System 42 (2014) 258–269
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL
pronunciation teaching
John M. Murphy*
Department of Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language, Georgia State University, PO Box 4099, Atlanta GA 30302, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 10 January 2013
Received in revised form 12 December 2013
Accepted 16 December 2013
Pronunciation models in the teaching of English as a second language (ESL) and English as
foreign language (EFL) are changing. This paper reviews purposes for pronunciation
teaching, questions the hegemony of native English speaker (NES) models, and explores
the possibility of incorporating at least some attention to non-native English speaker
(NNES) models when teaching ESL or EFL pronunciation. A premise is that samples of nonnative English (NNE) speech are useful as pronunciation models as long as they are
intelligible and comprehensible. Two advantages of working with illustrations of intelligible, comprehensible NNE language samples are their transparency as aspirational models
and relevance to learners’ pronunciation needs. In support of this position, the paper reports questionnaire research through which 34 specialists in pronunciation teaching
characterized the qualities of a recorded speech sample of an NNES, the award winning
film actor Javier Bardem. One purpose was to determine if Bardem is a comprehensible
NNES. A second purpose was to characterize qualities of Bardem’s speech as a way of
informing pronunciation pedagogy. The changes in instructional perspectives and teaching
practices the paper proposes reject a deficit model of NNE pronunciation and foreground
positive dimensions of what intelligible, comprehensible NNESs are able to do well.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Accent
Comprehensibility
Intelligibility
Non-native
Pronunciation models
Pronunciation instruction
1. Introduction
What models of English pronunciation are most relevant to English language learners’ needs? Informed by several strands
of applied linguistics (e.g., critical pedagogy (CP), intelligibility research, second language acquisition, teaching English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF),1 teacher identity theory), the paper cautions teachers of English to speakers of other languages not to
overemphasize native English speaker (NES) models when teaching pronunciation but to include at least some attention to
non-native English speaker (NNES) models as well. For a sample of non-native English (NNE) speech to be useful for purposes
of pronunciation teaching, however, relevant listeners (e.g., classroom learners, their teacher, likely prospective interlocutors,
material developers) should perceive it to be intelligible and comprehensible. There are many challenges associated with
trying to identify the intelligibility/comprehensibility of an NNE speech sample. These include a listener’s: L1, familiarity with
Abbreviations: CP, critical pedagogy; ELF, English as a Lingua Franca; I&C, intelligible and comprehensible; NES, native English speaker; NNE, non-native
English; NNES, non-native English speaker; I&C NNES, intelligible and comprehensible non-native English speaker; L2, second language.
* Tel.: þ1 404 413 5193, þ1 404 788 7180 (mobile).
E-mail address: [email protected].
1
Though there may be some technical distinctions between them, the paper follows Jenkins (2007) and Walker (2010) in employing the term English as
a Lingua Franca (ELF) as a synonym for English as an International Language.
0346-251X/$ – see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.007
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
259
NNE speech, receptivity, attentiveness, level of fatigue, familiarity with the topic being spoken about, etc. Because such
characteristics impact listeners’ perceptions (Pickering, 2006, 2012), it is impossible to describe a particular NNE speech
sample as being intrinsically intelligible or comprehensible. Attempts at such descriptions are necessarily tied to contexts of
instruction and learners’ needs.
In the discussion, my intention is to extend themes previously explored by Cook (1999) and Graddol (2006) in connection
with different areas of second language (L2) instruction into the area of L2 pronunciation teaching. Traditionally, target
models for teaching the pronunciation of ESL and EFL have been proficient NESs from what Kachru (1986) terms ‘inner circle’
nations such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States (Levis, 2005). In
addition, the pronunciation models commonly featured in published teaching materials tend to reflect mainstream dialects
from Canada, England (i.e., as opposed to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), the United States, and other inner circle
nations (Grzega, 2005; Kanellow, 2009). Rogerson-Revell (2011) offers a useful distinction between models and goals for
pronunciation instruction. While a pronunciation model serves as “a set of standard pronunciation forms for a particular
accent” that can be used as “a point of reference or guideline” for instructional purposes, goals for pronunciation teaching
“may vary depending on the particular contexts in which the learner needs to communicate” (p. 8).
2. Literature review
Over recent decades a growing number of English language teaching specialists have been rethinking purposes, models
and goals for pronunciation teaching. Jenkins (2000, 2005, 2007), McKay (2002), and Walker (2010), for example, present
empirical evidence to inform the work of language teaching professionals through research into English as a lingua franca
(ELF), a term focused on the forms of English which emerge when English serves as the default language of communication
between speakers of different first languages (L1s). Several issues associated with the study of ELF have challenged previous
assumptions about pronunciation teaching, including: Is it more important for NNESs to be understood by NESs or by other
NNESs? Given a particular career path or purpose for English-mediated communication, who are NNESs’ interlocutors most
likely to be? Does being understood within an NES community make it more likely that one will be understood within an ELF
community? In some ELF settings, might forms of non-native English be just as useful to NNE speakers as more standard
forms of native English speech? What is the impact on in-process ELF interactions when an NES arrives on the scene? Is there
a phonological lingua franca core which cuts across alternative ELF settings? If such an ELF inventory exists, which features of
English phonology are either more or less essential to teach? ELF research and strategies for teaching the pronunciation of ELF
have gained attention especially in Europe where language teachers have long recognized the importance of English as a
primary means of communication between NNESs in settings where NESs are not present (Grzega, 2005). Walker (2010)
discusses implications for teaching the pronunciation of ELF supported by contemporary research.
Although ELF literature represents one area of inspiration for the present investigation, there are other research traditions
to acknowledge as well. Discussions of World Englishes (e.g., Kachru, 1986; Jenkins, 2003) demonstrate that outer circle
varieties of English such as Indian, Singaporean, and Nigerian English are contributing to a vibrant expansion in the use of
English worldwide (Kirkpatrick, 2007; McArthur, 2002). Rooy (2009) explains that learners from expanding circle parts of the
world (e.g., Korea, Egypt, Japan) are becoming more accepting of English speakers from the outer circle as pronunciation
models. Despite continuing evidence that a large percentage of ESL/EFL learners have the personal goal of being able to
acquire a native-like English accent (Derwing, 2003; Kang, 2010; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, & Wu, 2006; Timmis, 2002),
second language acquisition specialists have realized for decades that those who initiate their study of an L2 in adolescence or
adulthood face special hurdles. Although there is some limited evidence to the contrary (e.g., Bongaerts, van Summeren,
Planken, & Schils, 1997), few learners who initiate L2 study in adolescence or adulthood will ever gain complete control
over its phonological dimensions (Levis, 2005; Moyer, 1999; Scovel, 2000). The issue is not that attainment of a native-like
accent is impossible, but it is uncommon and few L2 learners ever accomplish this (Ortega, 2009). As Derwing and Munro
(2005) comment, “there is no reason to believe that this goal is achievable in typical ESL classrooms” (p. 384). Also, most
ESL/EFL teachers realize native-like phonological control is an unnecessary goal as long as learners continue to progress
toward relevant levels of intelligibility/comprehensibility (Kanellow, 2009; Munro & Derwing, 2011). Knowing that few NNE
speakers will ever become native-like accented English speakers, it seems unfair and perhaps even unethical to lead learners
to believe they will ever be able to do so. Yet, this is exactly what most language teachers have been doing during the modern
era of English language teaching through implicit messages an overemphasis on NES models conveys. Extending a tradition
perhaps best articulated by Cook (1999), it may be more productive in the long run to foster learner awareness that some
intelligible and comprehensible (I&C) NNE varieties of spoken English can serve as legitimate aspirational models. By
including at least some attention to the speech of I&C non-native speakers of English as a normal part of pronunciation
instruction, teachers will be presenting learners with more accessible models more likely to resonate with their own experiences as ESL/EFL learners.
Approaching similar themes from yet another perspective, a starting point for specialists in critical pedagogy (CP) is to call
into question some of the foundational constructs of our field such as the constructs of NES and NNES. In so doing, CP
specialists remind us of “the subjective, the social, and the partisan nature of reality, and the ways in which our understandings of the world” might, even if inadvertently, serve to constrain roles for NNESs in the teaching of pronunciation
(Hawkins & Norton, 2009, p. 31). From CP specialists we learn how important it is for all teachers of English, but especially
NESs, to participate in “the process of critical reflection on language ideologies and linguistic theories” so that ESL learners as
260
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
well as NNES teachers may begin to see themselves not as “failed native speakers” of English but as multicompetent language
users (Pavlenko, 2003, p. 266). A CP perspective, then, challenges the relevance of the NES construct along with the closely
aligned “nativeness principle” (Levis, 2005, p. 370) by asking who is being advantaged and who is being disadvantaged when
NES styles of speech serve as the sole models and goals of pronunciation teaching.
Complementing the contributions of ELF, World Englishes, second language acquisition, and CP specialists, teacher
identity specialists remind us that “the vast majority of English language teachers around the world are now non-native users
of English” (Miller, 2009, p. 176) and their proportion is growing (Deng et al., 2009). One challenge to the professional identity
of this very large and expanding group of ESL/EFL teachers is their pronunciation of English (Lippi-Green, 1997; Maum, 2002).
Many NNES teachers sometimes feel marginalized due to a self-perceived lack in this area (Golombek & Jordan, 2005;
Morgan, 2004) even when there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Canagarajah (2005) provides an explanation for
why even highly accomplished NNES teachers might feel insecure at the prospect of using their own speech as a pronunciation model when teaching:
Pronunciation is perhaps the linguistic feature most open to judgment. As a surface structure phenomenon that is most
noticeable, one’s accent easily evokes people’s biases. For the same reason, pronunciation has been the most prescriptively taught aspect of language instruction. (p. 365)
Teacher identity specialists join CP specialists in re-envisioning what it means to be a capable user of English. They define
bilingualism, for example, in relation to what one is able to accomplish pragmatically within the immediate spheres of one’s
personal and professional lives (Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Pavlenko, 2003; Phillipson, 1996) and not by focusing on a native-like
standard in the use of language, including its pronunciation. A persistent problem is that many NNESs hesitate when it
comes to teaching pronunciation. Of course, many NESs hesitate as well (Burgess & Spencer, 2000; Macdonald, 2002) though
NES hesitancy is more typically due to a lack of awareness, training, support, and/or interest (Deng et al., 2009; Foote, Holtby,
& Derwing, 2011) while NNESs may have come to perceive the quality of their own pronunciation to be an impediment (León
Meis, 2000; Walker, 1999). Teacher identity specialists posit a complex array of intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions
contributing to the construction of a teacher’s identity which is intimately linked to matters of professional agency and
authority (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Rampton, 1996). But for NNES teacher identities to flourish it is crucial that once
reasonable degrees of spoken proficiency and professional training have been attained, their pronunciation abilities should be
supported, respected, and welcomed at the table of pronunciation teaching.
With respect to the inclusion of non-native models within classrooms, research findings are mixed. Studies by Jenkins
(2007, 2005) and Sifakis and Sougari (2005) have found that participating English language teachers from around the
world believe in the centrality of NES pronunciation models. Timmis (2002) surveyed the preferences of 180 English language
teachers from 45 countries along with 400 students from 14 countries and found that students had an even stronger preference for NES models than teachers. Baker’s (2011) five teacher-participants who offered ESL courses in the United States
expressed interest in introducing non-native varieties of English as pronunciation models but lamented a lack of published
instructional resources as their primary reason for not doing so.
Two factors relevant to considerations of goals and models of English pronunciation are: (a) the setting in which the
language is being studied (e.g., Kachru’s , 1986 inner circle, outer circle, or expanding circle parts of the English speaking
world), and (b) the purposes for which students are learning English (e.g., survival, life skills, travel, education, business,
profession, ELF communication). According to Levis (1999), decisions about which pronunciation models to present “must be
tempered by a knowledge of students’ goals and the context of instruction” (p. 16). As outlined thus far, two consistent themes
in contemporary literature are a broadening of perspective in specialists’ understandings, particularly outside the United
States, of what may serve as relevant models and goals for pronunciation teaching (Levis, 1999; Scales et al., 2006) along with
the need to encourage the participation of NNESs as members of a global community of ESL/EFL pronunciation teachers.
2.1. Pivoting toward the inclusion of non-native English speakers
In December 2010, I was watching the Charlie Rose television show on the Public Broadcasting System in the United States.
The show’s format is a 30 minute interview sometimes followed by a roundtable discussion. For this particular interview
Rose’s sole guest was the Spanish film actor Javier Bardem (to view the interview, see: Rose [producer] 2010). Born in 1969,
Bardem is an acclaimed actor who performs in both Spanish (his L1) and English (his L2). In 2007 he received several international awards including an Oscar as best supporting actor for his English language performance in the film, No Country
for Old Men. In short, Bardem is a well-known contemporary actor, prominent on the international stage, who’s English and
Spanish language performances have been well received by cinema specialists and the general public. The 2010 Bardem/Rose
interview was conducted in English with no captions (i.e., subtitles) presented as viewer supports. What caught my attention
was the blend of both non-native English accentedness and comprehensibility in Bardem’s speech.2 Here was an ESL speaker
with a major international career in a profession premised upon effective communication. On the broadcast which had been
recorded live, his speech was extemporaneous and its content seemed consistently entertaining and clear. The interview was
2
Derwing, Fraser, Kang, and Thomson (2011) also called attention to the quality of Javier Bardem’s spoken English with a brief excerpt from a different
interview.
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
261
all the more memorable because it illustrated three constructs central to the teaching and assessment of L2 pronunciation. As
defined by Derwing (2010), Derwing and Munro (1997, 2005), and Munro and Derwing (1995a), these constructs are
accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Unfortunately, distinctions between them may remain unfamiliar to many
English language teachers and learners (see, for example, Golombek & Jordan, 2005; footnote 2, p. 514). Although there is
continuing debate concerning how the constructs might be best defined (Pickering, 2006), the next section draws upon
definitions offered by Derwing (2010).
2.2. Accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility
Derwing (2010) posits that the construct of accent corresponds with “difference” in quality of pronunciation (p. 29). That is,
while attending to an NNES, a proficient English language listener might ask, Is the speaker’s pronunciation very different from
the quality of pronunciation I am used to? With respect to the second construct, intelligibility refers to products of “actual
understanding” (Derwing, 2010, p. 29). To determine an NNES’s level of intelligibility a proficient listener might ask, Do I
understand the content of what this speaker has to say? Measures of intelligibility include asking listeners to document the
products of their understanding through transcription/dictation, comprehension question, and/or written summary tasks
(Osimk, 2009). Derwing defines the third construct, comprehensibility, as “effort” (p. 29). A proficient listener might ask, Is it
relatively easy or difficult for me to understand this speaker? Comprehensibility, then, is located within proficient listeners’
subjective perceptions of the degree of effort they believe they need to expend to understand an NNES. In sum, the constructs
of accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility are technical terms that refer to different facets of L2 pronunciation. It is also
worth noting that accent is a partially independent construct (Munro & Derwing, 1995a) since a single NNES can simultaneously be accented and reasonably or even completely intelligible and/or comprehensible (e.g., former US Secretary of State Dr.
Henry Kissinger). On the other hand, L2 speakers who struggle with intelligibility and comprehensibility will always be rated
by L1 speakers as heavily accented (Munro & Derwing, 1995a).
Now that the three constructs have been defined, it is worth revisiting the question of what might serve as relevant models
and goals of pronunciation teaching in ESL/EFL. A preliminary consideration is that whatever models are presented, they need
to be credible as ones to which learners may feasibly aspire, the kinds of models Cook (1999) terms “successful multicompetent speakers” (p. 204). Due to their transparency as aspirational models and relevance to learners’ actual pronunciation needs, recordings of NNESs who would be considered both intelligible and comprehensible by proficient English
language listeners seem especially relevant for purposes of pronunciation teaching. Though the inclusion of non-native
speech samples may seem controversial at first, it is a characteristic rich in potential for illustrating to learners that the
pronunciation models and goals being presented are feasibly within their reach. Reasons for featuring qualities of non-native
speech span L2 learners’ linguistic, pedagogic, affective, and social awareness needs because NNESs who are intelligible and
comprehensible represent more realistic models of L2 pronunciation achievement. At the same time, the presence of
intelligibility and comprehensibility helps to ensure that some of the linguistic features of a non-native language sample
merit attention.
Although research has yet to identify optimal degrees of intelligibility and comprehensibility for recorded NNE language
samples to be useful for instructional purposes, researchers’ efforts have begun to identify some relevant qualities. In a
ground-breaking empirical study, Munro and Derwing (1995b) concluded that:
The notion that foreign accent ‘reduction’ automatically improves comprehensibility is quite incorrect. If improved
communicative competence is a primary goal in second language teaching, then attention ought to be directed to those
specific aspects of the learner’s speech that most affect comprehensibility and intelligibility and not to those simply
associated with accent (302–303).
Inspired by Brown’s (1991) and Catford’s (1987) early work on the functional load of English phonemes, Munro and
Derwing (2006) provide convincing evidence that not all phonemes are equal and therefore do not merit equal attention
in pronunciation teaching. They document that substitutions such as a nasal /n/ for the lateral /l/ of <lawyer>, or of an
alveolar /s/ for the palatal /ʃ/ as in <shoe> are more problematic due to the relatively higher functional load of /l/ and /ʃ/ than
substitutions of an alveolar /d/ for the interdental /ð/ as in <than>, or of a labiodental /f/ for an interdental /Ɵ/ as in <month>.
Interdentals, evidently, carry a relatively low functional load in spoken English and are therefore less essential to prioritize
when teaching pronunciation.
Several years earlier, Derwing and Munro (1997) documented that NESs find it easier to comprehend NNESs who have better
control over prosodic features of English. More specifically, Hahn (2004) demonstrated that NNES problems with prominence
at sentence level interfere with intelligibility and Field (2005) illustrated that NNES problems with word stress do as well. In an
analysis comparable to Field’s since it also focused on listener recognition of individual words, Zielinski (2007) identified an
interactive effect between word stress and the production of sound segments within strongly stressed syllables. NNESs who
accurately produced sound segments within stressed syllables were rated as being more intelligible by NES listeners while the
sound segments of unstressed syllables were less consequential. Pickering (2001) found that prosody, specifically the tone
choices L2 speakers make, impacts comprehensibility. Similarly, Wennerstrom (2001) documented that proficient English
listeners tend to perceive NNESs as more fluent when they make effective use of prosodic features, including tone and tone
choices. Other factors contributing to an enhanced comprehensibility of NNE speech include appropriate rate of speech (neither
too fast nor too slow), utterance length, as well as length and placement of pauses (see: Pickering, 2012).
262
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
In summary, a premise that served as the impetus for the following research report is that the speaking proficiency of an
I&C NNE speaker represents a sufficient and attainable level to which pronunciation teachers can feel confident in encouraging learners to aspire (see also, Cook, 1999; Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Levis, 2005). The next section examines whether or
not a particular NNE speech sample meets the I&C criteria and therefore could be included as support for either ESL or EFL
pronunciation teaching.
3. Research questions
With these considerations in mind, I designed questions amenable to questionnaire-survey research around the following
themes: Is Javier Bardem’s spoken English (as recorded in the 2010 Bardem/Rose interview) of relevant quality to serve as a
supplementary model for ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching? If it is, what is Bardem doing well that we might teach to other less
proficient learners of English? Subsequently, I gathered information from other specialists who were familiar with
contemporary research and pedagogy of L2 phonology. The four research questions were as follows.
(1) Is Javier Bardem an intelligible, comprehensible (I&C) non-native English speaker (NNES)?
(2) What are some of the qualities contributing to the intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s speech (i.e., as an
NNES, what is he doing well?)?
(3) What are some of the qualities impeding the intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s speech?
(4) What are some of the qualities contributing to the non-native accentedness of Bardem’s speech?
4. Methods
4.1. Participants
To address the four research questions I solicited the participation of a select group of ESL/EFL professionals who specialize
in pronunciation teaching. They were known to me through their participation in a closed international listserve dedicated to
discussions of topics in L2 phonology and ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching or through their published scholarship in this area.
Those invited were specialists I believed would be familiar with the several technical terms in L2 phonology featured in the
questionnaire. Although eight of the 46 specialists initially invited to participate were NNESs, all 34 who eventually
completed the questionnaire were NESs. Before completing the survey, one respondent emailed me to express uneasiness
about participating due to limited familiarity with Spanish-accented English. After I assured her that this facet of her professional background was relevant to the study’s purposes, she agreed to participate. A total of three respondents (possibly
including the person who had emailed me) included similar self-descriptions of limited previous exposure to Spanishaccented English in a section of the survey available for prose comments. The first section of the questionnaire asked respondents to characterize their professional background and familiarity with topics in L2 phonology and ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching. For the items reported in Table 1, respondents were asked to indicate all relevant descriptors that applied to
their current professional roles (i.e., they were able to check off multiple items).
Table 1
Who were the 34 respondents?
University faculty
Researchers
Materials developers
Classroom teachers (of ESL or some other L2)
University administrators
Other (e.g., ITA instructor/coordinator, recent graduate student, pronunciation tutor, teacher trainer)
Response percent
Response count
64.7
41.2
29.4
17.6
5.9
17.6
22
14
10
6
2
6
As reported through additional items included in the survey’s background information section, all of the 34 respondents
who submitted completed questionnaires considered themselves to be either ‘familiar’ (35%) or ‘extremely familiar’ (65%)
with topics in L2 phonology and/or ESL pronunciation teaching. After having viewed the Bardem/Rose interview, all of the
respondents either ‘agreed’ (23%) or ‘agreed enthusiastically’ (77%) that they felt qualified to comment on the quality of Javier
Bardem’s speech as represented in the 2010 interview.
4.2. Materials/instruments
In preparation for the study, I prepared a cover letter invitation to potential participants, developed a 21-item questionnaire
(with 16 core items), and made arrangements for the questionnaire to be accessible over the Internet (via SurveyMonkey.com).
Four of the items gathered background information on the participants (as reported above) and a final item solicited additional
prose comments. The core section of the SurveyMonkey questionnaire used the format of a 5-point Likert Scale to solicit participants’ impressions of the quality of Bardem’s spoken English on 15 characteristics selected because they appear in several
contemporary pronunciation assessment instruments (e.g., Morley, 1994; Rogerson-Revell, 2011). The characteristics were:
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
263
Table 2
Specialists’ characterizations of Javier Bardem’s speech participants responded to the following prompt: Please indicate your degree of agreement or
disagreement with each of the following statements tied to Javier Bardem’s English speaking abilities as illustrated in the interview.
#
Questionnaire item
2a
2b
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
A
B
C
D
E
F
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
D and E
Rating average
combined (on a 5-point scale)
(0) 23.5% (8)
(0) 23.5% (8)
(0) 5.9% (2)
(2) 5.9% (2)
76.5%
76.5%
88.2%
82.4%
(26)
(26)
(30)
(28)
100%
100%
94.1%
88.3%
(0)
(6)
(0)
(0)
(4)
(0)
(2)
58.8%
64.7%
58.8%
29.4%
41.2%
35.3%
41.2%
(20)
(22)
(20)
(10)
(14)
(12)
(14)
His accent is different from native English speakers.
0%
He had interesting things to talk about.
0%
He uses ’facial expressions’ effectively.
0%
His uses his hands, arms, and torso
0%
effectively to help convey meaning.
He uses ’thought groups’ effectively.
0%
He recycles topics and adds clarifications effectively.
0%
I understood everything Bardem had to say.
0%
I found him very easy to understand.
0%
He uses ‘tones’ and ‘intonation’ effectively.
0%
His use of rhythm is effective.
0%
He uses ‘prominence’ (sentence-level stress) effectively.
0%
The pacing of Bardem’s speech [was just right].a
He uses contrastive stress effectively.
0%
His ’word endings’ were clear.
0%
There were few, if any,
5.9%
segmental errors’ (i.e., vowels, consonants)
Bardem’s ‘segmental errors’
35.3%
made him DIFFICULT to understand.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0%
0%
5.9%
5.9%
(0)
(0)
(2)
(2)
0%
0%
0.0%
5.9%
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0%
0%
11.8%
0%
0%
11.8%
11.8%
(0)
(0)
(4)
(0)
(0)
(4)
(4)
0%
17.6%
0%
0%
11.8%
0%
5.9%
(0)
(0)
(2)
(14)
(6)
(10)
(24)
(16)
(18)
(14)
4.76
4.76
4.76
4.65
100%
4.59
82.3%
4.47
88.2%
4.35
100%
4.29
88.3%
4.29
88.2%
4.12
82.4%
4.12
82.4% (28) See belowa
11.8% (4) 23.5% (8) 17.6% (6) 47.1% (16) 64.7%
4.00
17.6% (6) 11.8% (4) 52.9% (18) 17.6% (6) 70.5%
3.71
47.1% (16) 17.6% (6) 17.6% (6) 11.8% (4) 29.4%
2.82
(12) 47.1% (16) 11.8% (4)
41.2%
17.6%
29.4%
70.6%
47.1%
52.9%
41.2%
G
5.9% (2)
0% (0)
5.9%
1.88
12. The ‘pacing’ (tempo, speed) of Bardem’s speech was:
Extremely slow
Slow
Just right
Fast
Extremely fast
0%
5.9% (2)
82.4% (28)
11.8% (4)
0%
topic interest; degrees of non-native accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility; uses of thought groups, rhythm, prominence
(i.e., sentence-level stress), and contrastive stress; clarity of word endings; uses of facial expressions, body language, intonation,
clarifications; and clarity of sound segments. An additional item, soliciting respondents’ impressions of Bardem’s rate of speech,
reflected an alternative format as indicated at the bottom of Table 2. The questionnaire provided multiple opportunities for
respondents to include open-ended comments while completing individual items and also at the end.
4.3. Procedures
In January of 2012, I sent an email invitation to the 46 specialists described above (38 NESs and 8 NNESs). The email
provided an overview of the project’s purpose, a URL to access the December 2010 Bardem/Rose interview (see Rose
[producer] 2010), and a second URL to access the study’s SurveyMonkey questionnaire. All of the participants were asked
to view at least a 20 minute segment of the 30 minute one-on-one interview before moving on to complete the 21-item
questionnaire. Within three months of being contacted, 34 of the 46 specialists initially contacted (74%) had viewed the
interview and had completed the questionnaire.
All of the 34 specialists who participated completed all of the items included in the questionnaire. In Table 2 the questionnaire
items have been rank ordered according to ‘rating average’ (see column G) from most agreement to least agreement with the
statements presented. Though the items featured in Table 2 have been reordered in this way, they are identical to the original
questionnaire prompts. That is, all of the items included in the questionnaire’s core section are provided verbatim in Table 2.
5. Results: characterizations of the quality of Bardem’s spoken English
The first research question asked is Javier Bardem is an intelligible, comprehensible (I&C) non-native English speaker (NNES).
Responses to items 2a, 7, and 8 provide convincing evidence that he is. All of the respondents indicated that they either
‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that Bardem is both non-native accented (item 2a) and comprehensible (item 8). Over 88% either
‘agreed’ (n ¼ 10) or ‘strongly agreed’ (n ¼ 20) that he is an intelligible speaker of English (item 7).3 These results suggest that
Bardem is an I&C NNES in the collective perceptions of the thirty-four respondents.
The second research question asked what are some of the characteristics contributing to the intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s speech? Ten relevant characteristics were revealed through responses to survey items 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 16. At the very top of the listing, a convincing number agreed that Bardem has interesting things to talk about (item
2b) and that he makes effective use of paralinguistic features such as facial expressions (94%; item 3), as well as his hands,
3
While this was not a rigorous measure of intelligibility (see Section 2.2), the intention was to solicit general impressions from specialist-respondents
who were believed to be familiar with the construct. As such, this survey item gathered information on participants’ self-perceived levels of understanding
(i.e., subjective intelligibility) but not actual levels of understanding (i.e. objective intelligibility).
264
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
arms, and torso to help convey meaning (88%; item 4). All of the respondents either ‘agreed’ (41%) or ‘strongly agreed’ (59%)
that Bardem uses thought groups effectively (i.e., that he inserts brief pauses at appropriate locations while speaking) (item
5). In addition, well over 80% either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that Bardem recycles topics and adds clarifications effectively
(item 6) and makes efficient use of suprasegmental features such as intonation (88%; item 9), rhythm (88%; item 10), and
prominence (82%; item 11). A large number of the respondents found his speaking rate to be ‘just right’ (82%; item 12) and the
same number of respondents (82%) either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement that Bardem’s segmental
errors rendered him difficult to understand (i.e., any segmental errors that may have been present did not impede Bardem’s
comprehensibility; item 16). In the respondents’ perceptions, these ten characteristics seem to be contributing to the
intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s spoken English.
From this listing of characteristics contributing to the intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s speech, it is
worth noting that five of them were specifically linguistic ones (e.g., Bardem’s effective uses of thought groups, rhythm, tones
and intonation, prominence, and rate of speech). In the questionnaire’s open-ended section one respondent observed that
Bardem “.was very effective in using variations in timing, including pauses, and a slower speech rate when he was unsure about
his pronunciation, vocabulary choice, or expressions.” Also related to linguistic matters, 82% of the respondents’ did not find that
Bardem’s segmental errors made him difficult to understand. Two items signaled paralinguistic characteristics (‘used facial
expressions effectively’ and ‘used his hands, arms, and torso effectively to help convey meaning’). One item signaled rhetorical
characteristics (‘recycled topics and added clarifications effectively’). It is also worth noting that one of the section’s top
ranked items, ‘had interesting things to talk about,’ is only indirectly related to matters of intelligibility/comprehensibility via
its potential impact on sustaining a listener’s attention or motivation to listen.
Responses to three items are relevant to the study’s third research question: What are some of the characteristics impeding
the intelligibility and/or comprehensibility of Bardem’s speech? Relevant information is found in items 13, 14, and 15. While 65%
of the respondents either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that Bardem uses contrastive stress effectively (item 13), almost 12%
disagreed and 24% were neutral on this dimension. Though 70% either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that Bardem’s word
endings were clear (item 14), nearly 18% disagreed and 12% remained neutral. Over half of the respondents either ‘disagreed’
(47%) or ‘strongly disagreed’ (6%) that there were few, if any, segmental errors (i.e., they noticed more than a few such errors)
(item 15). The respondents’ assessments of Bardem’s abilities with respect to these three characteristics were considerably
less positive than the other 12 ranked above them in Table 2. On a related matter, research question number four asked, what
are some of the characteristics contributing to the non-native accentedness of Bardem’s speech? Since responses to the questionnaire’s previous items established that Bardem is a highly comprehensible speaker of English, his less reliable control of
contrastive stress, word endings, and sound segments reveals characteristics perceived by the respondents as contributing to
the non-native accentedness of Bardem’s speech.
6. Discussion
Questionnaire results provide convincing evidence that Javier Bardem is an I&C NNES. Coupled with the fact that he is also a
high achiever professionally, these findings would support the inclusion of the 2010 Bardem speech sample as a supplementary
model (e.g., as one of several models) of English pronunciation in at least some ESL/EFL instructional settings. For example, the
things Bardem seems to be doing well reveal a number of efficient paralinguistic, linguistic, and rhetorical characteristics as well
as several personal and professional qualities. To begin with a personal quality, he has interesting things to talk about. While this
is a rather broad theme only indirectly tied to matters of intelligibility/comprehensible, a reality of pronunciation teaching is
that L2 learners need to have topics to talk about related to personal, professional, and/or general areas of interest. Otherwise,
they may miss opportunities for applying what they learn during extemporaneous speaking opportunities. Related to this
theme, one respondent identified an interactive effect between the topics Bardem spoke about and linguistic features of his
speech, “.I noticed that when he was discussing the films and his approach to them [i.e., Bardem’s particular area of expertise], he
was much smoother in his rhythm and pacing than when he was discussing his political ideas. There seemed to be more errors in his
word choice when he was discussing political ideas, as well.” With respect to linguistic characteristics specifically, evidence
provided by the respondents coupled with repeated viewings of the interview suggest that Bardem speaks in clearly defined,
relatively short thought groups (i.e., within the stream of speech he inserts pauses efficiently) and makes effective use of phrase
rhythm and prominence. The effective use of thought groups and prominence are speech characteristics Dickerson (2010),
Gilbert (2009), and other contemporary specialists prioritize in pronunciation teaching (see: Murphy, 2013). While the respondents considered Bardem’s articulation of final consonants sounds (and sound segments in general) as some of the more
non-native accented features of his spoken English, such characteristics did not seem to lessen his intelligibility. To cite some
examples, Bardem consistently devoiced final voiced consonants (e.g., <years>, <of>, <live>, <his>, <friends>, <buried>,
<accuse>); substituted the high front tense vowel [i:] for the high front lax [I] in words such as <it’s>, < things>, and <his>;
inserted an epenthetic vowel [e] before word-initial voiceless sibilants (e.g., <specific> > ‘especific’); produced a bilabial
plosive [b] rather than a labiodental ficative [v] in words such as <survive> and <vanity>; did not palatalize the affricate [tʃ] so
that it was realized more like a [ts] cluster (e.g., <much>); did not employ rhotacized vowels for instances when [ɻ] appears in
post-vocalic position at the end of a stressed syllable, and instead produced an apico-alveolar tap [ɾ] initiating the following
syllable (e.g., Barden pronounced the word <char-ac-ter> as <cha-rac-ter>).
The degree of Bardem’s adequate though by no means complete control over the production of sound segments may be
due, at least in part, to his professional training. When introducing NNES models such as the Bardem interview in classrooms,
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
265
teachers can remind learners that difficulties with some segments (e.g., voicing of final voiced consonants; interdentals) do
not necessarily result in a lack of intelligibility, particularly when adequate control of alternative characteristics (i.e., content,
thought groups, rhythm, and prominence) are in place. Also, the moderate pacing of Bardem’s speech as reported by the
respondents seemed to enhance his level of comprehensibility in their perceptions. Beyond specifically linguistic characteristics, respondents reported Bardem exemplified several interesting paralinguistic characteristics such as his uses of eyes,
facial expressions, hands, and other upper body gestures to more fully engage listeners. Additional assets included his use of
tone and intonation to convey meaning and affect. In particular, he makes some easily perceived tone choices that cue his
interlocutor to lend assistance (i.e., appeals to authority) with problematic words. Finally, Bardem’s effective use of rhetorical
strategies is reflected in how he sometimes recycles topics and uses clarifications to enhance comprehensibility.
It is worth mentioning that the paralinguistic, linguistic, and rhetorical characteristics outlined above are just some of
what seem to have been efficient speaking characteristics of one NNES in a single interview. Different audiences for the
interview may find alternative characteristics worth noting and other interviews of the same speaker might reveal different
strengths and weaknesses. Also, it just so happened that most of Bardem’s segmental deviations from L1 norms did not seem
to interfere with the broader qualities of effective speaking performance mentioned thus far. If Bardem’s speech had been
recorded on another day or under a different set of circumstances, listeners might have perceived the cumulative impact of
such segmental deviations as more problematic. Another consideration is that other NNES speakers who are intelligible and
comprehensible are likely to manifest different sets of what are for them effective characteristics of spoken communication.
However, the purpose of the present discussion is not to offer a definitive listing of what large numbers of I&C NNESs are able
to do well. Rather, it is to illustrate that paralinguistic, linguistic, and rhetorical characteristics revealed in I&C NNES recordings are well worth documenting and learning more about.
7. Implications
ESL or EFL teachers who decide to include I&C non-native English speech samples as part of the instructional routine may
find them useful as one way of transitioning away from the field’s traditional preoccupation with NES norms when teaching
pronunciation. The incorporation of at least some attention to non-native English speech samples would make it possible for
course participants to explore some of the ways I&C NNESs have found to foreground the comprehensibility of their speech
(e.g., meaningful content, effective uses of thought groups, prominence, word stress, moderate pacing) while continuing to
manifest qualities of recognizably non-native accented speech. One teaching strategy might be to involve learners from
particular language backgrounds in locating recorded interviews of I&C NNESs from their same or similar language backgrounds. Teachers can guide learners in how to work profitability with such recordings. As an example, Table 3 outlines a
series of pedagogic tasks designed for either ESL or EFL courses in which learners are guided in their work with I&C non-native
English speech recordings.
Table 3
Tasks for ESL/EFL students learning to work with I&C NNE recordings.
Working in pairs, students:
A. Locate a suitable I&C NNE recording on the Internet (with resource support provided along the lines of the Appendix);
B. Characterize general qualities of the speaker’s performance (e.g., clarity, pacing, volume, pause patterns, pitch range, charisma);
C. Identify the speaker’s use of body gestures (e.g., hands, eyes, facial expressions) and other nonverbal features of communication;
D. Attend to (and take notes on) what the speaker seems to be doing well;
E. Transcribe in regular orthographic form a portion (e.g., depending upon proficiency level either a short segment, a longer segment, or all)
of the recording, and then:
a. Divide the transcript into thought groups as manifested by the I&C NNE speaker in the original recording;
b. Draw circles around prominent words within thought groups;
c. (For learners of sufficient proficiency, background, and interest):
i. Identify word stress patterns of prominent words;
ii. Identify peak vowels within primary stressed syllables of prominent words;
iii. Identify additional phonological processes (e.g., word stress, contrastive stress, tone choices, linking) illustrated in the recording;
iv. Identify some of the speaker’s phonological weaknesses;
v. Discuss ways of clearing up any weaknesses identified;
1. e.g., potential locations of L1 phonological phenomena which the speaker did not use,
but that an L1 speaker might have used (e.g., contrastive stress, vowel reduction, palatalization).
F. Practice imitating the I&C NNE recording with the support of both the video and the transcript they have generated:
a. Take turns rehearsing the language sample aloud;
b. While rehearsing, student apply the “read-and-look-up” technique (Nation, 1991, p. 12);
c. Listen to, support, and coach each other as they rehearse;
d. (Eventually) generate video recordings of their own versions;
e. Analyze and critique recordings of their own versions;
f. Re-record later versions for further analysis and critique.
G. (If relevant) prepare an in-class report aimed at providing the rest of the class with background information on the I&C NNE
speaker and the topic focus of the recording;
a. Present selected segments of the transcript and/or original recording to the class along with the results of their analysis;
b. Present to the class their own video recorded version of the talk.
Eventually, the student pair moves onto a new recording of a different I&C NNE speaker.
266
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
Of course some ESL/EFL learners, especially those who have already attained high levels of intelligibility, may prefer to
work with NES or near-native models if they are interested in further fine-tuning the quality of their pronunciation. As
teachers, one path to follow is to find a workable balance between the traditional use of NES models and a supplementary use
of I&C NNES models to fit the needs and/or preferences of particular learner groups.
The continuing expansion of Internet accessibility enhances possibilities for working with I&C NNE speech samples that
were unimaginable a mere decade ago. In many parts of the world today, anyone with Internet connection can access digital
recordings comparable to the Bardem/Rose interview (e.g., see Appendix for additional examples) to explore, assess, and/or
document characteristics of I&C NNE speech samples. As Internet access continues to expand worldwide, it will only become
easier for teachers to guide learners in the use of such resources. As this happens, teachers’ responsibilities may shift toward
assisting language learners in locating relevant recordings on their own (e.g., interviews, multiple-party discussions,
extemporaneous performances) and toward illustrating how to work with such recordings for intelligibility enhancement. Of
course, when Internet resources are used for such purposes, steps need to be taken to protect legitimate intellectual property
rights of those who make such resources available. Teachers should be conscientious in both consulting and abiding by local
copyright protection guidelines.
We also need to design appropriate classroom activities (e.g., noticing activities, output activities) and tasks (e.g., presentation tasks, practice tasks, application tasks) to focus learners’ efforts while they are engaged in searching for and
analyzing some of the qualities of spoken language embedded in both I&C NNE and native English recordings. Meyers (2013)
offers a pedagogical model pointed in this direction and Table 3’s sections B through F are intended to illustrate some relevant
classroom activities and tasks. A general prompt is to ask learners to identify what a recorded I&C non-native speaker of
English is doing well. Rather than continuing to promote a deficit model by focusing on what non-native speakers’ difficulties
might be, teachers can foreground positive qualities while supporting students as they learn to identify for themselves the
linguistic, paralinguistic, and rhetorical strengths of I&C NNE speakers of English.
7.1. Limitations and areas of future research
For purposes of learning to identify what may serve as suitable NNE speech samples in the teaching of pronunciation, we
need to continue to apply and explore the constructs of non-native accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility as
reviewed in Section 2.2. Two questions to ask in connection with specific instructional settings are: (a) which qualities of nonnative accent are too interfering for an identified I&C NNE speech sample to be useful, and (b) which qualities are noninterfering to this degree? Since there is no such thing as ‘too interfering’ in an absolute sense, such questions should always be tied to particular student populations and their specific needs as learners of English. Given the diversity of English
language teaching worldwide, considerations of intelligibility and comprehensibility are necessarily linked to who learners
are, with whom they will be interacting, and their purposes for both language study and using English. Also, the survey
reported here in which NES specialists were the informants is just a start. Contrastive research which features opportunities
for non-specialists (including both NESs and NNESs) to characterize qualities of relevant speech samples also needs to be
undertaken. As one respondent to the survey explained, “.it is entirely possible that I am so accustomed to hearing non-native
speech that I may have tended to accommodate to Bardem’s speaking style.” Sociolinguistic constructs tied to listener attitude
need to be considered as well since sociolinguists have documented that speech samples produced by NNESs from some parts
of the world (e.g., western Europe) are often assessed more favorably by NESs than NNES speech samples from other parts of
the world (e.g., Asia, eastern Europe) (Lindemann, 2005). In addition, physical appearance and societal status may come into
play since two respondents commented that because Javier Bardem is a ‘movie star’ and ‘relatively good looking’ he may elicit
more positive reactions from many listeners. Eventually, empirical studies will need to examine ESL/EFL learning outcome
differences between ways of pronunciation teaching that either embrace or exclude I&C NNE pronunciation models. As
Derwing and Munro (2005) observe, until we have better information concerning these and other related research questions,
decisions about how to teach pronunciation will likely be based on teachers’ intuitions and trial and error.
8. Conclusion
Reasons why most contemporary pronunciation teachers have yet to explore possibilities for working with I&C NNE
language samples as supplementary models when teaching ESL/EFL pronunciation may be traced to instructional philosophy,
lack of awareness, and/or lack of requisite resources. With respect to awareness, as more teachers learn of distinctions between the constructs of accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility they may find it easier to recognize and explore
strengths and weaknesses in the speech of I&C non-native speakers of English. With respect to resources, increasing availability of recordings of proficient non-native speakers of English via the Internet (as depicted in the Appendix) presents an
opportunity to re-envision our professional efforts. As teachers and other specialists explore possibilities for including illustrations of I&C NNE pronunciation, it will be helpful if such efforts begin to serve as a basis for action research and more
formal research in both teacher preparation and ESL/EFL programs.
To build professional awareness and to better prepare language teachers, one thing is certain: it is crucial for both preservice and in-service teachers to be familiar with characteristics of I&C NNE pronunciation. Teacher awareness is important because these are the kinds of models to which pronunciation teachers can more confidently encourage ESL/EFL learners
to aspire. In addition, all pronunciation teachers must have better informed appreciations for what they realistically can
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
267
expect of learners. Finally, it would be helpful if future work with I&C NNE speech samples were to serve as a reminder to all
English language teachers that we must forge places of honor for NNESs as pronunciation teachers. Because their numbers are
increasing worldwide, without them the future of pronunciation teaching will be in jeopardy. One way of encouraging their
fuller participation is for all of us, NES and NNES teachers alike, to incorporate at least some attention to intelligible,
comprehensible, non-native English speech samples as a normal part of the instructional routine when teaching
pronunciation.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Amanda Baker, Alan Hirvela, You Jin Kim, Joseph Lee, Stephanie Lindemann, and Lucy Pickering for
the thoughtful feedback they provided on the article’s early drafts and to the several anonymous reviewers. Any remaining
shortcomings are, of course, my own.
Appendix A
Possible candidates for the label of I&C NNE speaker accessible on the internet.
Name
L1
Gender Role
URLa
Isabel Allende
Kofi Annan
Spanish
Akan/Kru
F
M
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion.html
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60119697
Felipe Calderon
Mexican
Spanish
French
Indonesian
M
Novelist
Former UN
Secretary General
President of Mexico
M
F
Professional Soccer
Director, World Bank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼vj-Kxk8PYvE&feature¼related
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11765
French
F
Pashto, Dari, F
Arabic,
(Afghanistan)
French
M
Photographer
Activist,
Nonprofit Director
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12603
http://www.ted.com/talks/shabana_basij_rasikh_dare_to_educate_afghan_girls.html
Philosopher, Activist
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60198336
Chinese
Professor of Chinese
philosophy
Broadcaster, Author
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/ming.html
Thierry Henry
Sri Mulyani
Indrawati
Brigitte Lacombe
Shabana
Basij-Rasikh,
Bernard-Henri
Levy
Tu Wei-Ming
Jorge Ramos
M
Mexican
Spanish
Jehan Sadat
Egyptian
Arabic
Bandar Bin Sultan Arabic
M
Ken Watanabe
Shen Wei
M
M
a
Japanese
Chinese
M
F
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/50147978
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,326158871001_2007713,00.html
Former Egyptian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼FbZ_7YgcdFw
1st Lady
Former Saudi
http://youtu.be/33iMXVEueMI
Ambassador to the US
Actor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼LFZK4OuhfXs
Choreographer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼weGUoPNw9p0
All Internet sites retrieved 12/10/2013.
Other useful resources
TED talks
http://www.ted.com/talks
Charlie Rose Show
Time Interviews, 10 Questions
http://www.charlierose.com
http://content.time.com/time/10questions
References
Baker, A. A. (2011). Pronunciation pedagogy: second language teacher cognition and practice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State
University.
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 447–465.
Brown, A. (1991). Functional load and the teaching of pronunciation. In A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English pronunciation: A book of readings (pp. 221–224).
NewYork: Routledge.
Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and teacher education. System, 28, 191–215.
Canagarajah, S. (2005). Editor’s note. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 365–366.
Catford, J. C. (1987). Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation: a systemic description of English phonology. In J. Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on
pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp. 87–100). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–209.
Deng, J., Holtby, A., Howden-Weaver, L., Nessim, L., Nicholas, B., Nickle, K., et al. (2009). English pronunciation research: The neglected orphan of second
language acquisition studies? (WP 05–09). Edmonton, AB: Prairie Metropolis Centre.
268
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 545–564.
Derwing, T. M. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. M. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language
learning and teaching conference (pp. 24–37). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Derwing, T. M., Fraser, H., Kang, O., & Thomson, R. I. (2011, March). L2 accent and ethics: Issues that merit attention. Presidential Plenary Address, TESOL
Convention, New Orleans, LA.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility: evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: a research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397.
Dickerson, W. (2010). Walking the walk: Integrating the story of English phonology. In J. M. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the first pronunciation in
second language learning and teaching conference (pp. 10–23). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: the role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423.
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). 2010 survey of pronunciation teaching in adult ESL programs in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1–22.
Gilbert, J. (2009). Teaching pronunciation using the prosody pyramid. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Golombek, P., & Jordan, S. R. (2005). Becoming “black lambs” not “parrots”: a poststructuralist orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39,
513–533.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a foreign language. London: British Council.
Grzega, J. (2005). Reflection on concepts of English for Europe: British English, American English, Euro-English, global English. Journal for EuroLinguistiX, 2,
44–64.
Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–223.
Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education (pp. 30–39). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: the role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 535–
543.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of nonnative Englishes. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Nonnative English-speaking professionals: a new agenda for a new millennium. MEXTESOL Journal, 23, 11–20.
Kanellow, V. (2009). The practice of pronunciation teaching in current ELT manuals and handbook: a review. Speak Out: IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest
Group Newsletter, 40, 1–5.
Kang, O. (2010). ESL learners’ attitudes toward pronunciation instruction. In J. M. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the first pronunciation in second
language learning and teaching conference (pp. 105–118). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
León Meis, M. (2000). Spanish-speaking EFL teachers: their needs, challenges, and advantages when teaching English pronunciation. Speak Out!, 26, 20–29.
Levis, J. M. (1999). Variations in pronunciation and ESL teacher training. TESOL Matters, 9, 16.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–378.
Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks ’broken English’? US undergraduates’ perceptions of nonnative English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15,
187–212.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.
Macdonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation views and practices of reluctant teachers. Prospect, 17, 3–18.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching profession. Retrieved from CAL Digest: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/
0209maum.html [accessed 27.11.2012].
McArthur, T. (2002). Oxford guide to world English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyers, C. (2013, August). Mirroring project update: Intelligible accented speakers as pronunciation models. TESOL Video News (the newsletter of the TESOL
Video and Digital Media Interest Section). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolvdmis/
issues/2013-07-27/email.html#3 Accessed 12.30.13.
Miller, J. (2009). Teacher identity. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 172–181). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: towards a field-internal conceptualization of bilingual and second language education. Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 7, 172–188.
Morley, J. (1994). A multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation instruction. In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: the critical factors of age, motivation and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–
108.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995a). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning,
45, 73–97.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. (1995b). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language &
Speech, 38, 289–306.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation Instruction: an exploratory study. System, 34, 520–531.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). The foundations of accent and intelligibility in pronunciation research. Language Teaching, 44, 316–327.
Murphy, J. (2013). Teaching pronunciation. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Nation, P. (1991, October). Dictation, Dicto-comp, and related techniques. English Teaching Forum, 29, 12–14.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.
Osimk, R. (2009). Decoding sounds: An experimental approach to intelligibility in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers, 18 (pp. 64–89). Austria: University of
Vienna <http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/0901final.pdf>.
Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I never knew I was a bilingual”: reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 251–268.
Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: the native speaker’s burden. In T. Hedge, & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 23–30). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233–255.
Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 219–233.
Pickering, L. (2012). Second language speech production. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 335–
348). New York: Routledge.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1996). Displacing the “native speaker”: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. English Language Teaching Journal, 44, 97–101.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. New York/London: Continuum.
Rooy, S. (2009). Intelligibility and perceptions of English proficiency. World Englishes, 28, 15–34.
Rose (Producer), C. (December 28, 2010). Charlie Rose interview with Javier Bardem and Alejandro González Iñárritu [Television broadcast]. Retrieved from New
York: Public Broadcasting System http://www.charlierose.com/watch/50111145 [accessed 12.12.2013]. Retrieved also from Paris: Dailymotion http://
www.dailymotion.com/video/x120v7a_charlie-rose-javier-bardem-and-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu_news [accessed 12.12.2013].
Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S. H. (2006). Language learners’ perceptions of accent. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 715–738.
J.M. Murphy / System 42 (2014) 258–269
269
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 213–233.
Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: a survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL Quarterly,
39, 467–488.
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: a classroom view. ELT Journal, 56, 240–249.
Walker, R. (1999). Proclaimed and perceived wants and needs among Spanish teachers of English. Speak Out!, 24, 25–32.
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wennerstrom, A. (2001). Intonation and evaluation in oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1183–1206.
Zielinski, B. (2007). The listener: no longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36, 69–84.
John Murphy is professor of Applied Linguistics and ESL at Georgia State University in Atlanta. His research interests include L2 teacher reasoning and the
teaching of speaking, listening, and pronunciation in L2 classrooms. His publications have appeared in numerous venues including: English for Specific
Purposes, System, TESL Canada Journal, TESOL Journal, TESOL Quarterly, and the Journal of L2 Writing. His most recent book is: Murphy, J. (2013). Teaching
pronunciation. Alexandria, VA. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. As one way of maintaining professional balance, John is also a Yoga teacher
in the lineage of Pranakriya Hath Yoga.