# The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam

Agnieszka Bryla-Cruz

► To cite this version:

Agnieszka Bryla-Cruz. The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humanez-Berral & A. Henderson, (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices, Université Grenoble-Alpes, pp.1-14, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.16020252. http://05167327v2

HAL Id: hal-05167327

https://hal.science/hal-05167327v2

Submitted on 13 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Bryła-Cruz, A. (2025). The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam.
In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humanez-Berral, & A. Henderson (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 1–14). Université Grenoble-Alpes.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16020252

# The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam

Agnieszka Bryła-Cruz

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University

## Abstract

In the second language (L2) classroom, pronunciation has been perceived as a natural component of speaking and has traditionally been assessed based on the learner's speech, and yet pronunciation also plays a role in the assessment of L2 listening skills. While phonological competence is crucial for the activation of bottom-up processes in listening, which in turn are indispensable for the automatisation of word recognition and top-down processing (Buck, 2001; Field, 2008), the role of phonetics in receptive skills tends to be marginalised.

The present study investigates the extent to which the role of pronunciation is recognised in listening comprehension tests in the Polish Matura, based on the exam papers from 2023. The study has shown that while the spoken texts used in the tests at the basic and the advanced levels are diversified in terms of length and genre, they hardly differ with respect to phonetic traits. The main difference between the two levels is the length of texts and the rate of speech, which is a bit faster for the advanced level, but still slower than in natural speech.

**Keywords:** L2 pronunciation, pronunciation assessment, listening comprehension tests, scripted texts, spoken texts

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

This chapter is based on the oral presentation given by the author at the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 8) held May 8–10, 2024 at the University of Cantabria in Santander, Spain. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
# 1. Introduction

In the second language (L2) classroom, pronunciation has been treated as a natural component of speaking skills and has typically been assessed in learners' oral production. However, pronunciation also plays a role in the assessment of L2 listening ability. The role of phonetics in listening comprehension has been confirmed in empirical studies, as in Wagner and Toth (2017), where texts identical in lexis and grammar were understood differently by listeners, when the speaker's pronunciation was modified. While phonological competence is crucial for the activation of bottom-up processes in listening, which in turn are indispensable for the automatisation of word recognition and top-down processing (Buck, 2001; Field, 2008), the role of phonetics in receptive skills tends to be marginalised.

This study investigates the extent to which the role of pronunciation is recognised in listening comprehension tests in the Polish Matura, based on the English exam papers from 2023. The phonetic features in the audio materials used in the basic and advanced version of the exam were analysed in order to establish whether the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts corresponds to the level of learners' linguistic competence.

# 2. Theoretical framework

The aim of a test is to assess learners' language skills beyond the test context. Thus, L2 listening tests should mirror genuine spoken texts in terms of phonology, lexis, grammar, organisation and pragmatics (Buck, 2001; Wagner & Toth, 2017). Yet, many of the spoken texts used in L2 listening tests are not representative of natural speech. Rather than reflecting conversational, spoken language in the real-world, audio materials in listening comprehension tests are usually scripted, i.e., written down, edited, rehearsed and read aloud with an excessively clear enunciation (Wagner, 2013). This contradicts what is postulated by many researchers, namely that "given the inherent differences between oral and written discourse, it is imperative to investigate comprehension using listening passages that approximate natural speech" (Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994, p. 180).

The differences between scripted and unscripted texts are manifold and have been extensively discussed in the literature (e.g., Cauldwell, 2014; Chafe, 1982; Gilmore, 2004; Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020; Ockey & Wagner, 2018). For instance, specific speech features impact the overall difficulty which a given text poses to L2 listeners, including: 1) hesitation phenomena (HP) present in unplanned speech; 2) speech rate; 3) phonological modifications characteristic of unplanned spoken texts; and 4) organisational and lexico-grammatical characteristics. The rest of this section discusses the first three categories of features, as the last lies beyond the scope of the present paper.

Hesitative phenomena abound in spontaneous discourse and include filled and unfilled pauses, repetitions, false starts, redundancies, and hesitations. These reflect the fact that the spoken text is simultaneously composed and uttered. Studies into HP in L2 perception have rendered somewhat inconsistent results. On the one hand, HP may constitute a major perceptual problem for non-native speakers (Voss, 1979), because they may be confused with unstressed forms or parts of words and may be assigned semantic meaning (Griffiths, 1991; Voss, 1979). On the other hand, HP can help listeners, e.g., providing them extra time to process the message (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). It has been suggested that such features make the text easier to listen to, by evoking natural oral language to a greater extent than planned speech (Shohamy & Inbar, 1991).

It is widely recognised that the rate of speech influences L2 comprehension. The general conclusion from ample empirical research is that spoken texts delivered at a faster speech rate are more difficult for language learners to understand than texts spoken more slowly (Chiu &
Chen, 2023; Fujita, 2017; Griffiths, 1990). However, the reality is more nuanced. According to Wang and Narayanan (2007), “speech rate is primarily dependent on two factors: speaking style and the type of speech production (e.g., scripted or spontaneous)” (p. 2190). Typically, scripted texts are enunciated more slowly and more clearly. Bloomfield et al. (2011) note that “faster speech is usually less clear than slower speech although speech rate and auditory clarity are distinct properties” (p. 67). Moreover, while L2 listeners often report difficulty in comprehension due to faster delivery (Goh, 2000), they may in fact conflate problems with affective factors (anxiety). For example, the intrinsic nature of listening in many L2 language classrooms, namely time pressure and the lack of control over the acoustic signal (Bloomfield et al., 2011)- is cause for anxiety in many learners.

Furthermore, variations in speech rate are typical of natural, spontaneous speech; speakers have been found to speed up when delivering less relevant parts of utterances, such as parenthesis, digressions or repair sequences (Fon, 1999; Uhmann, 1992). The rate of speech also increases in chunks typical of spontaneous discourse, pre-fabricated expressions or formulaic sequences (McCarthy, 2010; Wood, 2006). Such clusters of words cause decoding difficulty due to their reduced prominence and they may vary in length from the two-word chunks (e.g., “I mean”) to as many as six (e.g., “do you know what I mean”) (Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020).

Most real-world speaking events are characterised by connected speech processes (CSP). Alameen and Levis (2015), propose that CSPs can be divided into six main categories: linking, deletion, insertion, modification (palatalisation/yod-coalescence, assimilation, glottalisation, flapping), reduction, and other processes (lexical combinations, contracted forms). Brown and Kondo-Brown (2006) point out that although connected speech is more common in casual and informal contexts, it is a normal feature of all registers and speaking styles and should not be considered a marker of sloppy or careless speech. Bowen (1975) asserts that in informal speech the use of contractions is almost universal and that reduction is an ever-present feature of oral English. Yet, a speaker may wish to reduce CSPs if they attend consciously to their speech in pursuit of clearer enunciation and increased intelligibility (Ito, 2001). This is especially the case when the speaker reads a text aloud (Chafe, 1982).

Against this backdrop it is therefore valid to check whether the two levels of the Matura exam acknowledge the role of phonetics in listening comprehension. This study focuses on test assessment rather than other, less formal types of evaluation, because “tests will often have an effect on classroom teaching” (Buck, 2001, p. 196). In other words, analysing the test provides insight into the teaching process with respect to its aims and resources. In the case of the high-stakes Matura exam, the analysis of the listening component is expected to provide some indications as to whether the washback effect is beneficial or not.

## 3. Research methodology

The instrument used in the present study consists of 18 recordings and their transcripts from the basic and the advanced level of the Matura exam from 2023 (see Table 1 for a detailed description of tasks). First, the extracts were analysed with reference to the main differences between scripted and unscripted texts, focusing on those related to pronunciation (HP, phonological modifications, and speech rate). The number of words and syllables in each of the recordings was counted with the use of Text Analyser.<fnref n="1" /> Speech rate was calculated as syllables per second (s/s), following common practice (Shriberg et al., 2000). Pauses and non-linguistic utterances are treated as individual units, because “they might be indicators of conceptual planning and their existence might also contribute to rate perception” (Fon, 1999,

<footnote n="1">¹ Online Utility – Free Online Software Utilities https://www.online-utility.org/</footnote>
p. 663). Phonological modifications (assimilations, elisions, linking devices) and HP (hesitative pauses, false starts, repetitions, redundancies) were traced auditorily and counted manually using both the transcript and the recording.

The study explores the following research questions:

**RQ1:** Is the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts modified to correspond to specific levels of linguistic proficiency?

**RQ2:** Is pronunciation aligned with the type of discourse?

With reference to RQ1, it is expected that tests used for assessing listening comprehension skills should vary with respect to pronunciation depending on the test taker's level. Regarding RQ2, the alignment of pronunciation with the type of discourse means that texts used in L2 listening comprehension tests should mirror spoken texts from the target context for language use. In real life, spoken texts differ in orality, meaning that some of them contain more features of spoken language as opposed to written language (Tannen, 1982), e.g., radio or TV news are scripted and thus less oral than spontaneous interactions or unplanned monologues. The passages used for L2 listening comprehension should be low or high in orality depending on their real-life counterparts.

## 4. Data analysis

Table 1 presents the structure of the listening comprehension tests at both the basic and the advanced level. It shows that both versions of the exam consist of three tasks, which include

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*The Structure of the Listening Comprehension Tests*

<table><thead><tr><th>Test type</th><th>Listening section</th><th>Text type</th><th>Question type</th><th>No of times the text is listened to</th><th>No of questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Basic</td><td>Task 1</td><td>1 dialogue</td><td>true or false</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Task 2</td><td>5 monologues</td><td>matching a statement to the speaker</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Advanced</td><td>Task 3</td><td>2 monologues<br>1 dialogue</td><td>multiple-choice</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Task 1</td><td>2 monologues<br>1 mini interview<br>(a question and an extended answer)</td><td>multiple-choice</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Task 2</td><td>5 monologues</td><td>matching a statement to the speaker</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Task 3</td><td>1 dialogue</td><td>cloze test</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>
dialogues and monologues. Comprehension is checked by means of multiple-choice questions and matching a statement to the speaker. Additionally, true or false questions appear in the basic level and a cloze test in the advanced one. All texts are listened to twice.

## 5. Results

The results of the analysis of the spoken texts used in the listening comprehension tests are presented in this section. The information pertaining to HP and the rate of speech is included in Tables 2 and 3, whereas CSPs are discussed separately in the text. In Tables 2 and 3 the last two columns juxtapose the degree of orality in the audio material with the degree of orality that its counterpart in real life is supposed to have.

### 5.1 Basic level

The nine texts used in the basic-level exam vary with respect to length, style and genre (see Table 2); three texts could be classified as rather formal and the rest as semi-formal or informal. Irrespective of the type and length, however, all texts are scripted, which is justified only in four cases: two parts of a radio broadcast, a TV announcement, and partly in the tourist guide announcement where some pre-planning/rehearsing would be expected. The remaining texts are either personal narratives or conversations, which would be non-scripted yet specific to and/or typical of the targeted situation for language use. Only one recording (Text 3 in Task 3) contains some features of unplanned texts, such as one hesitative pause (*Hmmm... his face is definitely triangular*) and two silent pauses (*I only need one pair... but hold on, Well... obviously you want the best pair for your face*).

All speakers enunciate clearly, with a subsequent restriction on the number of reductions which would normally occur in their speech. The most common feature of connected speech is linking /r/ (n = 11), found in examples (1)–(5), and intrusive /r/ (n = 2) in examples (6) and (7).

(1) were a teenager /wər ə 'ti:neɪdʒə/

(2) for only /fər 'əʊnli/

(3) for as little as /fər əz 'lɪtl əz/

(4) bear at the same shop /'beər ət ðə 'seɪm 'fɒp/

(5) fear of people /'fɪər əv 'pi:pəl/

(6) I saw a few people / 'sɔ:r ə 'fju: 'pi:pəl/

(7) drawing /'drɔ:rɪŋ/

Elisions and assimilation are scarce. For instance, there is yod-coalescence in example (8), but it is not consistent, i.e., it does not appear in example (9) when the same speaker says a different phrase that meets the phonological conditions for assimilation. In Task 2, Text 2, there are some deletions and contractions, illustrated in (10) and (11) but not in all instances, as in sentence (12). There is no h-dropping, e.g., (13) and (14), or /t/-deletion as shown in (15)–(17). Plosive deletions were observed in (18)–(20), but not in (21). Similarly, instances of assimilation can be observed in (22) and (23), but not in (24) and (25).

(8) would you /wʊdʒʊ/

(9) what you need /wɒt jə 'ni:d/
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Text Types (re Length, Style, Genre) Used at the Basic Level

<table><thead><tr><th>Listening task (parts)</th><th>Text type</th><th>Length</th><th>HP</th><th>Speech rate</th><th>Orality</th><th>Orality in real life</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Task 1</td><td>dialogue (an interview)</td><td>2 min. 330 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Task 2</td><td>Text 1 monologue (a personal film recommendation)</td><td>32 s 92 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.1 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (a tourist guide explanation)</td><td>31 s 93 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.9 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather low (pre-planned)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (a TV broadcast)</td><td>39 s 107 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.7 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>low (pre-planned)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 4 monologue (a radio programme)</td><td>38 s 102 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.8 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather low (semi-scripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 5 monologue (a personal narrative about a past event)</td><td>42 s 119 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.7 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Task 3</td><td>Text 1 monologue (a personal narrative about a past event)</td><td>46 s 139 words</td><td>none</td><td>4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (a part of a TV or radio programme)</td><td>50 s 125 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.5 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>low (scripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 dialogue (a conversation between a customer and a shop assistant)</td><td>1 min 19 s 214 words</td><td>1 hesit ative pause, 2 silent pauses</td><td>3.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(10) *why don't you /wai dəun jə/*

(11) *you won't regret it /jo wəən ri'gret it/*

(12) *It is perfect for up to four guests /it iz 'pɔ:fikt fər ʌp tə fɔ:'gests/*

(13) *with him /wið him/*

(14) *from him /frɔ:m him/*

(15) *next week /nekst 'wi:k/*
(16) just five days /dʒʌst 'faɪv 'deɪz/

(17) just like Lego /dʒʌst 'laɪk 'legəʊ/

(18) just loved /dʒʌs 'lʌvd/

(19) second year /'sekən 'jɪə/

(20) first job /'fɜːs 'dʒɒb/

(21) most of my time /məʊst əv mɑɪ 'taɪm/

(22) did you work /dɪdʒʊ 'wɜːk/

(23) did you ever find /dɪdʒʊ evə 'faɪnd/

(24) about your work /ə'baʊt jəː 'wɜːk/

(25) what are you doing /'wɒt jə 'duːŋ/

Results show that there are a few contractions, such as “I’d like to ask you,” “it’s great,” “I’m working,” “it’s in fact,” “it’s beautiful,” but they are not always used consistently, for instance, “because it is,” “which had just been hit,” “it had been built.”

The speech rate ranges from 3.1–4.2 s/s, with the slowest tempo in the narrative and the fastest in the dialogue. While a faster rate for interaction is in line with what takes place in real life, it is still considerably slower than in casual conversations: 5–6 s/s (Deese, 1984) or 6.19 s/s (Pellegrino et al., 2011), and even slower than in radio broadcasts where the rate of speech is on average around 5.43 s/s (Kendall, 2009). Notably, due to the pre-fabricated character of the passages, there are no digressions, afterthoughts, repairs, or reformulations, which would introduce a variation in the speech rate.

## 5.2 Advanced level

The texts used in the advanced version of the exam are diversified with respect to length and genre. The register of the texts is semi-formal or informal and all nine texts are scripted. This seems completely unjustified, because in real life none of these texts would be written.

With respect to pronunciation, it is careful and clear with a fairly limited number of CSPs. Needless to say, some reductions are used as in English, irrespective of whether a text is scripted or non-scripted. These include contractions and weak forms of function words, but the latter have no consonant dropped, as shown in examples (26)–(29). Instances of assimilation are few but present, as in examples (30) and (31). The most frequent phenomenon is linking /r/, evident in the examples (32)–(36), and there is one case of intrusive /r/ in example (37).

(26) must be white /mʌst 'biː 'waɪt/

(27) life has revolved /'laɪf həz rɪ'vɒlvd/

(28) where I can purchase /'weər aɪ kən 'pɜːʃəs/

(29) I say that my friend /aɪ 'seɪ ðət mɑɪ 'frend/

(30) what could go wrong /'wɒt kəg 'gəʊ 'rɒŋ/

(31) does your /dʌzjɔː/

(32) producer of /prə'dʒʊ:sər əv/

(33) there any /ðəər 'enɪ/

(34) are a perfect /ɑːr ə 'pɜːfɪkt/

(35) for a turkey /fər ə 'tɜːkɪ/

(36) or inside /ɔːr ɪn'saɪd/

(37) pizza in the fridge /'pi:tsər ɪn ðə 'frɪdʒ/
<table><caption>**Table 3**</caption><caption>Text Types (re Length, Style, Genre) Used at the Advanced Level</caption><thead><tr><th>Listening task (parts)</th><th>Text type</th><th>Length</th><th>HP</th><th>Speech rate</th><th>Orality</th><th>Orality in real life</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Task 1</td><td>Text 1 monologue (an anecdote)</td><td>57 s<br>173 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 dialogue (a radio interview - a question and an extended answer)</td><td>44 s<br>129 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (a personal narrative of a past event)</td><td>2 min. 2 s<br>385 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Task 2</td><td>Text 1 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>43 s<br>141 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.6 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>37 s<br>108 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.5 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>31 s<br>106 words</td><td>none</td><td>5.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 4 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>38 s<br>118 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 5 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>34 s<br>95 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Task 3</td><td>dialogue (a TV interview with a food producer)</td><td>2 min. 10 s<br>365 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather high (semi-scripted)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Contractions are used, but inconsistently within the same speakers. For instance, they are present in the examples “we’ve all,” “you wouldn’t,” “I’m talking,” “it’s usually shown,” “can’t wait,” “they’re always,” “that’s another,” “aren’t,” “wouldn’t last,” “I won’t watch,” “I’ve been working,” “I wasn’t sure,” and “I’ll,” but absent in “they are a perfect substitute,” “you would get,” “potatoes have been freshly baked,” and “as it is about.”

The rate of speech ranges between 4.2–4.6 s/s. The slowest rate of speech appears in a narrative (anecdote; Task 2, Text 1) and the fastest also in a narrative (Task 1). The dialogues are not characterised by an increased rate of speech compared to the monologues, which is not typical in everyday speech. The overall rate of speech in all texts is a bit slower than in corresponding spontaneous texts in real life where it would be around 5.04 s/s (Grosz & Hirschberg, 1992). Because there are no phenomena reflecting conceptual planning, the rate of speech is devoid of any variation.

**6. Discussion and key findings**

A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4. In both the basic and the advanced version of the exam, the same pair of speakers is employed. The texts are diversified with respect to genre, yet none of the exam versions exploits a casual conversation. A more varied selection of monologues is found in the basic version – TV and radio announcements, personal narratives and an extract delivered by a tourist guide. In the advanced version the monologues are of two types – a personal narrative and an anecdote. The basic version includes two texts which would also be scripted in real life, whereas they are not present in the advanced version. This may have been a deliberate choice on the part of the test designers, but it has no practical consequence, as even in the advanced version all texts are scripted and read out. Paradoxically, therefore, the texts in the basic version, not in the advanced one, better represent their real life counterparts.

Regarding RQ1, the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts is not modified to correspond to levels of linguistic proficiency. This is partly due to the fact that both the basic and advanced version of the exam include scripted texts, which largely determines their pronunciation features. The main difference between the two versions of the exam is duration and the rate of speech. While the mean length of shorter passages is roughly the same for the two levels (39 sec. vs. 40 sec.), the longer extracts range from 1:19–2:00 minutes in the basic level and 2:02–2:10 in the advanced level. Since a longer text usually means more information to process, the test designers may have deliberately introduced this difference to increase the difficulty of the advanced version.

The number of phonological modifications is similar in both versions. There are contractions, weak forms and certain processes which appear in English irrespective of the type of text (written or spoken), but they are pronounced more clearly than in natural speech. In the basic version there are three instances of assimilation, specifically yod-coalescence, and five instances of elision; 11 cases of linking /r/ and two cases of intrusive /r/. The advanced version includes two instances of assimilation and two cases of linking /r/.

The rate of speech in the two versions differs as well. Overall, the rate of speech in the exam texts is slower than naturally occurring monologues and dialogues. Both the range of speech and the mean values are lower for the basic version than the advanced version, respectively: 3.1–4 s/s ($m = 3.6$ s/s) and 4.2–4.6 s/s ($m = 4.3$ s/s). As a faster speech rate usually requires more automatic processing, increasing it for the advanced level increases task difficulty. Furthermore, natural unplanned discourse is characterised by speech rate variation, yet variation is absent from the recordings; they are delivered at a steady rate of speech, without the normal digressions, afterthoughts, false starts, and redundancies which would occur at an accelerated tempo in real life.
<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

*Comparison of the Main Features of Audio Materials Used in the Basic and Advanced Version of the Matura Exam*

<table><thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th></th><th>Basic</th><th>Advanced</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of speakers</td><td></td><td>2 (male & female)</td><td>2 (male & female)</td></tr><tr><td>Accent</td><td></td><td>SSBE</td><td>SSBE</td></tr><tr><td>Type of texts</td><td></td><td>scripted</td><td>scripted</td></tr><tr><td>Type of genre</td><td></td><td>varied<br>(monologues & dialogues)</td><td>varied<br>(monologues & dialogues)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Rate of speech</td><td>Range</td><td>3.1–4 s/s</td><td>4.2–4.6 s/s</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>3.6 s/s</td><td>4.3 s/s</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Length in short extracts</td><td>Range</td><td>31–50 s</td><td>31–57 s</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>39 s</td><td>40 s</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Length in long extracts</td><td>Range</td><td>1 min. 19 s–2:00</td><td>2 min. 2 s–2:10</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>1 min. 39 s</td><td>2 min. 6 s</td></tr><tr><td>Hesitative pauses</td><td></td><td>1 filled pause (hmmm)<br>2 silent pauses</td><td>none</td></tr><tr><td>Repetitions</td><td></td><td>none</td><td>none</td></tr><tr><td>False starts</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reformulations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unfinished sentences</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Turn-openers</td><td></td><td>2 instances of well</td><td>1 instance of well</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Connected speech phenomena<br>other than weak forms</td><td></td><td>3 instances of assimilation<br>(yod-coalescence)</td><td>2 instances of assimilation<br>24 instances of linking /r/</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5 instances of elision</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>11 instances of linking /r/</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2 instances of intrusive /r/</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Apart from duration and the rate of speech, the two versions do not differ considerably with respect to pronunciation. In other words, the phonetic competence required to perform the listening comprehension tasks appears not to have been taken into consideration. The test designers are not primarily focused on testing phonetic competence even though listening competence consists of, above all, dealing with the speech signal. The advanced version of the Matura exam is characterised by more advanced lexis and more complex grammatical structures, but in terms of pronunciation, it remains largely at the same level as the basic one. This is congruent with Buck's (2001) observation that "unfortunately, many students progress
to more complicated and sophisticated grammar and vocabulary, but do not move beyond the basic, elementary, clear and explicit pronunciation" (p. 158). Practices like this have undesirable consequences for understanding everyday spoken English. Students who have continually been exposed to an overenunciated form of English in which the contrast between stressed and unstressed syllables is partially neutralised, will learn to rely on acoustic cues which are missing in the natural spoken English of native speakers.

With reference to RQ2, pronunciation is not aligned with the type of discourse. The most striking feature of the texts used in the exam is the fact that their orality is low. Given their pre-fabricated nature, the texts are devoid of any drafting phenomena which are typically the result of simultaneous composing and speaking. With the exception of one extract at the basic level (which is nonetheless quite artificial), no HP appear. As HP are extremely frequent in natural spoken discourse, their absence in textbook dialogues is a bit puzzling; there is little pedagogic justification to exclude them from very early on (Gilmore, 2004). Depriving L2 learners of exposure to this frequent component of natural speech means they cannot learn how to interpret the HPs they hear, and may also struggle to hesitate and pause in a native-like manner (Cenoz, 2000) when they speak.

**7. Conclusion and implications**

The results of the above analysis clearly demonstrate that the role of pronunciation in the listening comprehension Matura exam is not acknowledged. As a result, the exam does not reliably measure the skills necessary to comprehend natural spoken English discourse. Thus, both coursebook and test designers as well as teachers are strongly encouraged to adjust audio materials so that they reflect authentic speech and equip students with the skills necessary to understand real-life interactions. Including non-scripted spoken texts in L2 listening tests will better reflect natural spoken texts in real-life situations – and will also allow more valid inferences to be made about learners' ability to understand real-world spoken language (Wagner & Toh, 2017). The use of unscripted texts in L2 tests will also have a beneficial washback effect both on test takers and curriculum developers (Buck, 2001; Wagner & Wagner, 2016). Rather than eliminating or simplifying authentic speech – because it is thought to be too intimidating and too difficult to understand – teachers should modify the tasks and equip students with strategies in how to deal with unplanned discourse. As recommended by Mendelsohn (2006), "prior to listening to authentic, unscripted, unmodified language, learners have to be given training in how to go about this challenging task" (p. 77). Drawing learners' attention to phonetic features of natural spoken texts should help learners to notice and process spoken input both inside and outside of the classroom (Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020). Sheppard and Butler (2017) suggest that using paused transcription exercises can provide insight into learners' listening problems and constitute a starting point for further, more targeted instruction which would focus not only on the content, but also on the phonetic form of audio materials. Future research could test the implementation and the effectiveness of such methodology.
## References

Alameen, G., & Levis, J. (2015). Connected speech. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), *Handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 159–174). Wiley Blackwell.

Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2011). *What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension*. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL).

Bowen, J. D. (1975). *Patterns of English pronunciation*. Newbury House.

Brown, J. D., & Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Introducing connected speech. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 1–16). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Buck, G. (2001). *Assessing listening*. Cambridge University Press.

Cauldwell, R. (2014). Listening and pronunciation need separate models of speech. In J. Levis & S. McCrocklin (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 5th Pronunciation in Second Language Teaching and Learning Conference* (pp. 40–44), Iowa State University.

Cenoz, J. (2000). Pauses and hesitation phenomena in second language production. *ILT – International Journal of Applied Linguistics*, 127, 53–69. https://doi.org.10.1075/itl.127-128.03

Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), *Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy* (pp. 35–53). Abex.

Chiu, C. W., & Chen, T. P. (2023). Speech rate and young learners’ listening comprehension. *English Language Teaching*, 16(7), 74–80. https://doi.org.10.5539/elt.v16n7p74

Deese, J. (1984). *Thought into speech: The psychology of a language*. Prentice-Hall.

Field, J. (2008). *Listening in the language classroom*. Cambridge University Press.

Fon, J. (1999). Speech rate as a reflection of variance and invariance in conceptual planning in storytelling. In J.J. Ohala (Ed.), *Proceeding of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Volume 1*. (pp. 663–666). University of California.

Fujita, R. (2017). Effects of speech rate and background noise on EFL learners’ listening comprehension of different materials. *Journal of Asia TEFL*, 14(4), 638–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.4.638

Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. *ELT Journal*, 58, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.363

Goh, C. C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. *System*, 28, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3

Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. *Language Learning*, 40, 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00666.x

Griffiths, R. (1991). The paradox of comprehensible input: Hesitation phenomena in L2 teacher-talk. *JALT Journal*, 13, 1, 23–41. Retrieved from https://jalt-publications.org/i/1991-05_13.1

Grosz, B., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. *HLT ‘91 Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language* (441–446). https://doi.org/10.3115/1075527.1075632

Henderson, A., & Cauldwell, R. (2020). Jungle Listening: A course in decoding English for psychology students. *ASp*, 77, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.6366

Ito, Y. (2001). Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners’ input-intake process. *Second Language Studies*, 1(20), 99–124. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/40647
Kendall, T. S. (2009). *Speech rate, pause, and linguistic variation: An examination through the sociolinguistic archive and analysis project.* [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Duke University]. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/1097

McCarthy, M. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. *English Profile Journal, 1*, 1–15.
http://doi.org.10.1017/S2041536210000012

Mendelsohn, D. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), *Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills* (pp. 75–90). Mouton de Gruyter.

Ockey, G., & Wagner, E. (2018). *Assessing L2 listening: Moving towards authenticity*. John Benjamins B.V.

Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., & Marsico, E. (2011). Across-language perspective on speech information rate. *Language* 87(3), 539–558.

Schmidt-Rinehart, B. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. *The Modern Language Journal, 84*, 179–189.
https://doi.org/10.2307/329008

Sheppard, B., & Butler, B. (2017). Insights into student listening from paused transcription. *CATESOL Journal, 29*, 2, 81 – 107. https://doi.org.10.5070/B5.35995

Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: the effect of test and question types. *Language testing, 8*, 1, 23–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800103

Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Hakkani-Tur, D., & Tur, G. (2000). Prosody-based automatic segmentation of speech into sentences and topics. *Speech Communication, 32*(1–2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02030.x

Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.) *Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy* (pp. 1–33). Ablex.

Uhmann, S. (1992). Contextualizing relevance: On some forms and functions of speech rate changes in everyday conversation. In P. Auer & A. Luzio (Eds.), *The Contextualization of Language* (pp. 297–336). John Benjamins.

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). *Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action*. Routledge.

Voss, B. (1979). Hesitation phenomena as sources of perceptual errors for non-native speakers. *Language and Speech, 22*, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200203

Wagner, E. (2013). Assessing listening. In A. Kunan (Ed.), *Companion to Language Assessment* (pp. 47–63). Wiley-Blackwell.

Wagner, E., P., & Toth, D. (2017). The role of pronunciation in the assessment of second language listening ability. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), *Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives* (pp. 72–92). Multilingual Matters.

Wagner, E., & Wagner, S. (2016). Scripted and unscripted spoken texts used in listening tasks on high stakes tests in China, Japan and Taiwan. In V. Arayadoust & J. Fox (Eds.), *Current trends in language testing in the Pacific Rim and the Middle East: Policies, analyses and diagnoses* (pp. 103–123). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wang, D., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Robust speech rate estimation for spontaneous speech. *IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing 15*(8), 2190–2201.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.905178

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. *Canadian Modern Language Review, 63*, 1, 13–33. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.13
**About the author**

Agnieszka Bryła-Cruz is Assistant Professor at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland. Her main research interests concern the role of linguistic and socio-linguistic factors in Second Language Acquisition, particularly pronunciation, and the perception of non-native accents by English native speakers. Recently she has been conducting empirical studies on the role of phonetics in listening comprehension.

Email: agnieszka.bryla-cruz@mail.umcs.pl