 2012. Selecting an instructional variety for an EIL curriculum. In: Matsuda, A. (Ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, pp.17-27. Matell, M. S., and Jacoby, J. "Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study." Educational and psychological measurement 31 (1971): 657-674. McKenzie, R.M., 2008. The role of variety recognition in Japanese University Students’ Attitudes towards English speech varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29 (2), 139-153. Michelioudakis, N. (2014). Interview with David Crystal. Available: http://teflequityadvocates.com/2014/07/06/interview-with-david-crystal/ Last accessed 29/04/2015. Porter,D. &Garvin, S. (1989). Attitudes to pronunciation in EFL. Speak Out!, 5, 8–15
Roach, P, 2004. British English: Received Pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association ,[Online]. 34, 239-245. Available at:
http://journals.cambridge.org.ezproxy.yorksj.ac.uk/download.php?file=%2F6893_45F645D3CE13B1756C33274D043F232D_journals__IPA_IPA34_02_S0025100304001768a.pdf&cover=Y&code=7e2cf1735cf116bf79829c68c457666d [Accessed 29/04/2015].
Scales, J. et al. "Language learners' perceptions of accent." Tesol Quarterly 40.(4) (2006): 715-738.
35
Smith, L., and Rafiqzad, K. (1979) English for cross-cultural communication: the question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly 13, 371–80. Smith, L. (1992) Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In Braj B.Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana : University of Illinois Press. pp.75–90
Thompson, I. (2001) Japanese Speakers. In: Swan, M. and Smith, B. Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other problems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 296-309. Tomlinson, B. (2006) A Multi-dimensional Approach to Teaching English for the World. In: Rubdy, R., & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). English in the world: Global rules, global roles. Chippenham:Continuum pp.130-150 Tregidgo, P. (2001). Speakers of West African languages. In: Swan, M. and Smith, B. Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other problems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 251-259. Trudgill, P. (2002). Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Tsui, A. and Fullilove, J. (1998) ‘Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance’. Applied Linguistics, 19: 432-51 Van der Haagen, M., 1998. Caught between Norms: The English Pronunciation of Dutch Learners. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague. Yong, J.Y. (2001) Malay/Indonesian speakers. In: Swan, M. and Smith, B. Learner English: A teacher's guide to interference and other problems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 279-295.
36
Appendix 1
Participant information form Name (optional): Initials: Sex: Age: Country of origin: Hometown: First language: Other languages: How long have you studied English: Reason for learning English: Since coming to England, how many hours have you been studying English in class every week? 05 hours 610 hours 1115 hours 1620 hours 2125 hours More than 26 hours Before coming to England, how many hours did you study English in class every week? 05 hours 610 hours 1115 hours 1620 hours 2125 hours More than 26 hours Since coming to England, how many hours have you been studying English outside of class every week? 05 hours 610 hours 1115 hours 1620 hours 2125 hours More than 26 hours Before coming to England, how many hours did you study English outside of class every week? 05 hours 610 hours 1115 hours 1620 hours 2125 hours More than 26 hours
37
On average, how much English do you feel you speak every day: Less than an hour Between 12 hours Between 23 hours Between 45 hours More than 5 hours On average, how much English do you feel you listen to every day: Less than an hour Between 12 hours Between 23 hours Between 45 hours More than 5 hours Please reorder the skills with 1 being your strongest and 4 being your weakest area in English: Listening 1 =
Reading 2 =
Speaking 3 =
Writing 4 = Do you like your English accent? Yes No Why? Select which of the following you feel is most important to you: I want to sound like an American I want to sound like a British person I want people to understand me. Sounding like an American/British person is not important to me. Why?
38
Disclaimer: You, as a participant in this research, have the right to withdraw your data at any time, should you so wish, thereupon which any data collected associated with yourself will be destroyed immediately and not used in this research. You will remain anonymous throughout this research and no other personal information will be revealed to anyone outside of those involved in this project. I have read and understood the disclaimer, and hereby give my consent for the researcher to use my data in his research. Signed Date
39
Appendix 2 Listening section: Circle the number that you think applies to the speaker. There is no right or wrong answer. This speaker:
Is hard to understand Is easy to understand
Has bad pronunciation Has good pronunciation
Speaks incorrectly Speaks properly
Is a student of English Is a native speaker
Has a foreign accent Sounds like a native speaker
Speaks too fast Speaks at a good speed
40
Speaks too slowly Speaks at a good speed
Would be a bad English teacher Would be a good English teacher Which country is this speaker from (circle the country): Denmark Kenya Italy Iceland USA Switzerland South Africa Norway UK China Nigeria Spain Turkey Austria Russia Poland Australia Germany India South Korea Japan Egypt Thailand New Zealand Malaysia Morocco France If you are happy to be contacted for a followup interview, please leave your email address below: Thank you for participating in this research.
41
Appendix 3
Script of recording
UNIT 5 RECORDING 5
The public transport system in Hong Kong is mostly very modern, but for something different you can always take a tram. The trams are actually more than a hundred years old, but they are an interesting tourist attraction - they're not fast, but they are cheap! The underground train system is very, very clean ... and one reason for this is that you can't eat or drink on the trains. The trains are very good - you can always find a seat, and the trains come every two or three minutes. Taxis are a really good way to get around Hong Kong. We have lots and lots of taxis. At busy times, you can't always find an empty taxi very quickly ... but you get one in the end.
One thing that you really need is a special travel card, called an 'Octopus' card. You pay for it and then you can use it on the whole public transport system. You can even use it to buy food and drink! So you can buy yourself a burger and a drink with your Octopus card!
From: Cunningham, S., Moor, P., Crace, A. (2013). Cutting Edge: Elementary Students' Book. 3rd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. 169.
42
Appendix 4
Participant responses (Opinion of own accent)
(participant 9)
(participant 16)
(participant 5)
43
(participant 2)
(participant 12)
(participant 11)
44
Appendix 5
Participants responses (Accent desires)
(participant 2)
(participant 9)
(participant 11)
45
(participant 1)
(participant 12)
(participant 19)
46
