CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Department of English Language and Literature
Bachelor Thesis
Criteria Influencing the Choice of English
Pronunciation Model
Prague 2013
Author: Kateřina Benková
Study subjects: English – Social Sciences
Supervisor: Mgr. Kristýna Poesová, Ph.D.
I hereby declare that this bachelor thesis is completely my own work and that no
other sources were used in the preparation of the thesis than those listed on the works cited
page.
Prague, May 2013
__________________________
Kateřina Benková
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all the teachers who kindly allowed me to conduct the
research during their English classes and the students who participated in it. My thanks go
also to Timothy Vladimír Hobbs, Anushka Nayak, Marek Nosek and Ivona Šaldová who
recorded themselves for the purpose of the research; and to my boyfriend Lukáš Hadamčík
who patiently provided me with technical support and modified all the recordings. In
addition, I would like to thank my friend Iva Martináková for spell-checking the thesis.
Finally, I would like to express immense gratitude to my teacher and supervisor Mgr.
Kristýna Poesová, Ph.D. for all the time she devoted to me, for her guidance and
encouragement, invaluable remarks and suggestions.
Abstract
This bachelor thesis deals with the approaches and criteria influencing the choice of
an English pronunciation model with a special focus on the specific preferences of Czech
students. The aim of the theoretical part is to compare the most frequently used
pronunciation models, Received Pronunciation and General American, in respect of the
criteria and Czech educational environment. The practical part analyses Czech students’
preferences regarding their contact with pronunciation models in their free time and at
school. A questionnaire, which included a listening task, was distributed to students at four
upper-secondary schools. The answers to the questions indicate that more students tend to
favour the British accent whereas the results of the listening task show that the majority of
the students prefer the American accent.
Key Words
Pronunciation model, American accent, British accent, students’ preferences
Anotace
Bakalářská práce se zabývá přístupy a kritérii, která ovlivňují výběr anglického
výslovnostního modelu, obzvláště se zaměřuje na preference studentů. Cílem teoretické
části je porovnání nejčastěji užívaných výslovnostních modelů, Received Pronunciation a
General American, s ohledem na daná kritéria a vzdělávání v českém prostředí. Cílem
praktické části je analýza preferencí českých studentů vzhledem k jejich kontaktu s
výslovnostními modely ve volném čase a ve škole. Dotazník, který zahrnoval poslechové
cvičení, byl rozdán studentům čtyř středních škol. Odpovědi na otázky naznačují, že více
studentů upřednostňuje britský přízvuk, výsledky poslechového cvičení naopak ukazují, že
většina studentů preferuje přízvuk americký.
Klíčová slova
Výslovnostní model, americký přízvuk, britský přízvuk, preference studentů
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7
THEORETICAL PART ........................................................................................................ 8
1.
Pronunciation teaching approaches ................................................................................ 8
1.1
Traditional approach ............................................................................................... 8
1.2
Modern approach .................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Jenkins’ theory........................................................................................... 10
2.
Criteria influencing the choice of a pronunciation model ............................................ 11
2.1
Received Pronunciation (RP)................................................................................ 12
2.2
General American (GA) ........................................................................................ 13
2.3
Geo-cultural criteria .............................................................................................. 13
2.4
Teachers’ accent ................................................................................................... 14
2.5
Teachability and learnability................................................................................. 18
2.6
Intelligibility and familiarity ................................................................................. 18
2.7
Expected Interlocutors .......................................................................................... 20
2.8
Students’ preferences ............................................................................................ 21
2.8.1 Research..................................................................................................... 22
2.8.2 Identity ....................................................................................................... 23
PRACTICAL PART ............................................................................................................ 26
3.
Research description .................................................................................................... 26
3.1
Aim and hypotheses .............................................................................................. 26
3.2
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Students’ questionnaires ............................................................................ 27
3.2.2 Respondents ............................................................................................... 29
3.2.3 Teachers’ questionnaires ........................................................................... 29
3.2.4 Procedure ................................................................................................... 30
4.
Results and discussion.................................................................................................. 30
4.1
Teachers’ results and the influence of the school ................................................. 31
4.2
Students’ free time ................................................................................................ 33
4.2.1 Stays in English-speaking countries and interlocutors outside school ...... 33
5.
4.3
Recordings and stated preferences ........................................................................ 38
4.4
Other points of interest ......................................................................................... 42
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 43
Works Cited ......................................................................................................................... 45
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 48
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 49
1.Appendix 1 Students’ Questionnaire ........................................................................... 49
2.Appendix 2 Recordings ............................................................................................... 52
3.Appendix 3 Teachers’ Questionnaire .......................................................................... 54
4.Appendix 4 Summary of the teachers’ results ............................................................. 56
5.Appendix 5 Summary of the students’ results ............................................................. 58
Introduction
Modern times have brought considerable changes into people’s lives in many
respects and the use of the English language does not seem to be an exception. The
expansion of English certainly cannot pass unnoticed. Considering Czech students of
English, the change is being reflected mainly in their more frequent contact with the
English language. This is mostly ascribed to the emergence of a new phenomenon, the
Internet. The spread of the Internet has caused that various English materials that are
attractive to students (songs, films, TV series, YouTube videos) have become more easily
accessible. Watching and listening to such programmes is believed to be widely popular
among young people. Whether this exposure to various authentically spoken accents has
any impact on their oral skills presents an interesting question for current research.
Furthermore, it brings into focus the topic of students’ accent preferences which may
nowadays demonstrate less uniformity than twenty years ago.
The author of this thesis is convinced that the English lessons become more
effective and enjoyable for the students when their accent preferences are reflected.
Therefore, it is crucial for the teacher to be aware of them. The aim of the practical part of
this thesis is to investigate which accent (British or American) Czech upper-secondary
students favour and what factors influence their choice. The relevant data were amassed
using a detailed questionnaire. The respondents were asked about their opinions and these
results were compared to those obtained in a listening task generating more spontaneous
reactions on the examined topic.
Undoubtedly, students’ preferences should be taken into consideration when a
pronunciation model is selected in such contexts where English is taught as a foreign
language. Nevertheless, it is not the only criterion that the teachers are expected to follow.
Therefore, the theoretical part of this thesis introduces the current approaches to
pronunciation teaching with respect to pronunciation models and it further analyses the
aspects influencing the choice of a pronunciation model. It discusses the criteria with
regard to the Czech educational environment and focuses mainly on two most commonly
used pronunciation models, Received Pronunciation and General American. Both parts of
the bachelor thesis offer current and future English teachers useful information that can
help them sensibly decide which pronunciation model they should opt for.
7
THEORETICAL PART
1. Pronunciation teaching approaches
1.1 Traditional approach
As a traditional approach to pronunciation teaching, the theory of three concentric
circles was presented by Professor Braj B. Kachru in the 1980s and has been followed ever
since. It divides the English-speaking world into three parts. The inner circle consists of
countries where the inhabitants are native speakers (NSs) of the English language. Such
countries are considered to be norm-providing. This means that their pronunciation is
approved, perceived as the correct one and serves as the norm for other countries. (Kachru
16-17, as cited in Jenkins, Phonology 12). It includes the USA, the UK, Ireland, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand (Crystal 60). Traditionally, the most frequent choices for the
norm are the British accent (Received Pronunciation) and the American accent (General
American) due to the historical development (Brown, Models 39).
Former British colonies, the countries into which English was brought and became
the second official language of the country, form the outer circle (Kachru 16-17, as cited in
Jenkins, Phonology 12). It consists of India, Singapore, Malawi and over fifty other
territories (Crystal 60). They are stated to be norm-developing rather than norm-providing
and the approach of teaching English is labelled as English as a Second Language (ESL).
The expanding circle comprises countries where English is not established as an
official language, but it is being studied by the inhabitants. These countries are normdependent on the inner circle and the non-native speakers (NNSs) are taught English as a
Foreign Language (EFL). Therefore, only native pronunciations formed in countries of the
inner circle are considered proper and are to serve as pronunciation models. Non-native
variations are regarded as deviations from the standard. (Kachru 16-17, as cited in Jenkins,
Phonology 12).
8
1.2 Modern approach
Nowadays, English is considered to be a global language. This is mainly caused by
British imperialism that spread the English language to the colonies. Another even more
important reason is the leading economic power of the USA in the twentieth century
(Crystal 59). The expansion of the USA led to the use of the English language as an
International Language (EIL) or English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). Together with the
growth of the importance of the English language, the number of learners has also been
increasing. Considering a medium level of conversational competence in handling
domestic subject-matter as a criterion, David Crystal estimates that there are approximately
750 million speakers of English as a foreign language, which is two times more than the
total number of native and second-language speakers, i.e. speakers from the outer circle
(68, see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Estimated number of speakers of English (Crystal 61)
9
1.2.1 Jenkins’ theory
Reflecting the above mentioned speakers’ ratio, Jennifer Jenkins develops a new
approach to the pronunciation teaching. She claims that native pronunciation norms and
models should no longer be followed since it is increasingly more likely that the learner
will communicate with non-native speakers rather than the native ones. She suggests the
creation of a phonological core, a simplified set of pronunciation features that provides
international intelligibility based on the NNSs’ needs. Thus, learners would master only the
areas necessary for basic understanding among NNSs, and would also be encouraged to
retain their local accents, as long as it does not impede mutual understanding. (Jenkins,
Phonology 5-14).
In Kachru’s terminology, this would mean that the outer and expanding circles
would also become norm-providing instead of being inferior and dependent on the inner
circle. Therefore, each group of speakers with the same local pronunciation features would
create their own respectable English variant, e.g. Czech English, equal to the nativespeaker variants. This would signify an important shift in the status of non-native English
varieties and could eventually lead to the loss of the standard as it is known today.
Contrary to the traditional contexts of pronunciation teaching (ESL and EFL), the
crucial areas are set to be segmentals (consonants and vowels) together with nuclear stress,
and less attention is paid to the suprasegmentals (rhythm, word stress, intonation). Based
on Jenkins’ research regarding intelligibility among NNSs, she claims that unlike NSs,
NNSs do not use context to understand the discourse and focus mainly on individual
sounds and thus these features should be practised the most (Jenkins, Norms and Models
121-124). She adds that these important areas “have the advantage of being not only
teachable but also learnable: systematic, and not riddled with complicated exceptions and
fine distinctions, or dependent on individual learners and contexts” (Jenkins,
Pronunciation 3).
However, the EIL theory is not approved by all phoneticians. John Wells points out
that it is inappropriate to prepare learners only for communication with NNSs and ignore
the possible contact with NSs. He also comments on the fact that Jenkins encourages the
students to retain their local variations and not to aim for native-like pronunciation.
10
“Speaking personally, I must say that my own aspiration in learning languages is
NS-like proficiency. I acknowledge that I may be unlikely to attain it. But that doesn’t stop
me aiming for it. I try to inspire my students with the same high ideal. If it were suggested
that I should not even aim so high, I should feel short-changed.” (Wells, Goals 2)
Even among those who approve the idea, several disagreements appear. The most
controversial seems to be the setting of the phonological core. Rebecca M. Dauer, for
example, disagrees with the neglect of word stress. She claims that it is teachable and even
necessary for understanding other areas such as vowel length or nuclear stress (547-548).
It is clear that the EIL theory cannot be put into practise yet. Even though it is
assumed that learners would agree on non-native accent as their aim and on the need to use
English in international context only, the EIL productive pronunciation teaching is still
difficult. No phonological core has been widely accepted and thus no teaching materials
are available. This is closely related to the question of assessment since the teachers would
not be able to distinguish an error from a local variant without clearly defined criteria.
Nevertheless, as learners are to speak with other NNSs with different local varieties, it is
essential to develop their receptive skills “through exposure to a wide range of varieties of
accent, so that learners develop the ability to interpret pronunciations other than those of
their teachers and co-L1 speakers [speakers with the same mother tongue]” (Jenkins,
Pronunciation 77).
2. Criteria influencing the choice of a pronunciation model
This part of the thesis is focused on the criteria influencing the choice of
pronunciation models in respect of Czech educational environment. As the traditional
approach in pronunciation teaching still prevails, the work is to continue being engaged in
standard pronunciation models, namely Received Pronunciation (RP) and General
American (GA), since they are believed to serve as pronunciation models the most
frequently. Firstly, these models will be briefly characterised and the primary differences
between them will be introduced. Secondly, the main criteria shall be scrutinized,
including
geo-cultural
criteria,
teachers’
accents,
teachability
and
learnability,
intelligibility and familiarity with accents, expected interlocutors and, finally, students’
preferences and the issue of identity. As the criteria are closely connected to each other, the
areas of interest tend to overlap.
11
2.1 Received Pronunciation (RP)
Despite the fact that RP originated in exclusive private schools in Southern
England, the accent is not connected with any region. It is rather associated with social
status, since educated, upper-class or upper-middle-class people were supposed to use it in
the last century. (Wells, Accents 117). The accent may also be referred to as “Queen’s
English,” as the Queen speaks with an RP accent, “Oxford English” because as the accent
of educated people, it was naturally associated with prestigious universities, or “BBC
English,” as the news announcers were demanded to use RP. The last two terms are,
however, no longer considered accurate since greater tolerance towards regional accents
caused the loss of power and consequently the use of RP. (Brown, Models 31).
Gimson distinguishes three different forms within RP itself. General RP, the form
which serves as the pronunciation model, Refined RP, the accent of upper-class families
and associated professions; and Regional RP (80). The Regional RP which is an RP accent
that tolerates the preservation of some regional characteristics is likely to be the most
interesting. Obviously, it is possible to further distinguish several forms within the
Regional RP itself, depending on the origins of the regional characteristics. Of those, the
most influential seems to be London Regional RP, also known as “Estuary English” (EE)
which combines the General RP accent with some typical characteristics of the London
accent, known as Cockney. (Gimson 80-81). Rosewarne assumes that EE is to be the most
powerful accent in the South-East of England as it is well established in the business,
media, advertising or the Civil Service and it may even be heard in the Parliament. In
addition, secondary students of both public and private schools are to direct their speech
towards EE. Therefore, it is highly probable that EE will eventually replace General RP.
(3-7).
Despite new tendencies in the development of RP, General RP remains to serve as a
pronunciation model. It is mainly taught in Europe, Africa and the Indian subcontinent
(Gimson 81). Therefore, whenever “RP” is mentioned in the following parts of this thesis,
it refers to the General RP as explained above.
12
2.2 General American (GA)
The accents of the USA are usually divided into “Eastern”, “Southern” and
“General American” (Wells, Accents 470). GA is the term referring to the accents of two
thirds of the American population who do not have any marked Eastern or Southern
characteristics (Wells, Accents 118, 470). In this sense it is comparable to RP which is also
considered neutral in respect of regional characteristics. GA may also be labelled as
“Network English” as it is the most acceptable variety used in American media. It usually
serves as the pronunciation model in parts of Asia and Latin America. (Gimson 85).
Rhoticity is regarded as one of the major differences between RP and GA. Whereas
in RP /r/ is pronounced only before vowels as it is a non-rhotic accent, GA is considered to
be a rhotic accent where /r/ occurs before vowels as well as consonants and pauses.
Therefore, for example the word darling is pronounced as /ˈdɑ:lɪŋ/ in RP in comparison to
/ˈdɑ:rlɪŋ/ in GA. As a result, RP’s diphthongs /ɪə/, /eə/ and /ʊə/ are replaced by sequence
of /ɪr/, /er/ and /ʊr/ in GA in words like beard, fare or dour. Moreover, GA lacks /ɒ/ which
is most commonly substituted by /ɑ:/, as for example in the word cod. (Gimson 85). The
above mentioned phenomena certainly do not depict all the differences between the accents
which are perceived in segmental as well as suprasegmental levels, but they serve rather as
an outline of the most prominent ones.
2.3 Geo-cultural criteria
The location of the country where English is taught as a foreign language should
always be taken into consideration. The accent of the more proximate country where
English is a native language has usually served as a pronunciation model. Therefore, GA
has traditionally been used as pronunciation model in Latin America whereas RP was
preferred in Europe (Gimson 81, 85).
However, there are other significant factors. The recent technical and economic
development, such as the Internet or accessible transport, caused that distance is no longer
relevant. Mass media and popular culture may represent a greater impact on the teaching of
English. Since it is the USA which is considered to be the leading power of the 20th
13
century (Crystal 59) it has a persisting immense influence over politics, economy and
culture all over the world. Especially American popular culture in combination with the
spread of the Internet may have a crucial impact on students.
As a result, a new phenomenon called “Online Informal Learning of English”
(OILE) has emerged. Toffoli and Sockett describe it as an incidental learning of English, a
mere by-product of students’ leisure activities (University teachers & OILE 1). Among
those, watching American TV series and listening to on-demand music are supposed to be
the most prevailing ones (Toffoli and Sockett, Non-specialists students, as cited in Toffoli
and Sockett, University teachers & OILE 1). This has led to the fact that “European
learners of English [are] being exposed increasingly to American rather than British
varieties of English” (Henderson, Frost et al. 21).
2.4 Teachers’ accent
Teacher’s own accent plays an essential role in choosing the model for English
classes. It is usually this accent with which students come into contact the most frequently
and thus may have the greatest influence over their own pronunciation. Brown states that a
teacher’s accent should ideally be identical to the one used in pronunciation materials and
textbooks and at the same time it should serve as a target for students. Otherwise, it may
cause confusion of the students and lower the efficiency of their learning. (Models 40).
Since “few teachers have the ability to change their usual English accent consistently so as
to provide a model of another variety” (Hewings 13), it seems quite natural that teachers
set their own accent, which is supposed to correspond or approximate to the pronunciation
model they were taught, as a pronunciation model. This is also proved by the survey of 240
future Polish teachers of the English language conducted by Małgorzata Kul where “nearly
all the respondents would impose on their own students the model they had learned
themselves for reasons of (declared) competence, confidence and personal taste” (Janicka,
Kul and Weckwerth 258). The situation reminds one of a vicious circle, further enforced
by the demand of consistency in teaching. Even though a teacher may wish to use a
different pronunciation model than his predecessor, they must keep in mind that education
should be consistent and students may be confused when asked to imitate different accents
in turns (Von Schon 26, as cited in Mompeán, Preferences 960).
14
As RP was traditionally taught in Europe (Gimson 81), it is expected that teachers
were trained in it themselves, and thus may tend to prefer it while teaching. Research
questioning teachers of English throughout Europe concludes that 84 % of teachers choose
RP for their productive work (i.e. speaking and writing) in comparison to 54 % of teachers
who use GA (Henderson, Frost et al. 20, see Table 1)1. Although Czech teachers did not
participate in the survey, results are expected to be similar to those of the countries which
have comparable socio-historical background (e.g. Poland).
Country
Finland
France
Germany
Macedonia
Poland
Spain
Switzerland
Average
Productive Work (%)
RP
GA
93
63
65
50
91
68
77
69
100
42
75
35
88
50
84
54
Receptive Work (%)
RP
GA
95
76
81
79
91
80
92
46
100
75
95
70
88
69
92
71
Table 1 Percentage of teachers who chose a variety for productive and receptive work (Henderson,
Frost et al. 20)
Even though no significant survey regarding teachers’ preferable pronunciation
model has been carried out in the Czech Republic, a general tendency may be observed.
According to the syllabi available on the websites of some Czech faculties of education
(concerning the bachelor subject English Language Oriented at Education), future English
teachers follow predominantly course books where RP is used as an accent of reference in
their courses of phonetics and phonology and courses improving general language skills
(see Table 2).
1
Teachers were allowed to choose more than one accent.
15
University
Charles University
in Prague
Phonetics and
Phonology
Language Skills
Roach, Peter. English
Phonetics and Phonology: Jones, Ceri, Tania Bastow and Jon Hird.
A Practical Course. 4th ed. Inside Out: Advanced. Oxford: Macmillian
Cambridge:
Cambridge Education, 2001.
University Press, 2009.
Volín, Jan. IPA-Based
Oxenden, Clive a Christina LathamTranscription for Czech
Koenig. New English File: Advanced. Oxford:
Students of English. Praha:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Karolinum, 2002.
Palacký University
Olomouc
Gude, Kathy, Mary Stephens. CAE Result:
Roach, Peter. English Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University
Phonetics and Phonology: Press, 2008.
A Practical Course. 4th ed.
Cambridge:
Cambridge Haines,
Simon. Landmark:
Advanced:
University Press, 2009.
student’s book. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Newbrook, Jacky, Judith Wilson and Richard
Acklam. FCE Gold Plus: Coursebook.
Harlow: Pearson, 2008.
Technical
University of
Liberec
Roach, Peter. English
Phonetics and Phonology: O´Connell, Sue. Focus on Advanced English
A Practical Course. 4th ed. CAE. Longman, 1999.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
Brook-Hart,
Guy
and
Simon
University Press, 2009.
Haines. Complete CAE: Student's Book.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009.
Table 2 Course books used at Czech faculties of education (Information System of Charles University,
Portal: Palacký University Information System and Portal Technical University Liberec: IS/STAG)
Of course, it would be imprecise to conclude that such a piece of information
proves the sole dominance of RP. In reality, different books may be preferred, additional
materials and teachers with different accents may balance out the students’ exposure to
English varieties. Nevertheless, it seems likely that RP is rather accented, mainly by the
fact that for some of the course books, American versions are available (e.g. American
English File or New American Inside Out). Regarding the fact that teachers’ own education
16
and acquired accent may be decisive in the search for a pronunciation model, it is highly
probable that a majority of Czech teachers may favour RP to GA.
The situation seems to differ when teachers were asked to indicate their students’
preferences in the above mentioned survey. With regard to productive work, 63 % of
teachers think that their students favour GA to RP whereas 55 % vote for RP (Henderson,
Frost et al. 20, see Table 3)2. This may be interpreted as teachers’ awareness of the strong
American influence on their students through the OILE.
Country
Finland
France
Germany
Macedonia
Poland
Spain
Switzerland
Average
Productive Work (%)
RP
GA
66
79
52
44
72
69
15
100
67
50
85
45
81
56
55
63
Receptive Work (%)
RP
GA
66
87
62
56
72
74
31
77
67
67
90
40
69
56
65
67
Table 3 Percentage of teachers who indicated their students' preferences for a variety, for productive
and receptive work (Henderson, Frost et al. 20)
The accessibility of materials regarding the chosen accent may also be a decisive
criterion as it is an important, and therefore influential, factor of the teachers’ work.
Nowadays, both RP and GA are thoroughly described and represented in various materials,
including textbooks, CDs or websites (Mompeán, Options 1053). Despite the availability
of American materials, Modiano claims, “Mainland European ELT [English language
teaching] is dependent on the British rendition of the English language because the vast
majority of educational materials used in main-land Europe are imported from England”
(223). Even though British publishers also introduce American versions of commonly used
course books, it may be believed that course books where the British accent is used as a
point of reference are still preferred in the Czech Republic, as a result of teachers’
2
Teachers were allowed to choose more than one accent.
17
preference for this accent and long-lasting tradition. It is necessary to point out, however,
that such an impression is not based on any research in the matter.
2.5 Teachability and learnability
Teachers should take into consideration not only the question whether they are able
to teach a certain accent, but also whether the students are able to learn the accent. This is
closely connected with the difficulty of accents. Abercrombie claims that Scottish English
and GA are less complicated than RP for most foreigners since they have less diphthongs
and closer orthographic links (55, as cited in Brown, Models 36). Mompeán adds that from
his own experience Spanish students tend to consider rhotic accents easier than a nonrhotic one (Preferences 961). The survey among students conducted by Karzyna Janicka in
Poland reveals that „a vast majority considered American English to be ‘easier to learn and
master’” (Janicka, Kul and Weckwerth 255). It may be presumed that this could also be the
result of a higher level of exposure to GA outside the school through the Internet and
media.
2.6 Intelligibility and familiarity
It is also essential to remember that students are unlikely to ever achieve a nativelike pronunciation (Hewings 13). In the late 1960s the attainment of native-like
pronunciation set as a goal in pronunciation teaching began to be questioned. Abercrombie
stated that
“…learners need no more than a comfortably intelligible pronunciation (and by
‘comfortably intelligible’ I mean a pronunciation which can be understood with little or
no conscious effort on the part of the listener.) I believe that pronunciation teaching
should have, not a goal which must of necessity be normally an unrealized ideal, but a
limited purpose which will be completely fulfilled: the attainment of intelligibility.”
(37, as cited in Brown, Models 48)
Nowadays, the concept of comfortably intelligible pronunciation is widely
accepted. Therefore, an approximation to the model rather than its perfect imitation is
expected.
18
Intelligibility was described by Munro and Derwing as a degree to which a listener
can recognise the words and sentences in his interlocutor’s speech and as such is a crucial
criterion for the choice of pronunciation model (76). The success or failure in intelligibility
may be influenced by several factors among which the interlocutors’ characteristics and
their familiarity with accents play a significant role (Mompeán, Preferences 960).
Mompeán claims that “the more familiar speakers are with an accent, the more
likely they are to understand their interlocutors” (Preferences 960). In this respect, it is
reasonable to distinguish between productive knowledge, the ability to speak with the
accent, and receptive knowledge, the ability to understand the accent. RP is productively
used only by 3 % of British population which represents very low chances for non-native
speakers to talk to an RP speaker (Macaulay 123). Nevertheless, RP is widely understood
among the rest of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom mainly due to the influence of
BBC radio. GA, on the other hand, is productively used by a large part of the USA and it is
receptively known to all US citizens. Besides, it may also be assumed that due to the
political, economic and cultural influence of the USA, a much higher number of speakers
is used to it and understands it. (Brown, Approaches 2). Moreover, both of the accents are
commonly used in EFL teaching and thus it is predicted that they are familiar to a large
proportion of speakers. Therefore, it may be expected that, imitating an RP or a GA accent,
the students will be understood.
However, a different situation arises when students are asked to understand.
Although GA and RP are widely intelligible, they are not productively used by all of the
speakers. Plenty of varieties of English coexist, including local non-native varieties which,
despite the fact that they may aim to imitate native varieties, retain L1 characteristics.
Therefore, students should expect to encounter other varieties than that of their
pronunciation model. As it is highly unlikely that an interlocutor is to switch his accent to
the more intelligible one for them, it is the students who should prepare for such a
situation. The best practice is to train receptive skills, i.e. be exposed to and get acquainted
with a wide range of accents in order to interpret them better (Jenkins, Pronunciation 75).
19
2.7 Expected Interlocutors
Naturally, the choice of the varieties that students are to be exposed to should
correspond to their anticipated interlocutors. However, if one is not teaching students for a
specific purpose (e.g. to be able to communicate with their British clients from London), it
is very difficult to predict what the future interlocutors of the students may be, especially
as regards children and teenagers, and thus it becomes more or less a speculation.
Supposing that the students are to stay in their motherland, the possible
interlocutors may be deduced in relation to tourism trends. In such a case, the nationality of
foreign tourists3 who visit the students’ native land may serve as one of the clues. In
respect of Czech students, data provided by the STEM/MARK, a.s. company reveals that
foreign tourists who visited the Czech Republic in 2011 were mostly NNSs. Only one
English-speaking country, the United Kingdom, reached a significant position with 7 % in
a list presenting the most common foreign tourists visiting the Czech Republic according
to their country of origin (see Figure 2). The foreign destinations where Czechs choose to
spend their long tourist trips4 may be proclaimed even more important since such trips
show an increased probability of Czechs being exposed to communication with foreigners.
Here again, NNSs are shown to be more probable interlocutors (Ministry of Regional
Development CZ, see Figure 3).
3
Foreign tourists include tourists with at least one overnight stay.
4
As long tourist trips are classified the trips for the purpose of spending leisure time and recreation
that includes stays of at least four consecutive nights outside the traveller’s usual environment.
20
20
25
15
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
Germany Slovakia Russia
2011
France
UK
Croatia Slovakia
2010
Italy
2011
Greece Austria
2010
Figure 2 Foreign tourists’ country of origin
Figure 3 Czech residents’ long tourist trips
(Ministry of Regional Development CZ)
abroad by country (STEM/MARK, a.s.)
In regard to the data presented, it may be assumed that Czech students are to
encounter and thus communicate mainly with non-native speakers of English, mostly
Europeans. The only significant group of native-speakers are those from the United
Kingdom (7 % of foreign visitors in the Czech Republic) where the use of British accents
may be presumed. As discussed above, RP is the predominant pronunciation model taught
in Europe and therefore it may be suggested that non-native European speakers are to
approximate to it and understand it. A conclusion may be drawn that RP would be the most
suitable pronunciation model to teach with regard to the fact that, based on tourism trends,
the majority of the expected interlocutors of Czech students should be familiar with it.
It is essential, however, to be aware that students may face situations other than
those relating to tourism where they will be asked to communicate in English and therefore
the list of possible interlocutors is by no means definite.
2.8 Students’ preferences
Students’ own wishes regarding the choice of pronunciation model should not be
insignificant for the teacher and should be taken into consideration while choosing a
pronunciation model. Generally, students opt between traditional pronunciation models,
i.e. native-speaker, such as RP, and second-language or foreign-language varieties, for
example Singaporean English. The difference is based on the aim that the students want to
achieve in their pronunciation. They either aspire to attain native-like pronunciation, or
21
they wish to retain their national characteristics in order not to lose their identity. (Hewings
13-14).
2.8.1 Research
Throughout Europe, several researches have been carried out to ascertain students’
preferences regarding pronunciation models. Universally, the conclusions may be
summarized as those that students rather prefer native-like accents, especially RP or GA, to
non-native accents. Namely, Małgorzata Kul’s survey from 2002 which regards around
240 opinions of Polish students of English reveals that “the learners do see and insist on
adopting a native-like model” (Janicka, Kul and Weckwerth 257). Supposing that such
results may be affected by the students’ objective (in this case the students majored in
English), Ewa Waniek-Klimczak and Karol Klimczak conducted a survey that compared
the opinions of the students of English (ES) with those of the students of economics and
sociology (E&S). It reveals that only 44 % E&S students in proportion to 82 % ES students
believe native-like pronunciation may be achieved. Regarding such an outcome and the
fact that the E&S students expect to communicate mainly with the NNSs, it may be
suggested that their target is not associated with native-like pronunciation but rather a
comfortably intelligible pronunciation. Nevertheless, despite their possible target, E&S
students still prefer to follow native pronunciation models with a strong preference for
British English (91 %). (Waniek-Klimczak, Klimczak 238-245). In 2004, José Mompeán
analysed opinions of sixty-six students of philology in Spain. By asking them “Which kind
of accent of English do you want to learn?”, he discovered that 71 % of them wish to learn
British accent because they believe it is the purest accent, the original, not a derived one as
opposed to the other accents. Greater intelligibility of the accent was also included in the
listed arguments. On the other hand, 17 % of students prefer American accent claiming that
since America is the leading power today, especially in business, film industry or
information technology, it is useful and practical to learn American English. They depicted
it as “more modern”, “influential” or “more common”. Irish accent is the choice of the
remaining 12 % of students who incline to it because they like Irish culture. (Mompéan,
Options 1046-1048). Unfortunately, no corresponding research has been conducted in the
Czech Republic. However, similar results may be suggested due to the similar geo-cultural
situation of the countries where the question was surveyed.
22
As the researches imply, students tend to favour a certain accent according to the
influence and prestige which they ascribe to it. Whereas influence is mainly connected
with the American accent, the question of prestige seems to be relevant mostly for students
in respect of the British accent5. Those in favour of the British accent (RP) considered it
“prestigious”, “noble” and “clear” whereas American accent was described as “primitive”
or “careless”. On the contrary, American accent supporters express their opinion towards
British accent as “posh”, “ridiculous” or “old-fashioned” (Janicka, Kul and Weckewerth
254-255).
Even though a significant number of learners find RP a prestigious accent, native
speakers tend to agree with their opponents over the last few decades. In the view of the
fact that RP was established as an accent of educated people who often occupied the top of
the social ladder, inappropriate use of the accent may be misinterpreted as a “mark of
affectation or a desire to emphasize social superiority” and thus arouse hostility among
speakers (Gimson 79). David Rosewarne adds that given the fact that RP is no longer
regarded as neutral accent Estuary English is to take over its role. Contrary to RP, it
enables speakers not only to disguise their origins, but also to retain their identity because
it preserves some regional characteristics. Yet, Estuary English represents greater
sophistication than regional accents and it does not sound as condescending as RP. (36-37).
2.8.2 Identity
The question of identity is not important solely for native speakers. Accent is
assumed to be one of the instruments through which people express their identity
regardless of whether it concerns an accent of their first language (L1) or other language
(L2). By using the same accent as others, a speaker conveys an affiliation with their social
community. This may have an influence over students’ targets in pronunciation. In case
students wish to join a native-speaker community, they modify their speech towards a
native-like accent. Naturally, this leads to the preference of a native-like pronunciation
model. However, other students may feel uncomfortable when asked to abandon their first
language features of speech as it may imply the separation from their first language
5
It is supposed that the students predominantly refer to RP since it is the most frequent British
accent used as a pronunciation model.
23
community and thus their identity. (Dalton and Seidlhofer, Pronunciation 5-7). It is
suggested that the anxiety about identity may even prevent learners, consciously as well as
unconsciously, from achieving native-like pronunciation. Hewings comments that
“for the vast majority of learners, a native-speaker pronunciation is neither
necessary nor even desirable. … a person’s pronunciation (of both their first and other
languages) contributes significantly to the impression of their identity that is conveyed to
others. It is probably the case that most people would wish to retain identifiable traces of
their national or first language identity when they speak English. (13-14)
Choosing a local variety of English as a pronunciation model is the solution
proposed by Adam Brown. Provided that the intelligibility is not impeded, a local variety,
such as for example Czech English, enables students both to retain their first language
features and to be able to communicate with foreigners. (56). Moreover, in opposition to
native-like pronunciation which is “unachievable for the vast majority of learners of
second or foreign language” (Hewings 13), it presents an easier and achievable target. And
supposing that a majority of teachers themselves possess the local variety of English,
teachers would provide their students with a model more corresponding to the target they
demand of them. (Brown 56).
Despite its advantages, the use of a local variety in EFL context may raise several
objections. As this approach is in accordance with Jenkins’ proposal in many ways, i.e.
equalization of non-native varieties with the native ones and setting shared core that would
provide intelligibility; its negative aspects have already been discussed in chapter 1.2.1
devoted to the matter. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight probably the most important
reservation from the students’ point of view. The aforementioned studies prove that
students do not wish to follow a non-native pronunciation model since they do not think it
an adequate accent of English. A local non-native variety is seen rather as a variation or
deviation from the norm and demonstrates the lack of speakers’ proficiency (Janicka, Kul
and Weckerth 257).
A compromise that may solve the objections of both approaches is suggested. In the
view of the fact that students prefer native-like pronunciation models to non-native local
varieties, the lack of acceptance of non-native local varieties and yet non-existence of the
shared core providing intelligibility and thus a lack of teaching materials, native-like
models should be preserved. However, considering the fact that by insisting on complete
adaption to native-like pronunciation the students’ identity may be threatened, teachers
24
should distinguish between “model” and “norm” as defined by Dalton and Seidlhofer. The
chosen variety of English is to be treated rather as a point of reference (model), with
possible variations that do not impede intelligibility, than a strict insistence on imitating the
accent (norm) (Dalton and Seidlhofer, Teaching, as cited in Jenkins, Phonology 18). This
would provide students with a respectable pronunciation model and at the same time allow
them to retain their identity.
25
PRACTICAL PART
3. Research description
3.1 Aim and hypotheses
The aim of this research was to analyse Czech students’ preferences concerning
English accents, especially American (GA) and British (RP), and the possible aspects
influencing their choice. In comparison to other surveys presented in the theoretical part of
this thesis, this one not only explicitly asked students for their favoured alternative, but it
also aspired to explore the students’ subconscious choice between American and British
native speakers. Furthermore, an investigation of the students’ preferences between a
native speaker and a Czech advanced learner of English was set as a minor objective of this
thesis. Concerning the possible influences, it was assumed that the main impact on the
preferences would be the students’ contact with English at school as well as in their free
time.
Based on the data obtained from available literature and up-to-date surveys
presented in the theoretical part of this thesis, the hypotheses were stated as follows:
1) the British accent represents the dominant pronunciation model at Czech
schools;
2) the students’ preferences are expected to be slightly in favour of British
English.
It is necessary to highlight the word “slightly” in the second hypothesis. It was anticipated
that the American impact on students’ preferences is increasing, mainly due to the
expansion of students’ contact with English in their free time where the American accent
was predicted to prevail.
26
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Students’ questionnaires
To obtain information regarding students’ preferences and their contact with
English in their free time, the students were provided with questionnaires (see
Appendix 1). Both the questionnaires and the oral instructions were given in English.
Firstly, students were asked to participate in a listening task, a crucial part of the research.
It aimed to investigate the students’ subconscious preferences concerning three accents.
Ten pairs of recordings were played to the students who had been instructed to choose one
speaker of each pair that “speaks more like they would like to speak”. They had also been
encouraged to concentrate on the form, especially on the pronunciation, rather than on the
content.
Eight pairs of the recordings consisted of a British and an American native speaker.
The last two couples were the combination of a native speaker and a Czech advanced
learner of English, both speaking with either American or British accent (see Appendix 2).
The aim of the task was to explore the instinctive feelings students experience when
exposed to a variety of accents, not to evaluate their ability to distinguish between the
accents. It was necessary that the students would not have time for any complex cognitive
processes and thus their choice would be rather spontaneous. Therefore, the task was
deliberately placed at the beginning and students were provided no further information
than that stated in the preceding paragraph.
In order to reduce the influence of different variables on the students’ choices, the
following criteria were adhered to in the process of preparing the listening task: each pair
of speakers was always of the same sex and said identical utterances or at least commented
on the same topic, expressed similar emotions and spoke at a similar pace. However, on the
contrary, the speakers were also deliberately selected to present clear accent differences.
All the recordings were standardized in respect of their quality, volume and length. The
duration ranged between seven and fifteen seconds as concentration levels may lower with
longer footage. Despite all the efforts to minimize the differences, the impact of
intervening variables such as voice quality could not be completely ruled out.
27
Even though speakers within each pair were intended to speak similarly, the overall
task was to offer diversity. The extracts presented contexts that students may encounter at
school as well as outside the classroom. Four pairs of recordings were taken from two
general English course books6. Other recordings comprised news and reportages from the
BBC and the CNN, YouTube videos commenting on computer games and short extracts
from the Friends and IT Crowd TV series (see Appendix 2). The last two pairs were
recorded solely for the purposes of this research and included a non-native accent provided
by Czech advanced speakers of English.7
The main body of the questionnaire consisted of explicit questions examining two
areas. Firstly, the respondents were requested to opt for a preferred accent and they were
encouraged to justify their choice by ticking one or more of the options or by writing down
their own answer. The second part of the questionnaire focused on the students’ contact
with English in their free time. It explored whether the students visited any Englishspeaking countries and for how long, and whether they regularly speak with someone in
English outside school. Then, it concentrated on the frequency of listening to music and
watching films or TV series in English. Students were asked to specify the kind of music,
films or TV series (American or British) that they listen to or watch the most often and to
support their choice with an example. The examples were to confirm that the students are
able to assign their own sample to the correct accent. This meant that it was necessary to
verify whether each artist, film or TV series example had been correctly assigned.
The functionality of the questionnaire was piloted by two students of similar age
and level of English as the expected respondents. On the basis of their feedback minor
corrections were made, e.g. the replacement of one of the recordings due to its worse
quality.
6
The course books consisted of Inside Out Advanced Student’s Book which exists in a British and
an American version, and Collins English for Life: Listening B1+ which provides authentic listening
materials (for detailed information see Appendix 2).
7
A British native speaker and a Czech advanced learner of English with a British accent were asked
to read an extract from the BBC whereas an American native speaker and a Czech advanced learner of
English with an American accent were asked to read an extract from the CNN.
28
3.2.2 Respondents
The students participating in the research attended the third or fourth year of uppersecondary schools. It was assumed that this age group would perceive differences between
accents and would have a certain opinion on the examined matter – how they would like to
sound in English. It was also believed that they would have already watched films and TV
series in original versions.
In total, 133 students took part in the research. To provide diversity, four different
schools were selected for the research: a prestigious public grammar school (27 students)
and a private grammar school (18 students) both located in Prague, a secondary hotel
school (35 students) and a secondary industrial school (53 students) located in Opava. The
students’ level of English ranged from A2 to C1 according to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages.
3.2.3 Teachers’ questionnaires
To analyse the students’ contact with English at school, it was necessary to
distribute questionnaires to their teachers as well (see Appendix 3). Teachers were asked
about their accent and the aspects that have, according to them, influenced it. Furthermore,
they were requested to list the course book(s) and additional materials developing listening
skills that they use; and to specify whether these are prescribed by the school or not.
Afterwards, they were asked to state their preferred teaching accent. Finally, the nationality
of other teachers giving lessons to the class and the frequency of those lessons were
searched for.
Such information was gathered to provide details of the current influence that the
school may impose on the students. Nevertheless, to achieve a precise analysis of the
school’s impact, it would have been necessary to also obtain data from all past teachers.
This proved to be a very demanding task which would exceed the limits of this research,
since the students had attended different primary and lower secondary schools.
29
3.2.4 Procedure
The author personally distributed the questionnaires to the students and the teachers
in March and April 2013. The research was being executed during English lessons and
lasted approximately 20 minutes. As the questionnaires were handwritten, the data had to
be manually copied into a spreadsheet programme (Microsoft Excel) and further processed
electronically.8
During the listening task, it was observed that the students derided one of the
recordings since the speaker had a slight lisp. Therefore, the whole pair had to be excluded
from the interpretation of the results. As this was one of the two pairs of recordings aiming
to investigate students’ preferences between native speakers and Czech advanced learners
of English, the minor aim of this research could not be carried out due to the lack of valid
data. Furthermore, some of the students’ answers had to be eliminated as they were
incomplete or incorrect. This occurred mainly when the students were requested to specify
the kind of music, films or TV series (American or British) that they listen to or watch the
most frequently and support their choice with an example.9 When both variants of media
(American and British) were listed with correct examples, it was supposed that these are
listened to or watched equally and both were taken into account.
4. Results and discussion
This part of the thesis interprets the data obtained during the survey. Firstly, it
focuses on the teachers’ answers; then it concentrates on the students’ contact with English
in their free time. In the final part, the recordings and stated preferences are compared. A
short discussion over the results follows at the end of each section. Due to the extent of the
8
Completed questionnaires are available with the author.
9
Quite a large number of students were unable to provide an example or they stated an incorrect
example (e.g. they chose British films as their most frequently watched, but provided an example of an
American film). In both cases, the data could not be taken into consideration as the purpose of the example
was to prove that the students are aware of the kind of media they listen to or watch and do not tick answers
haphazardly.
30
thesis, only the most significant data are presented. The summaries of the results are
available in the APPENDICES.
4.1 Teachers’ results and the influence of the school
Ten Czech teachers of English participated in the research (for the overview of the
results see Appendix 4). Nine of them declared their accent to be British even though
teacher C expressed some doubt by writing, “I think that British, but honestly I’m not sure
anymore”. Teacher H stated that her accent is “probably a mixture of the two above
mentioned [British and American] but I’m trying to speak with British accent”. Concerning
the possible aspects influencing the teachers’ accent, education was marked as the most
significant (see Figure 4). Teacher C also mentioned a fifth factor, being her personal
preference for the British accent.
18 %
26 %
Contact with NSs
Education
Media
20 %
Stay Abroad
36 %
Figure 4 Factors influencing teachers’ accent
The same situation was discovered concerning the accents preferred while teaching.
Once again, nine out of ten teachers favoured the British accent. Teacher H expressed
indifference.
Complete domination of the British accent was proved to occur in the use of course
books. The course books mentioned by the teachers were published solely by British
31
publishers and even though non-British speakers may appear in some of the listening tasks,
a British accent is nevertheless used as a point of reference there. Four teachers admitted
that the choice of course books is prescribed by the school. On the contrary, a rather
different situation was observed with respect to additional materials used for the purpose of
developing listening skills (see Figure 5).
1
1
American
British
Mostly British
6
2
Both
Figure 5 Preference of accent in additional materials developing listening skills
Concerning the source of teaching materials in the media, the BBC radio was most
often named in respect of the British accent, while films, TV series, songs and YouTube
videos served as a common illustration of the American accent. The Bridge magazine was
frequently mentioned as the source of both British and American variants. Teacher B and
C highlighted that they did not use the two above mentioned accents exclusively. Teacher
C claimed, “I never limit the list, not to 1 accent only; in fact, I even like when they listen
to non-native speakers speaking English”.
While discussing the research with the teachers, some of them expressed their
estimate of the students’ preferences. Most of these teachers assumed that the American
accent would be more favoured due to the films and TV series. Only teacher B who works
at the public grammar school stated that, while she knew there were students who prefer
the American accent, there were also those in favour of the British accent with a strong
dislike of the American accent. Generally, the teachers showed interest in the results and
some of the teachers have even requested them.
32
The data drawn from the teachers’ questionnaires seem to correspond to the
theories and surveys presented in the theoretical part of this thesis. Teachers seem to prefer
the British accent which they themselves use, this being affected mostly by their own
education. Therefore, they use British course books which may be the result of their own
decision, or the course books are prescribed by the school. Even though the British accent
prevails during their lessons, some of the teachers appear to balance it with American
listening tasks for which they use mainly materials typical for the OILE. This may be
affected by the availability of such materials or by the assumption that such materials may
be more attractive to their students. Some of the teachers highlight interest in the students’
exposure to NNSs’ accents; the likely cause being the fact that they are aware of the
significance of the international use of English. They probably envisage their students’
interlocutors to be both Ns and NNSs. Despite the teachers providing diverse additional
materials, it is expected that these are used mainly receptively. Therefore, it may be
concluded that the schools are likely to represent a strong impact on the students’
preferences in favour of the British accent.
4.2 Students’ free time
4.2.1 Stays in English-speaking countries and interlocutors outside school
Only 13 % of students10 stated that they have been in an English-speaking country
continuously for more than two weeks. On the contrary, 62 % of students admitted that
they had never been there. The rest of the students visited English-speaking countries for a
period of two weeks and less in each case. It may be assumed, however, that such stays are
usually holidays and are likely to be less influential in respect of language development.
64 % of students11 do not regularly communicate with anybody in English outside
the school. The remaining 34 % mostly communicate with Americans, the British and
various NNSs (see Figure 6), which includes Europeans (Danish, Dutch, German, Greek,
10
The total number of applicable answers was 132.
11
The total number of applicable answers was 128.
33
Macedonian, Polish, Swedish), Latin Americans (Brazilian, Colombian, Mexican) and
even Asians (Arab, Thai, Turkish).
33 %
36 %
American
Australian
Canadian
British
NNS
2%
4%
25 %
Figure 6 Respondents’ regular interlocutors outside school
It may be observed that stays in English-speaking countries as well as speaking in
English outside the school are not so widespread among students and therefore these are
not likely to be strongly influential. Yet, these stays proved to be prominent where a few
individual cases are concerned. A distinct link between a student’s accent preference and
their interlocutors’ nationality or the destination of their longer stay abroad may be noticed
(for the individual students’ results see Appendix 5). An example of this observation may
be student 6 who justified his preference of the Irish accent by the fact that his supervisor,
with whom he regularly communicates, comes from Dublin.
It is also necessary to highlight that only one third of the students’ regular
interlocutors are NNSs. This is quite contradictory to the Jenkins’ theory claiming that
English is used mainly for international purposes, i.e. communication with NNSs. In this
respect, it would therefore be interesting to analyse the students’ longer stays abroad with
no limits imposed on the destination, provided that they communicated in English there.
The results of such an analysis may be likely to support Jenkins’ theory, showing that
English is frequently used in countries where English is not an official language and
therefore pointing to the international, or even global, aspect of its current use. This
34
international use of English was emphasized by student 16 who remarked, “I’ve been to
England for one month, but I always use English everywhere I go”.
4.2.1 Music, films and TV series
Only 102 answers were interpreted in relation to listening to music in English as
8 % of students did not state an example, another 8 % of students wrote down incorrect
examples of artists and 7 % of answers were incomplete. However, the final set of data
suggested a dominance of American music (see Figure 7). When listening frequency was
analysed, the vast majority of students (91 %) claimed to listen to music four or more times
per week.
2%
3%
American
Australian
35 %
British
58 %
Canadian
NNS
2%
Figure 7 The Music that the respondents listen to the most frequently
Even more responses had to be eliminated where films were concerned. 21 % of
students did not provide an example of the film at all, and 5 % provided an incorrect one.
Together with a further 5 % of incomplete answers, more than one third of the
questionnaires could not be included in the results. Nevertheless, the superiority of
American influence is even more significant here (see Figure 8). Most students stated they
watch films from one to three times per month, closely followed by those who watch films
from one to three times per week (see Figure 9). The examples of the films provided by
35
the students were very diverse and they were scarcely mentioned more than once. The few
films that were mentioned repeatedly include, for instance, Harry Potter, Pulp Fiction,
Inception, G. I. Joe or The Hobbit.
10 %
16 %
12 %
34 %
44 %
84 %
American
British
4x and more
1x - 3x per week
1x - 3x per month
never
Figure 8 The Films that the respondents watch
Figure 9 Frequency of watching films in
the most frequently
English
In respect of TV series, less of the answers had to be dismissed. Only 5 % of the
students were unable to write down an example, and the same proportion returned
incomplete questionnaires. 2 % of the students stated an incorrect example. Yet, quite
similar results to those regarding films were observed (see Figure 10). It was also found
that students tend to watch TV series more often than films. The proportion of those who
watch TV series four or more times per week doubled in comparison to the proportion
regarding films (see Figure 11). By far the most commonly used examples were the How I
Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory TV series.12 These were followed by Friends,
Game of Thrones and The Vampire Diaries.
12
32 students mentioned How I Met Your Mother whereas 30 students listed The Big Bang Theory.
36
12 %
19 %
24 %
30 %
34 %
81 %
American
British
4x and more
1x - 3x per week
1x - 3x per month
never
Figure 10 The TV series that the respondents
Figure 11 Frequency of watching TV series in
watch the most frequently
English
Listening to music is probably the most common and widespread contact with
English outside school. All of the students admitted listening to music, with the majority
claiming it to be four or more times per week. American music seems to prevail, however,
it should be taken into consideration that students might be enjoying only the melody and
might not be at all concerned with the lyrics. A different situation arises when films and
TV series are observed. These mainly focus on the discourse and its meaning and thus the
students are likely to concentrate on it. Therefore, the impact on the students is considered
greater when films and TV series are regarded. Again, watching films and TV series in
English generally seems to be natural for the students, as only around 10 % of the students
stated that they never do so. On the contrary, it is necessary to highlight that around 50 %
of students watch films and TV series on a weekly basis, and the time spent watching them
may even exceed the time devoted to English lessons at school. As expected, American
films and TV series are predominant, contrasting greatly with the British.
It is also remarkable that approximately 8 % of students assigned incorrect
examples to the artists they listen to or to the film they watch. It may imply that those
students are unable to recognise the accents or mistake the American accent for the British,
and vice versa.
37
4.3 Recordings and stated preferences
Students mostly favoured the American accent in the 8 pairs of recordings
presented to them during the listening task (see Figure 12). However, 18 % of the
students’ responses showed no consistency13. Regarding the congruous answers, it is
essential to add that out of 85 students who preferred the American accent, 55 % chose an
American speaker in six or more cases. Where the British accent was concerned, the
percentage increased to 59 %.
The rather high proportion of students preferring the same number of British and
American speakers may indicate that the students did not actually decide mainly on the
basis of accent, but that other aspects, such as for example the speaker’s tone of voice,
most probably influenced their choice. Nevertheless, the contrast in the choices between
American and British accents was found to be significant, as it almost reaches 50 %.
Therefore, it is highly probable that the American accent is indeed the preferred variant,
even though factors other than the accent itself were most likely also taken into account
when choices were being made.
18 %
American
British
18 %
American:British
64 %
Figure 12 Accents preferred by the respondents during the listening task
13
Inconsistent in their answers were considered those students who chose an equal number of
British and American speakers (4:4), They are marked as “American:British”. Those who ticked at least five
American speakers and simultaneously three or less British speakers were classified as “American”, and vice
versa.
38
Surprisingly enough, different results were drawn from the explicit questions on
students’ preferences. In this case, 45 % of students14 tended to prefer the British accent to
the American accent (see Figure 13). Such a discrepancy between the choice of records
when listening, and the stated preferences when explicitly asked, signifies that some of the
students seem to contradict themselves. However, it is interesting that such incongruence
appears to be mostly one-sided. 33 students who stated to favour the British accent also
chose the majority of records with American speakers. Nevertheless, when the American
accent was explicitly preferred, only two students favoured the majority of records with
British speakers.
Considering solely the data obtained from the explicit questions, it is essential to
point out that 18 % of the students said that they did not care about the accents, and only
2 % admitted that they could not hear any difference between the accents.
2%
18 %
American
32 %
British
1%
2%
Irish
Scottish
Don't care
Can't hear any
difference
45 %
Figure 13 Respondents’ stated preferences
In conclusion, only 85 students were consistent during the listening task and at the
same time declared either British or American accent as their preference. Out of this
selection, 50 students’ explicit answers corresponded to the recordings, 66 % preferring the
American accent, 34 % the British accent. The remaining 48 students proved not to be
14
The total number of applicable answers was 130.
39
consistent in their choice of the recordings and/or did not list the American or the British
accent as their preference.
The reasons that the students provided for their choices of favoured accents were
rather similar in ratio as regards the American and British accent (see Figure 14)15. Yet, a
slight difference may be observed. Students tended to favour the American accent mainly
due to its intelligibility whereas the main explanation of their preference of the British
accent was that they simply liked it.
50
45
40
35
30
25
British accent
20
American accent
15
10
5
0
I simply like I understand
it.
them easily
It sounds
familiar
It's similar to
my own
pronunciation
Figure 14 Respondents’ reasons for their stated preference
Although most of the students did not describe other reasons than those offered in
the options, some students presented their own ideas. Student 24 wrote down, “Even
though American accent is much more understandable for me I prefer British accent
because I just like the way they speak.” Three students also admitted that school influenced
their choice, student 19 simply claimed, “Our professor speaks British.” Student 41
declared that he prefers the British accent because the school tests it, and student 115
simply stated that he had ticked the British accent because he is studying it. When
15
Each reason is represented by a percentage of the total number of all stated reasons for the
respective accent.
40
justifying the American variant, student 26 wrote down, “Maybe it’s because a lot of films
and music around us are from US! But I like British accent too, it’s more elegant.” Two
other students also mentioned the influence of American culture (songs, films, TV series
and even basketball players). Student 18 declared that the American accent “has more
normal pronunciation”. Finally, student 125 who claimed not to care about the accents
stated, “I need to understand them all and I don’t see differences in their accent, so it
doesn’t matter.”
Two remarkable phenomena appear in this part of the survey. Firstly, it may be
believed that it is undoubtedly the American accent that the students tend to
subconsciously prefer. This is a surprising result since explicit questions in this survey, as
well as the other surveys mentioned in the theoretical part of this thesis, present contrary
conclusions. It is likely that in this case students are more affected by their contact with
English in their free time where American English prevails rather than influenced by the
school where they mostly encounter British English.
Secondly, as the explicit answers proved the opposite tendency, favouring the
British accent led to a discrepancy in 35 cases, where students disagreed between their
explicit answers and chosen records. Such disagreement may be caused by the fact that
students do not recognise the accents, are actually unable to assign the pronunciation to the
corresponding accent and/or have prejudices or a rational reason to favour the British
accent, which may strongly affect their conscious choices. It may be suggested that
students consider the British accent to be more prestigious or to be the original one. This
would correspond to the opinions stated in the aforementioned surveys, where the British
accent also prevails. It may also be possible that the students perceive the British accent as
more appropriate since they study it at school.
Unfortunately, providing the students with answer options for questions regarding
the reasons for their preferences seems to have discouraged them to present their own ideas
A few students who added their own reasons assigned different kinds of influences to each
accent. They mentioned mainly culture in case of the American accent and school in case
of the British accent. Consequently, further investigation in the matter may reveal the
motives for their conscious preference of the British accent.
41
4.4 Other points of interest
Remarkable differences were observed when comparing the respondents’ results
according to their school. 27 students, who attended a public grammar school (PUGS),
claimed somewhat balanced preferences during the listening task; 44 % of them selected
the American accent whereas 37 % opted for the British accent. In contrast, the remaining
respondents studying a private grammar school (PRGS), a secondary hotel school (SHS) or
a secondary industrial school (SIS) clearly favoured recordings with American speakers
(see Figure 15). Such a discrepancy may be explained by a higher percentage of the public
grammar school students who watch British films and TV series (30 %). Additionally, it
may also be assumed that the public grammar school has a greater impact on its students
due to more intensive language lessons.
PUGS
PRGS
SHS
SIS
0%
20%
40%
American
60%
British
80%
100%
AM:BR
Figure 15 Accents preferred by the respondents during the listening task according to the respondents’
schools
Moreover, respondents studying a public grammar school seem to be more
interested in the accents as only 7 % of them stated that they did not care about them, as
opposed to 17 % to 22 % of students from the other schools. It is interesting that, out of the
total number of 24 students who expressed indifference, 50 % chose a majority of
recordings with American speakers, 29 % were inconsistent in their answers and 21 %
opted for British speakers.
42
5. Conclusion
The theoretical part of this thesis analysed the aspects that affect the choice of a
pronunciation model, the practical part focused solely on the preferences of Czech
students. To summarize the results of the research, it is essential to highlight that the
schools seem to follow the British pronunciation model whereas the American accent
appears to be dominant as regards the students’ contact with English outside school. Even
though the students tend to prefer the British accent when asked explicitly, the percentage
of those who favour the American accent is not insignificant. Moreover, with respect to the
listening part of the questionnaire it is the American accent that was predominantly chosen.
It may be concluded that the hypotheses stated at the beginning of the research have been
confirmed. When comparing the results of this research to the Mompeán’s survey from
2004 (Options 1046-1048) presented in the theoretical part of this thesis, it may be
deduced that the American accent is becoming more favoured among students as the
number of those preferring it almost doubled.
Following observations and recommendations may be drawn from this thesis. The
tendency to teach the accent one has adopted is considered perfectly reasonable, since it
seems impossible to change one’s accent on demand and since it is the teacher’s accent
that students are likely to hear most often during their lessons. Consequently, for the
majority of Czech teachers, the British variant would seem the most suitable to teach.
However, it is necessary to bear in mind that such an accent should be treated only as a
point of reference. It was stated that a native-like pronunciation is an unrealistic target in
pronunciation teaching and the students may feel uncomfortable when asked to abandon all
their L1 features as this is likely to threaten their identity.
Given the fact that American English is rapidly spreading all over the world and is
gaining more popularity as well as influence among students, it seems natural to present
the American variant as a comparison accent. Highlighting the differences between British
and American accents would raise students’ awareness of the accents and allow them to
make well-informed decisions relating to their choice of accent. The author believes that
teachers should not discourage students from using the American accent as long as they are
consistent in it. Devoting more time to this variant, and using additional materials featuring
the accent, may balance the students’ exposure to the British accent and satisfy the
43
increasing number of students who favour its American counterpart. Finally, taking into
account the international use of English, it also seems very useful to expose students to a
variety of non-native accents in order to become familiar with them and consequently
understand them more easily.
44
Works Cited
Abercrombie, David. Problems and Principles: Studies in Teaching of English as a Second
Language. London: Longman, 1956.
Brown, Adam. “Twenty Questions”. Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching. Ed. Adam
Brown. London: Macmillan: Publishers, 1992. 1-17.
---. Pronunciation Models. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1991.
Crystal, David. English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Dalton, Christiane and Barbara Seidlhofer. “Is pronunciation teaching desirable? Is it
feasible?”. Proceedings of the 4th International NELLE Conference. Hamburg:
NELLE, 1994.
---. Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Dauer, Rebecca M. “The Lingua Franca Core: A New Model for Pronunciation
Instruction?” TESOL Quarterly 39.3 (2005): 543-550.
Gimson, Alfred C. and Alan Cruttenden. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. 6th ed.
London: Arnold, 2001.
Henderson, Alice, Dan Frost et al. “The English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey:
Selected Results”. Research in Language 10.1 (2012): 5-27.
Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation Practise Activities: A Resource Book for Teaching
English Pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Information System of Charles University. Charles University in Prague. 20 March 2013.
<https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?do=prohl&fak=11410&oborpl
an=OB2AJ10>.
Kachru, Braj B. “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language
in the outer circle”. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
and Literatures. Ed. Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985. 11-30.
Macaulay Ronald. “RP R.I.P.” Applied Linguistics 9.2 (1988): 115-124.
45
Ministry of Regional Development CZ. “Tourism in the Czech Republic in 2011”. Ministry
of
Regional
Development
CZ
7
March
2013.
10
April
2013
<http://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/c1ce82de-db35-4ed3-a15d2a2baf906b2e/Rocenka.pdf>.
Modiano, Marko. “Euro-Englishes”. The Handbook of World Englishes. Ed. Braj Kachru,
Yamuna Kachru and Cecil L. Nelson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 223235.
Mompeán, José A. “Consumers’ Preferences and the Choice of English Pronunciation
Models”. 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges. Ed.
Monroy, R. and Sánchez A. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 2008. 959-964.
---. “Options and Criteria for the Choice of an English Pronunciation Model in Spain”.
Linguistic Perspectives from the Classroom: Language Teaching in a Multicultural
Europe. Ed. Oro, José Manuel et al. Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de
Publicacións e Intercambio Científico, 2004. 1043-1059.
Munro, Murray J. and Tracey M. Derwing. “Forreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and
Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners.” Language Learning
45.1 (1995): 73-97.
Janicka, Katarzyna, Małgorzata Kul and Jarosław Weckewerth. “Polish Students’ Attitudes
to Native English Accents as Models for EFL Pronunciation”. English
Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene. Ed. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
and Joanna Przedlacka. 2nd ed. Bern: Peter Lang AG, 2008. 251-292.
Jenkins, Jennifer. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
---. “Pronunciation”. SIG Selections 1997: Special Interests in ELT. Ed. Alan C. McLean.
Kent: IATEFL, 1997. 73-79.
---. “Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language?”.
ELT Journal 52.2 (1998): 119-126.
Portal: Palacký University Information System. Palacký University Olomouc. 20 March
2013 <http://goo.gl/5Jw5i>.
46
Portal Technical University Liberec: IS/STAG. Technical University Liberec. 20 March
2013 <http://goo.gl/eiB2y>.
Rosewarne, David. “Estuary English: tomorrow’s RP?” English Today 10.1 (1994): 3-8.
STEM/MARK, a.s. “Border Crossing Survey 2009-2015: Number of visitors and their
expenses – data for year 2011.” Ministry of Regional Development CZ February
2012. 22 February 2013 <http://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/871c8b4e-a7fa-4879-b76e60be4828607b/Zaverecna-zprava-za-rok-2011.pdf>.
Toffoli, Denyze and Geoff Sockett. (2010). “How non-specialist students of English
practice informal learning using web 2.0 tools.” ASp 58 (2010): 125-144.
---. “University teachers’ use of their students’ Online Informal Learning of English
(OILE)”. Eurocall CMC & Teacher Education SIGs Annual Workshop 2012. 3
February
2013
<http://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/871c8b4e-a7fa-4879-b76e-
60be4828607b/Zaverecna-zprava-za-rok-2011.pdf>.
Von Schon, Catherine Virginia “The Question of Pronunciation”. English Teaching Forum
25.4 (1987): 22-27.
Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa and Karol Klimczak. “Target in Speech Development: Learners’
Views”. English Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene. Ed. Katarzyna
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka. 2nd ed. Bern: Peter Lang AG, 2008.
229-249.
Wells, John C. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
---. “Goals in teaching English pronunciation”. English Pronunciation Models: A
Changing Scene. Ed. Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka. 2nd
ed. Bern: Peter Lang AG, 2008. 101-110.
47
List of Figures
Figure 1 Estimated number of speakers of English (Crystal 61) ........................................... 9
Figure 2 Foreign tourists’ country of origin (Ministry of Regional Development CZ) ...... 21
Figure 3 Czech residents’ long tourist trips abroad by country (STEM/MARK, a.s.) ........ 21
Figure 4 Factors influencing teachers’ accent ..................................................................... 31
Figure 5 Preference of accent in additional materials developing listening skills .............. 32
Figure 6 Respondents’ regular interlocutors outside school ............................................... 34
Figure 7 The Music that the respondents listen to the most frequently ............................... 35
Figure 8 The Films that the respondents watch the most frequently ................................... 36
Figure 9 Frequency of watching films in English ............................................................... 36
Figure 10 The TV series that the respondents watch the most frequently .......................... 37
Figure 11 Frequency of watching TV series in English ...................................................... 37
Figure 12 Accents preferred by the respondents during the listening task .......................... 38
Figure 13 Respondents’ stated preferences ......................................................................... 39
Figure 14 Respondents’ reasons for their stated preference ................................................ 40
Figure 15 Accents preferred by the respondents during the listening task according to the
respondents’ schools ........................................................................................... 42
List of Tables
Table 1 Percentage of teachers who chose a variety for productive and receptive work
(Henderson, Frost et al. 20) ................................................................................... 15
Table 2 Course books used at Czech faculties of education (Information System of Charles
University, Portal: Palacký University Information System and Portal Technical
University Liberec: IS/STAG) .............................................................................. 16
Table 3 Percentage of teachers who indicated their students' preferences for a variety, for
productive and receptive work (Henderson, Frost et al. 20) ................................. 17
48
APPENDICES
1. Appendix 1 Students’ Questionnaire
49
50
51
2. Appendix 2 Recordings
The recordings are available on the enclosed CD.
No.
Source
Accent
1A
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 10.” American Inside Out
Advanced: Class CD 1. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2002.
AM
1B
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 10.” Inside Out Advanced
Class CD 1. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2001.
BR
2A
Robbins, James. “Rare access inside Sistine Chapel.” BBC News. 9 March
2013 10 March 2013 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe21728840>.
BR
2B
Mann, Jonathan. “Inside the conclave: How it works.” CNN International
8
March
2013.
10
March
2013
<http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2013/03/08/dnt-insideconclave.cnn#/video/world/2013/03/08/dnt-inside-conclave.cnn>.
AM
3A
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 14.” Inside Out Advanced
Class CD 1. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2001.
BR
3B
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 14.” American Inside Out
Advanced: Class CD 1. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2002.
AM
4A
Badger, Ian. “Tapescript 2.” Collins English for Life: Listening B1+ CD.
HarperCollins Publishers: Glasgow, 2012.
AM
4B
Badger, Ian. “Tapescript 1.” Collins English for Life: Listening B1+ CD.
HarperCollins Publishers: Glasgow, 2012.
BR
5A
Remizowski, Leigh. “Large sugary drinks flow in NYC as officials appeal
ruling.” CNN International 12 March 2013. 13 March 2012
<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/12/us/new-york-large-sodaban/index.html>.
AM
5B
Jeffreys, Branwen. “Medical bodies seek soft drink sugar tax.” BBC News
29 January 2013. 12 March 2013 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health21241944>.
BR
52
No.
Source
6A
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 44.” Inside Out Advanced
Class CD 2. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2001.
BR
6B
Jones, Ceri and Tania Bastow. “Tapescript 44.” American Inside Out
Advanced: Class CD 2. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2002.
AM
7A
“The One in Massapequa.” Friends 7 October 2009. 10 March 2013
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbs5mtgfSg>.
AM
7B
“The Speech.” IT Crowd 8 August 2011. 10 March 2013
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9_yEIvixkw&playnext=1&list=PL8
0F02193B7F138DF>.
BR
8A
Mattingly, Josh. “Super Indie Spotlight – Don’t Starve!” YouTube 27
December
2012.
13
March
2013
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv_s57lXFrA>.
AM
8B
Bain, John. “The Basics of Blood Bowl.” YouTube 14 January 2013. 13
March 2013 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHSq3BR35JE>.
BR
9A
Dawkins, Richard. Interview. BBC 22 October 2009. 8 March 2013
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml#t
op>. Read by Ivona Šaldová.
CZ
with
BR
9B
Dawkins, Richard. Interview. BBC 22 October 2009. 15 March 2013
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml#t
op>. Read by Anushka Nayak.
BR
Portman, Rob. Interview by Dana Bash. CNN 15 March 2013. 15 March
10A 2013
<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gaymarriage/index.html>. Read by Timothy Vladimír Hobbs.
AM
Portman, Rob. Interview by Dana Bash. CNN 15 March 2013. 15 March
2013
<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gaymarriage/index.html>. Read by Marek Nosek.
CZ
with
AM
10B
Accent
53
3. Appendix 3 Teachers’ Questionnaire
54
55
4. Appendix 4 Summary of the teachers’ results
No. School
Sex Age
Accent
A
Public Grammar
School
M
35-50
BR
B
Public Grammar
School
F
35-50
BR
C
Private Grammar
School
F
35-50
BR
D
Public Grammar
School
M
35-50
BR
E
Secondary Hotel
School
F
35-50
BR
F
Secondary Hotel
School
F
35-50
BR
G
Secondary Hotel
School
F
34 and less BR
Reason
(strong-weak)
stay abroad
education
contact
media
education
stay abroad
contact
media
education
contact
media
stay abroad
personal preference
contact
education
media
media
education
contact
stay abroad
Course Book
Additional Materials
Preference
BR
BR
not prescribed
BR
BR
BR
other: various accents
BR
other: various, rather
BR
not prescribed NNSs
BR
prescribed
BR: BBC radio
mostly AM: films
BR
BR
prescribed
BR: grammar books
mostly BR: magazines
BR
education
BR
prescribed
Bridge (BR and AM)
BR
stay abroad
contact
education
media
BR
prescribed
both
BR
56
No. School
Sex Age
Accent
mixture of BR and AM,
trying to speak with BR
H
Secondary
Industrial School
F
34 and less
I
Secondary
Industrial School
F
34 and less BR
J
Secondary
Industrial School
F
34 and less BR
Reason
(strong-weak)
media
education
stay abroad
contact
education
contact
media
contact
education
stay abroad
media
57
Course Book
Additional Materials
Preference
BR
both: Bridge magazine
not prescribed
none (I don’t
care)
BR
AM: TV series, songs,
not prescribed YouTube videos
BR
BR
mostly BR
not prescribed
BR
5. Appendix 5 Summary of the students’ results
Legend:
School Influence
-
school:
PUGS = public grammar school
PRGS = private grammar school
SHS = secondary hotel school
SIS = secondary industrial school
SIS/IT = secondary industrial school with Information Technology as a main branch of the study
-
T = teacher: refers to an individual teacher who teaches the student, for detailed information about them see Appendix 4
NS = native speaker
Free Time Influence
-
-
Results
- PR = students’ preferences
- reason:
familiar = It sounds familiar.
understand = I understand them easily.
like it = I simply like it.
similar = It’s similar to my own pronunciation.
L= length of the stay abroad
IL = interlocutors
F = frequency:
1 = 4x and more per week
2 = 1x – 3x per week
3 = 1x – 3x per month
no ex = no example provided by the student
in ex = incorrect example provided by the student
58
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
Results
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
1
18
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
AU
4y
No
-
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2
18
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
USA
Malta
UK
2m
1m
3w
AM
BR
3
AM
no ex
1
3
17
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
1w
No
-
BR
1 AM
4
17
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
1w
No
-
BR
5
17
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
2w
No
-
AU
6
18
M
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
5w
AM
BR
AU
1 BR
1
7
17
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
1w
No
-
BR
8
18
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
2w
No
-
9
18
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
2w
No
-
10
18
M
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
2w
CAN
3 CAN
11
17
M
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
1w
No
12
19
F
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
CAN
13
m
CAN
59
3
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
3 AM
AM
familiar
like it
1 BR
BR
like it
1 AM
1 AM:BR
BR
like it
1 BR
2 AM
1 BR
BR
-
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
BR
like it
AM
BR
1 BR
BR
IR
like it
1 AM
3 AM
1 BR
BR
like it
BR
(SC)
1 BR
2 BR
1 BR
BR
SC
like it
BR
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
AM
1
2
2 AM:BR
AM
AM
no ex
AM
BR
-
3
1
AM
no ex
AM
no ex
familiar
like it
similar
like it
understand
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM:BR
BR
familiar
similar
BR
(IR)
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
AM
familiar
understand
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
Results
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
13
17
M
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
1w
BR
3 AM
1 AM
14
18
M
B2/
C1
PUGS
TA
No
UK
-
No
AM
15
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
UK
2w
AM
BR
3
AM
in ex
16
17
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
UK
1m
BR
2 BR
17
17
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
UK
2x
2w
No
-
18
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
No
-
No
19
17
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
No
-
20
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
UK
1w
21
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
No
22
17
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
23
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
24
17
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
3 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
similar
1 AM
2 AM
3 BR
AM
like it
2 AM
3 AM
3 AM:BR
BR
familiar
1
AM
BR
1 BR
2 BR
BR
understand
like it
similar
AM
BR
no ex
1
AM
no ex
2 AM
1 AM
AM
familiar
-
AM
1
AM
no ex
3 never
-
AM
understand
like it
No
-
AM
BR
NNS
1 BR
3
3 BR
don’t
care
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
2 BR
3 AM:BR
BR
understand
-
NNS
3
AM
no ex
1
3 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
similar
UK
2w
-
3
BR
in ex
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
BR
like it
No
UK
2w
No
CAN
1 AM
2 BR
2 BR
BR
SC
like it
No
UK
5w
NNS
1 BR
3 AM
3 AM
BR
-
60
3 BR
AM
no ex
AM
BR
AM
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
Stay
Abroad
L
USA
UK
USA
UK and
IR
2w
2w
1w
6x
2w
No
UK
1w
TC
BR
3/w
USA
UK
PRGS
TC
BR
3/w
UK
USA
1m
2w
1+
2w
3w
B2/
C1
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
No
F
B2/
C1
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
19
M
B2/
C1
PRGS
TD
33
19
F
B2/
C1
PRGS
34
19
M
B2/
C1
35
19
F
36
19
F
Results
IL
F Music
F Films
F
TV
Series
F Records
PR
No
-
AM
-
AM
-
AM
-
AM
AM
-
No
-
AM
BR
1
AM
no ex
3 AM
3 AM
AM
understand
AM
NNS
2 AM
1 AM
3 never
-
don’t
care
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
1 AM
2 AM
BR
No
-
AM
BR
1
2 AM
1 AM
AM
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
don’t
care
USA
CAN
1m
1m
No
-
1 AM
1 AM
1 AM
AM
like it
BR
3/w
UK
2w
AM
1 AM
1 BR
BR
like it
TD
BR
3/w
UK
USA
3m
2m
AM
1 AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
AM
understand
similar
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
UK
3w
AM
2 AM
1 AM
2 AM
2 AM:BR
AM
similar
B1+
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
USA
UK
2m
1m
No
-
BR
in ex
1
AM
no ex
3
2 BR
BR
understand
like it
B1+
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
UK
4x
1w
No
-
AM
BR
1
AM
no ex
3 AM
3 AM:BR
don’t
care
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
25
18
M
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
26
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
No
27
18
F
B1/
B2
PUGS
TB
28
19
M
B2
PRGS
29
19
F
B2
30
18
F
31
19
32
61
AM
BR
AU
AM no
1
ex
1
AM
no ex
AM
no ex
AM
BR
AM
Reason
familiar
understand
understand
like it
similar
-
-
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
L
IL
F Music
37
19
M
B1+
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
UK
1w
No
-
AM
BR
1
38
20+
M
B1+
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
No
-
AM
3
AM
BR
1 AM
39
19
F
B1+
PRGS
TD
BR
3/w
Malta
1m
No
-
BR
no ex
1
40
19
M
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
UK
1m
NNS
3 AM
41
19
M
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
UK
1w
-
2
42
18
M
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
No
-
No
43
17
M
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
No
-
44
18
F
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
UK
45
17
F
B1
PRGS
TD
BR
2/w
USA
46
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
No
47
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
48
20+
M
B1/
B2
SHS
49
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
PR
3 BR
3 AM:BR
don’t
care
-
2 AM
3 AM
don’t
care
-
2 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
AM
understand
like it
AM
no ex
1 never
-
-
AM
BR
understand
-
BR
1 AM
1 AM
1 AM
AM
familiar
understand
No
-
AM
1 AM
2 AM
1 AM
AM
understand
1w
No
-
BR
1
3 never
-
AM
BR
understand
3x
5w
NNS
3 AM
1 AM
3 AM
1 AM
AM
familiar
understand
like it
No
-
NNS
3
-
1
No
No
-
No
-
AM
TE
No
UK
1w
NNS
TE
No
No
-
AM
AM
no ex
AM
no ex
AM
no ex
AM
in ex
F
TV
Series
F Records
62
F Films
Results
never
Reason
2
BR
in ex
2 AM
BR
understand
1 Never
-
Never
-
BR
BR
like it
3 BR
1 AM
1 AM
1 AM
AM
understand
3 BR
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
BR
like it
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
50
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
No
No
51
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
No
52
19
M
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
53
19
F
B1/
B2
SHS
54
18
F
B1/
B2
55
19
F
56
18
57
L
Results
IL
F Music
F Films
F
-
AM
3 AM
1 BR
No
-
AM
3 AM
No
UK
1w
BR
TE
No
No
-
No
SHS
TE
No
UK
1w
B1/
B2
SHS
TE
No
No
F
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
No
19
F
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
58
18
M
A2/
B1
SHS
59
18
F
A2/
B1
60
18
M
61
18
62
18
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
2 AM
3 AM:BR
BR
understand
1 AM
2 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
3 BR
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
like it
-
AM
BR
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
No
-
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM:BR
AM
understand
like it
-
NNS
2 NNS
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
like it
No
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
don’t
care
No
No
-
No
-
AM
1
1 BR
1 BR
BR
like it
TF
No
UK
2w
NNS
2
AM
BR
1 AM
1 BR
1 BR
BR
understand
like it
similar
SHS
TF
No
No
-
No
-
AM
BR
1
BR
in ex
3 AM
3 BR
don’t
care
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
No
No
-
No
-
NNS
1
BR
in ex
3
2 AM:BR
BR
like it
similar
F
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
No
No
-
-
2
AM
BR
1
AM
BR
3 AM
3 BR
BR
familiar
F
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
No
No
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
3 never
-
don’t
care
63
AM
in ex
BR
in ex
AM:BR
-
-
-
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
63
17
M
A2
B1
SHS
TF
No
64
19
F
A2/
B1
SHS
TF
65
18
M
A2/
B1
SHS
66
17
F
A2
67
18
F
68
17
69
Results
TV
Series
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
No
-
No
-
1 AM
No
UK
4w
BR
3 AM
1
TF
No
No
-
AM
2 AM
1
SHS
TG
No
No
-
No
-
BR
1 AM
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
No
-
AM
no ex
1
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
AM
2
AM
no ex
17
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
No
-
AM
70
18
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
NNS
2 AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
don’t
care
71
18
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
Malta
UK
2w
1w
-
2 BR
1 AM
2 BR
1 BR
BR
like it
similar
72
17
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
1
2 never
-
AM
AM
understand
like it
73
18
M
A2
SHS
TG
No
USA
2 AM
AM
like it
74
18
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
3 AM
AM
like it
75
17
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
-
AM
like it
-
No
3w
AM
AM
F Records
PR
1 AM
1 AM:BR
don’t
care
-
AM
no ex
1 AM
1 AM
AM
understand
like it
AM
in ex
3 AM
2 AM
BR
like it
2 AM
3 AM:BR
don’t
care
AM
no ex
3 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
1
AM
no ex
3 never
-
AM
AM
familiar
understand
-
AM
-
-
AM
BR
understand
like it
AM
in ex
AM
-
3 AM
2 AM
2 AM
-
No
AM
1 AM
3
-
NNS
AM
1 BR
no ex
3 never
64
AM
3 BR
no ex
AM
no ex
AM
Reason
-
-
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
76
18
F
A2
SHS
TG
No
No
77
18
M
A2
SHS
TG
No
78
18
F
A2
SHS
TG
79
18
M
A2
SHS
80
18
F
A2
81
19
M
82
20+
83
L
IL
F Music
-
AM
3
No
-
No
No
No
-
TG
No
No
SHS
TG
No
B2
SIS/IT
TH
M
B2
SIS/IT
19
M
B2
84
19
M
85
19
86
87
Results
F Films
F
AM
in ex
1 AM
-
AM
1
No
-
AM
1
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
UK
1w
BR
3 BR
1 AM
No
UK
5w
No
-
AM
1
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
BR
in ex
1 AM
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
No
-
BR
B2
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
NNS
1
M
B2
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
No
19
M
B2
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
20
M
B2
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
2 never
-
AM
like it
AM
no ex
3 AM
3 AM
can’t
hear
diff.
-
AM
no ex
2 AM
2 AM
AM
understand
2
AM
BR
2 BR
AM
like it
2
AM
BR
2 BR
BR
like it
3
BR
no ex
3 AM:BR
BR
like it
2 AM
1 AM
BR
like it
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
like it
AM
BR
AM
1 BR
no ex
3 -
3 AM:BR
BR
like it
-
AM
1 AM
2 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
No
-
AM
BR
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
like it
No
-
BR
1 AM
2 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
65
AM
no ex
AM
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
88
19
M
B2
SIS/IT
TH
No
89
18
M
B2
SIS/IT
TH
90
20 +
M
B2
SIS/IT
91
19
M
B2
92
18
M
93
18
94
Results
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
No
-
No
-
BR
1 BR
No
No
-
NNS
3 BR
1 AM
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
no ex
1
SIS/IT
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
No
-
BR
1 AM
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
No
-
AM
in ex
1
19
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
No
-
AM
95
18
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
No
-
96
18
F
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
No
97
18
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
No
-
98
18
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
UK
99
17
M
B1
SIS/IT
TI
No
100
19
M
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
No
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
3 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
2 AM
2 AM
IR
like it
2 AM
BR
understand
2 AM
1 AM
IR
understand
1 BR
1 AM
AM
understand
AM
no ex
1 AM
1 AM
-
-
AM
-
-
AM
1
-
1 AM
-
AM
in ex
1
AM
no ex
No
-
BR
1w
No
-
No
-
No
No
-
No
66
AM
no ex
3
BR
no ex
like it
don’t
care
-
3 AM
AM
understand
like it
similar
1 AM
1 AM
BR
familiar
2 BR
3 BR
3 AM
AM
understand
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
don’t
care
-
-
AM
1 AM
2 BR
1 AM:BR
don’t
care
-
-
AM
no ex
2
3 AM
2 AM
AM
no ex
AM
AM
-
familiar
like it
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
101
20+
M
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
No
102
19
M
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
103
19
M
A2
SIS/IT
104
19
M
A2
105
19
M
106
20 +
107
L
IL
F Music
No
-
No
-
No
No
-
No
TJ
No
No
-
SIS/IT
TJ
No
No
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
No
M
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
19
M
A2
SIS/IT
108
19
M
A2
109
19
M
110
18
111
Results
F Films
F
AM
in ex
1 AM
-
AM
1 AM
No
-
AM
1
-
No
-
AM
No
-
No
-
No
No
-
No
TJ
No
No
-
SIS/IT
TJ
No
USA
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
No
M
A2
SIS/IT
TJ
19
M
A2
SIS/IT
112
18
M
A2
113
19
M
A2
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
3 never
-
AM
BR
like it
3 AM
2 AM
BR
understand
3 AM
2 AM
AM
understand
1 AM
3 never
-
AM
understand
AM
in ex
1 BR
2 AM
2 AM
can’t
hear
diff.
-
-
AM
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
No
-
AM
BR
-
AM
in ex
-
-
AM
BR
familiar
like it
5w
NNS
2 AM
1
AM
no ex
2 AM
3 AM
AM
understand
No
-
NNS
1 AU
1
AM
no ex
3
AM
BR
2 AM
don’t
care
-
No
No
-
AM
2 BR
1 AM
2 BR
2 AM
AM
similar
TJ
No
No
-
NNS
3
2 never
-
AM
BR
2 AM
BR
like it
SIS/IT
TJ
No
No
-
AM
1 AM
1 AM
3 AM
1 AM
-
understand
similar
SIS/IT
TJ
No
No
-
No
-
2 never
-
3 AM:BR
don’t
care
-
67
AM
BR
AM
AM
no ex
AM
AM
AM
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
Results
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
114
18
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
UK
2w
BR
2 AM
1 AM
115
19
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
No
-
No
-
AM
116
19
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
No
-
NNS
117
17
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
No
-
118
20+
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
UK
119
18
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
120
19
M
B1
SIS
TI
121
18
M
B1
SIS
122
18
M
B1
123
19
M
124
19
125
126
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
2 AM
2 AM:BR
AM
understand
1 BR
2 AM
3 AM
BR
like it
3 AM
1 AM
3 AM
1 AM
AM
like it
BR
2 BR
1 AM
2 AM
2 BR
don’t
care
1y
AM
BR
2
3 AM:BR
AM
like it
No
-
BR
2 BR
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
AM
understand
No
No
-
No
-
AM
2
3 AM
3 AM:BR
BR
understand
TI
No
No
-
No
-
AM
2 AM
2 AM
2 AM
AM
understand
SIS
TI
No
No
-
BR
3 AM
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM:BR
BR
familiar
understand
like it
B1
SIS
TI
No
No
-
No
-
AM
BR
2 never
-
AM
3 AM
don’t
care
-
M
B1
SIS
TI
No
No
-
No
-
-
-
never
-
never
-
BR
don’t
care
-
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
-
-
2 never
-
never
-
AM
don’t
care
-
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
2 AM
3 AM
68
-
3
AM
no ex
AM
in ex
3
AM
no ex
2 AM
BR
-
understand
Background
School Influence
Free Time Influence
Results
No.
Age
Sex
Level
School
T
NS
Stay
Abroad
L
IL
F Music
F Films
F
TV
Series
F Records
PR
Reason
127
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
AM
3 AM
2 never
-
AM
3 BR
BR
understand
128
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
AM
in ex
1 AM
3 AM
3 AM
BR
understand
129
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
AM
1 AM
3
AM
in ex
2 AM:BR
AM
130
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
AM
3 BR
AM
BR
3
AM
BR
1 AM:BR
AM
131
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
in ex
1 AM
2 AM
2 AM
don’t
care
-
132
19
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
-
AM
1 AM
3 AM
2 AM
don’t
care
-
133
20+
M
B1
SIS
TH
No
No
-
No
-
-
1
3
3 BR
don’t
care
-
69
1
-
-
understand
like it
understand
like it
similar