# EFL learners' perceptions of naturalness, difficulty, and speech rate in native connected speech

Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska. EFL learners' perceptions of naturalness, difficulty, and speech rate in native connected speech. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humanez-Berral & A. Henderson, (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices, pp.15-27, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.16735183. hal-05198033

HAL Id: hal-05198033

https://hal.science/hal-05198033v1

Submitted on 4 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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_2.png" /></figure>
# EFL learners' perceptions of naturalness, difficulty, and speech rate in native connected speech

Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje

## Abstract

This study explores Macedonian EFL learners' perceptions of connected speech processes (CSPs) in native English speech. Fifty, 2^nd^-year English majors listened to two recordings by the same Scottish English speaker differing in speech rate and CSP use and completed a questionnaire about the perceived naturalness and difficulty of each recording. The results showed that faster speech was perceived as more natural, though some CSPs, particularly intrusive sounds and elision, were difficult to identify. The findings underscore the importance of raising awareness of CSPs in EFL instruction to improve learners' listening comprehension and perception of authentic spoken English.

**Keywords:** connected speech processes, EFL learners, native speech, perceptions

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
**1. Introduction**

The global spread of English has resulted in diverse non-native varieties, reshaping perceptions of language ownership and prompting research into the intelligibility of native (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) interactions. The concepts of intelligibility and comprehensibility (Derwing & Munro, 1997) have been central to this research, leading to studies on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech (Kang et al., 2020) and features essential for successful communication in a second language (L2) (e.g., Suzukida & Saito, 2019). Simultaneously, research has also focused on NNSs' perceptions of native speech, particularly exploring the difficulties posed by its rhythmic organisation, which may cause spoken words and phrases to deviate from their full or citation forms. These changes, known as connected speech processes (CSPs), have received considerable attention in recent research (see Alameen & Levis, 2015). The production of various CSP features by different L2 speakers has been documented, consistently demonstrating the difficulties these phenomena present for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (e.g., Duckinoska, 2021; Poesová & Weingartová, 2018). Given the complexity of CSPs and their impact on listening comprehension, further research is needed into how learners perceive them. Specifically, understanding learners' perspectives on the naturalness and difficulty of CSPs, as well as the role of speech rate, can inform future research and enhance teaching practices.

**2. Previous research**

Listening materials in course books and instructional resources often present speech in a highly controlled manner, i.e., scripted recordings with careful delivery and simplified language intended for testing comprehension. However, such an approach does not train learners for real-life listening, and this can be problematical. For example, a study on Chinese L2 learners' perceptual errors in native connected speech (Wong et al., 2021) found that listening to recordings only once resulted in a high incidence of transcription errors, highlighting the challenges of authentic speech. They also noted that allowing learners to listen to recordings twice may improve test performance, but it does not prepare them for real-life communication, where reduced forms are common.

Exposing EFL learners to reduced forms is crucial, since unfamiliarity with connected speech features affects both listening and pronunciation (e.g., Alameen & Levis, 2015; Ito, 2006). Some studies have investigated the impact of explicit instruction on listening comprehension. For example, Rahimi and Chalak (2017) and Ahmadian and Matour (2014) found significant improvement in dictation-based listening among L1 Persian learners, though the former study did not specify which connected speech features were assessed. Similarly, Brown & Hilferty (2006) reported significant gains in listening comprehension after Chinese graduate students received instruction on reduced forms.

The perception of connected speech processes has also been studied among learners of languages other than English. For instance, Kennedy and Blanchet (2014) investigated how learners of French as a foreign language perceived connected speech, particularly in relation to their language awareness. Over a 15-week course, the participants engaged in activities designed to improve their perception, and they kept reflective journals. The results showed improved decoding of CSPs between the pre- and post-test, highlighting the significant role language awareness and manner of learning play in processing rapid speech. These findings also inform future teaching practices regarding the influence of language awareness on listening comprehension.

These studies highlight the challenges learners face when decoding authentic L2 speech and emphasise the benefits of instruction focused on perception. Research has also emphasised the
importance of exposing learners to diverse English varieties. For example, Miao et al. (2024) investigated the effects of integrating Global English (GE) varieties into classroom instruction and the impact on EFL learners' listening comprehension and pronunciation. Their study compared an intervention group exposed to different accented English varieties with a control group that heard only American English. Data was collected through TOEFL-like listening exam questions and a speaking task, using a pre/post-test design. The results showed that listening comprehension of GE varieties of the intervention group improved, but only short term, and their pronunciation remained unaffected. Despite the lack of sustained long-term effects, the findings suggest that exposure to different English varieties does not negatively affect learners' comprehension.

Further research is needed on EFL learners’ perspectives on native connected speech to better inform both research and teaching practice. To that end, the current study examines Standard Scottish English (SSE). This variety was chosen because it remains underrepresented in course materials, where Standard Southern British English (SSBE) and General American (GA) continue to dominate as teaching models. Previous research has explored attitudes toward one variety of SSE, Glasgow Standard English, in terms of speaker competence and social attractiveness (McKenzie, 2008). The current study, however, focuses on the perceived naturalness of SSE, with particular attention to connected speech processes.

**2.1 Research questions**

The literature reviewed above highlights the importance of exposing L2 learners to various language varieties, both native and non-native. Achieving intelligibility always involves a two-way process. Nevertheless, in NNS-NS interactions, CSPs place an additional cognitive demand on NNS speakers, as authentic speech can deviate from their expectations of spoken English (Alameen & Levis, 2015). With this in mind, the current study investigates the exposure to a less commonly represented native variety, Scottish English. It examines Macedonian EFL learners’ perceptions of the presence or absence of CSPs in native speech, by asking them which of two recordings sounds more natural, and then to explain their choice. Naturalness is not defined for participants but rather it is hoped that their explanations will mention CSPs. Thus, the present study attempts to answer the following research questions:

**RQ1:** How do Macedonian EFL learners evaluate the naturalness of native speech in relation to: a) speech rate, and b) connected speech processes?

**RQ2:** How do Macedonian EFL learners recognise and identify specific connected speech processes (vowel reduction, elision, intrusive sounds) in native speech?

While Macedonian EFL learners may initially find speech with a less familiar accent more challenging, we assume that they will generally perceive both recordings as being easy to understand. However, we hypothesise that they will experience greater difficulty identifying specific connected speech processes, particularly in faster-paced speech.

**3. Research methodology**

**3.1 Participants**

The participants in this study were 50 Macedonian EFL learners ($M_{age} = 20.8$, age range = 20–25). There were 9 male and 40 female participants, with one participant identifying as non-binary. All participants were second-year English majors at the University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje. They were enrolled in the English Phonetics and Phonology course and
had completed one semester of instruction but had not yet studied connected speech processes. All had learned English through formal education, and 50% reported having basic knowledge of an additional foreign language. The class is obligatory but participation in the study was voluntary.

A native female speaker of Scottish Standard English served as a speech model. She holds a Master of Research in Linguistics and works as a university tutor, teaching English pronunciation classes to international students.

## 3.2 Procedure

The study consisted of two stages. First, the native speaker recorded a 295-word passage (adapted from *The Guardian*) twice. For the first recording (R1), the speaker was instructed to read the passage at a slower, more deliberate pace, aiming to produce more words in full forms. For the second recording (R2), the speaker read the passage at a faster pace, resulting in speech with more reduced forms. Both recordings, along with selected excerpts, were embedded in a questionnaire. In the second stage, the participants completed the questionnaire in a controlled environment using desktop computers and headphones and were supervised by a researcher<fnref n="1" />. The task took approximately 40 minutes.

## 3.3 Data collection and analysis

The main data collection instrument was a questionnaire comprising two parts: Part 1 gathered demographic information, whereas Part 2 focused on responses to the recordings (see Appendix). It comprised 14 questions: 8 open-ended, 2 Likert scale, and 4 multiple-choice questions, along with two recordings and five excerpts. The participants listened to Recordings 1 and 2 twice before answering the questions, while the excerpts could be played up to five times. These excerpts targeted three connected speech features: vowel reduction, elision, and intrusive sounds. Table 1 presents the selected features and transcriptions of their occurrence in a sentence.

These five excerpts were chosen due to their representativeness and the prominence of the tested feature, thus facilitating recognition and distinction of their presence or absence in speech. In Excerpts 3, 4, and 5, the targeted feature was present in both recordings, further emphasizing the fact that connected speech occurs naturally, irrespective of speech rate.

Responses from the completed questionnaires were manually entered into Excel. The open-ended questions were analysed for the presence of recurring themes, while quantitative data was processed in SPSS 25 (IBM Corp., 2017). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, appropriate for ranked data such as Likert-scale items.

## 4. Results

The results, based on the analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaire, are presented in two subsections. Quotes from individual participants are referenced with the participants' codes P01-P50, where P stands for participant followed by the participant number.

<footnote n="1">¹ The researcher is the author of this paper.</footnote>
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Targeted Connected Speech Features in Excerpts*

<table><thead><tr><th>Excerpt</th><th>Target feature</th><th>Phrase</th><th>Transcription</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Vowel reduction in grammatical words</td><td>This <u>was</u> a problem.</td><td>R1 /ðɪs wɒz ə 'prɒbləm/<br>R2 /ðɪs wəz ə 'prɒbləm/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Vowel reduction in grammatical words</td><td>...including politicians, presented <u>as</u> sports fans.</td><td>R1 /ɪn'klu:dɪŋ, pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz<br>pri'zentɪd æz 'spɔ:ts 'fænz/<br>R2 /ɪn'klu:dɪŋ, pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz<br>pri'zentɪd əz 'spɔ:ts 'fænz/</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Elision</td><td>But it can't <u>have</u> remained more elusive in real life.</td><td>R1 /kænt æv rɪ'meɪnd/<br>R2 /kænt əv rɪ'meɪnd/</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Intrusive /w/</td><td>...<u>to its</u> rapid layered rhythms...</td><td>R1 & R2<br>/tu (w) its 'ræpɪd 'leɪd 'rɪðəmz/</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Intrusive /j/</td><td>... <u>why all</u> public figures, including politicians...</td><td>R1 & R2<br>/waɪ(j) ɔ:l 'pʌblɪk 'fɪgəz ɪn'klu:dɪŋ, pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz/</td></tr></tbody></table>

**4.1 Recordings 1 and 2**

The first set of questions in Part 2 of the questionnaire elicited participants' views regarding their perceived ease of understanding of the speech in R1 and R2, the challenges faced while listening, and the differences between R1 and R2.

For self-perceived ease of understanding, the participants rated each recording on a scale of 1–5 (1 = *very difficult*, 5 = *very easy*). The average score for R1 was *M* = 4.34, compared to *M* = 4.50 for R2, indicating that the participants did not find either recording particularly difficult to understand. To establish whether the difference in understanding was statistically significant, a Wilcoxon test was used. The results showed the difference between R1 and R2 was not statistically significant (*p* = .106). Regarding the challenges faced, the participants mentioned difficulties related to accent for R1 (*n* = 24, 48%), as illustrated in the following responses: “some words were difficult to understand because she was pronouncing them in an odd way” (P06), “it took me some time to adjust, but it wasn't difficult” (P12), or “incomprehensible due to unfamiliar pronunciation” (P43). The majority found R2 less challenging than R1, although a few (*n* = 10, 20%) reported difficulties with understanding R2 due to the heavy accent, fast pace of speech, pronunciation of some words, or the need for more processing time.

When asked which recording sounded more natural, some participants (*n* = 8, 16%) selected R1, the majority (*n* = 33, 66%) selected R2, while the remaining (*n* = 9, 18%) said that both sounded natural to them. The main reasons for R1 not sounding natural included – again, in participants’ own words – its slow or robotic speech, and the perception that the speaker was non-native. In contrast, R2 was perceived as more natural due to its natural flow of speech,
lack of pauses, the speaker sounding native despite the accent, and the overall tone being more conversational.

The participants were also asked to identify any obvious differences between R1 and R2, choosing from a list of options; one served as a distractor (option d). Table 2 lists the main differences and the number of responses for each option.

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Differences between Recording 1 and Recording 2 and the Number of Selected Answers*

<table><thead><tr><td>Possible differences between Recording 1 and Recording 2</td><td>No of responses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a) The speaker speaks faster.</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>b) Some sounds have been left out.</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>c) Some extra sounds have been added.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>d) Some words have been left out.</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>e) Some words are pronounced shorter.</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>f) Sometimes there are no pauses between two words.</td><td>36</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results show that most participants noticed that the speaker in R2 spoke faster, resulting in some words being pronounced shorter or without pauses. Fewer participants noticed the omission or addition of sounds, while only five participants selected the distractor option that some words had been left out.

**4.2 Excerpts**

The second set of questions elicited participants' views regarding specific connected speech features present or absent in five different excerpts. Excerpts 1 and 2 targeted vowel reductions in grammatical words. In both excerpts, R1 contained a strong form of the grammatical words (i.e., *was /wɒz/ and as /æz/), while R2 contained a weak form (i.e., *was /wəz/ and as /əz/). When asked whether the grammatical word in Excerpt 1 was the same or different in both recordings, few participants (*n* = 8, 16%) said it was the same, while the majority (*n* = 42, 84%) noted that it was different. The participants who identified a difference cited factors such as emphasis on the word, the presence of a strong versus a weak vowel, and the presence or absence of pauses before and after the word, as evident in the following remarks: “In R2 the tone is more conversational and the focus is not on <was>” (P04); “In recording one <was> is pronounced harder and it sound[s] more important, while in recording two <was> is pronounced more softly” (P14).<fnref n="2" /> However, some responses referred to dialectal differences or provided reasoning not directly related to the target feature, such as: “The first one has an accent to it making it sound like <wos> and the second one is clearer and sounds like the

<footnote n="2">² In all original comments by participants, their inconsistent punctuation has been replaced: `< >` is used for graphemes and `/` for phonemes, to maintain a text that is easy to read.</footnote>
[A]merican <was>" (P06), or "In the first recording, the 
 is pronounced as /z/, while in the
second it's /s/" (P42).

The responses for Excerpt 2, targeting the word *as*, were more varied. Half of the participants (*n* = 25, 50%) reported that the pronunciation was the same in both recordings, many (*n* = 22, 44%) indicated that it was different, and few (*n* = 3, 6%) provided no answer. Those who perceived a difference attributed it to the presence of a schwa sound and hearing only the /s/ sound in R2, or noticing clearer pauses before and after the word in R1 compared to R2.

Excerpt 3 involved instances of elision, specifically the omission of /h/, in both recordings. The only difference between R1 and R2 was the absence and presence of a weak form in the grammatical word *have*, respectively. When asked if the words in the verb phrase were fully pronounced, responses varied significantly. Twenty participants (40%) indicated that the words were either fully pronounced in both recordings, or not fully pronounced but their answers did not mention omission of /h/. Examples included comments such as the words sounding like one word in R1 but like two separate words in R2, or that words were fully pronounced only in R2. The remaining participants (*n* = 30, 60%) correctly noticed the elision of /h/ correctly, in at least one of the recordings, or identified the contracted form of *have* in the verb phrase, as illustrated in the following comments: "In Recording 2, the words <can't> and <have> are connected with the neutral vowel in their pronunciation, resulting in the shortening of the word <have>, which is not the case in Recording 1" (P03) and "All of the words are pronounced in Recording 1[:;] however, in Recording 2, the /h/ in <have> is left out and the word is connected to the previous one, <can't>" (P38).

Concerning self-perceived ease of understanding of the phrase in Excerpt 3, the majority (*n* = 28, 56%) reported no difficulty. A smaller proportion found the speech easier in R1 than in R2 (*n* = 5, 10%), while others found it easier in R2 than in R1 (*n* = 6, 12%). The remaining participants (*n* = 10, 20%) said that it was not very easy, and they either had to rely on the context or listen to the phrase multiple times. One participant mentioned that familiarity with the accent helped. One participant did not answer the question.

The last two excerpts, 4 and 5, focused on the intrusive sounds /w/ and /j/, respectively. For Excerpt 4, only one participant correctly identified the intrusive sound, stating: "It sounds like there is a /w/ sound in between them" (P11). The rest either did not notice any intrusive sound, or provided irrelevant information, such as hearing an extra /t/ or a prolonged /s/ sound. No participant identified the intrusive /j/ sound in Excerpt 5. However, one student reported difficulty understanding the phrase, stating: "It was partially understandable, since the first word of the phrase was incomprehensible." (P34), suggesting that the presence of the intrusive sound may have affected comprehension. Regarding their self-perceived ease of understanding the phrase in Excerpt 4, the majority did not experience any difficulty (*n* = 29, 58%), while the rest (*n* = 20, 40%) noted that they had to listen to it multiple times, or that pauses between words aided comprehension. One participant did not answer the question.

5. Discussion

The first research question intended to investigate the participants’ perceptions of the
naturalness of native speech and the difficulties they encountered understanding it. The fast-
paced speech, which featured more instances of connected speech features, was generally
perceived as more natural due to its absence of pauses, the rapid speech rate, and the speaker
sounding native. These results suggest that fast speech is associated with fluency, despite the
participants reporting difficulties in perceiving specific CSPs. This supports the view that CSPs
contribute to the perceived regularity of English rhythm (Alameen & Levis, 2015).
In terms of self-perceived ease of understanding, neither recording was perceived as especially difficult, and the difference was not statistically significant. This may be due to the participants' overall familiarity with English through formal instruction and exposure to various native accents in the media. However, further research is needed to systematically investigate how such prior exposure affects the ability to process native speech and whether self-reported *ease* of understanding correlates with *actual* understanding, as authentic speech often remains challenging (Wong et al., 2021).

When comparing the two recordings, the participants were able to identify more obvious distinctions, such as variations in speech pace and the absence of pauses between words. Nevertheless, more subtle CSPs, such as elision and intrusive sounds, proved more difficult. This was reflected in the responses to the speech excerpts explored in the second research question. For example, while more than half of the participants identified /h/ elision in Excerpt 3, this recognition was inconsistent across both recordings and mainly observed in R2. In contrast, the intrusive sounds /w/ and /j/ in Excerpts 4 and 5, respectively, were scarcely noticed. Only one participant identified the intrusive /w/, and another appeared to misinterpret the initial part of the phrase in Excerpt 5, potentially due to the presence of intrusive /j/. These findings align with previous research, reinforcing the notion that CSPs are difficult for EFL learners to perceive and decode accurately.

Participants' perception of vowel reduction in Excerpts 1 and 2 showed that they found it easier to detect the reduced sound in /wəz/ in R2 of Excerpt 1 than in /əz/ in Excerpt 2. The majority of participants (84%) identified the schwa sound in R2 of Excerpt 1, whereas nearly half as many (44%) noticed it or reported hearing only a /s/ sound in R2 of Excerpt 2. While these findings are based on a limited number of examples and should not be generalised, they are consistent with the results of a production study of vowel reduction among Macedonian EFL learners (Duckinoska, 2021). This study found that the L2 learners more readily produce the weak form of grammatical words containing the strong vowel /o/ (e.g., was) than the weak form of words with the strong vowel /æ/ (e.g., am, can, shall, has). Nevertheless, further research is needed to establish a clearer link between learners' perception and production of weak forms.

Interestingly, the participants frequently referenced terms such as accent, native speaker, or specific dialect. Accent was often cited as a source of difficulty, while the delivery of the native speaker in R2 was perceived as more natural. These findings suggest that the participants' perception of speech naturalness was primarily influenced by two factors: 1) the speaker being perceived as native, and 2) the absence of a noticeable accent. This insight carries significant pedagogical implications: learners should be made aware of the diversity of English accents – both native and non-native – and listen to a wide range of speech models. As exposure to Global Englishes does not hinder comprehension (Miao et al., 2024), such practice can broaden learners' awareness of what constitutes intelligible and natural English.

The results also suggest that certain CSPs are harder to detect than others. Thus, explicit instruction on how CSPs aid fluency and rhythm could be beneficial, as increased awareness improves decoding of rapid speech (Kennedy & Blanchet, 2014). For instance, teachers could contrast sentences with and without intrusive sounds, highlighting how their presence helps maintain fluency. They could also design activities where students listen specifically for intrusive sounds in authentic speech and mark them in written transcripts. Moreover, since vowel reduction was easier to detect in *was* than in *as*, EFL instruction should explicitly highlight how vowel reduction varies across different grammatical words. Finally, the fact that only 60% of participants correctly noticed /h/ elision in *have* suggests that learners may not always be aware of common elisions in connected speech. Classroom activities should include targeted listening tasks with common examples of elision, followed by pronunciation practice to reinforce recognition.
**6. Conclusion and limitations**

This study investigated Macedonian EFL learners' perceptions of native speech with the presence and absence of connected speech features. Although the participants reported relatively high ease of understanding, many noted the need to listen to the excerpts multiple times, or rely on context, underscoring the fact that authentic speech remains challenging. Simultaneously, the perception of Recording 2 as more natural suggests that connected speech features contribute to the natural rhythm and perceived fluency of English.

The current study has several limitations. The results are based on specific samples taken from a specific context; different excerpts from the recordings, or different contexts may have elicited different responses. In addition, using different speech models (e.g., Australian English) may influence participants' responses. Further research could explore these variables and measure the effects of exposure to connected speech on perception and production. Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to a better understanding of how EFL learners perceive authentic spoken English and emphasise the importance of drawing learners' attention to connected speech features as a step towards improved listening comprehension.

**References**

Ahmadian, M., & Matour, R. (2014). The effect of explicit instruction of connected speech features on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension skills. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3*(2), 227-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.227

Alameen, G., and Levis, J. M. (2015). Connected speech. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 159-174). Wiley Blackwell.
http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch9

Brown, J.D., & Hilferty, A. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for listening comprehension. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown, (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 51-58). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/MG01TOC.pdf

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19*, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010

Duckinoska, I. (2021). Vowel reduction of English grammatical words by Macedonian EFL learners. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, A. Henderson, & J., Fouz-González (Eds.), *English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights* (pp. 279-302). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.19.12duc

IBM Corp. (2017). *IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0* [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-25

Ito, Y. (2006). The significance of reduced forms in L2 pedagogy. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown, (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 17-25). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/MG01TOC.pdf

Kang, O., Thomson, R., & Moran, M. (2020). Which features of accent affect understanding? Exploring the intelligibility threshold of diverse accent varieties. *Applied Linguistics, 41*(4), 453-480.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy053

Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J. (2014). Language awareness and perception of connected speech in second language. *Language Awareness, 23*, 92-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863904

McKenzie, R. M. (2008). Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken English: A Japanese case study. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18*(1), 63-88.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00179.x
Miao, Y., Kang, O., & Meng, X. (2024). Incorporating global Englishes varieties into EFL classrooms: Development of listening comprehension and pronunciation. *TESOL Quarterly*. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3328

Poesová, K., & Weingartová, L. (2018). Character of vowel reduction in Czech English. In J. Volín & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), *The pronunciation of English by speakers of other languages* (pp. 96–116). Cambridge Scholars.

Rahimi, M. & Chalak, A. (2017). The effect of connected speech teaching on listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. *Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4*(8), 280–291. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/722

Suzukida, Y., & Saito, K. (2019). Which segmental features matter for successful L2 comprehensibility? Revisiting and generalizing the pedagogical value of the functional load principle. *Language Teaching Research, 25*, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819858246

Wong, S. W., Leung, V. W., Tsui, J. K., Dealey, J., & Cheung, A. (2021). Chinese ESL learners' perceptual errors of English connected speech: Insights into listening comprehension. *System, 98*, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102480

# Appendix

## Participants' questionnaire

## Part 1

Please complete the questionnaire below. The information will only be accessible to and used by the researcher for research purposes and all the data will be anonymised.

<table><tr><td>Name and surname</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Other:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">What nationality are you?</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">What is your first language/mother tongue?</td></tr><tr><td>Prior to starting university, did you study English outside school?</td><td>a) private language courses<br/>Time period: ______<br/>b) private lessons<br/>Time period: ______</td></tr><tr><td>Have you stayed in an English-speaking country?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>Which one:<br/>Time period:<br/>b) No</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">How would you rate your satisfaction with your English pronunciation on a scale from 1 to 5?<br/>1 = not satisfied at all<br/>5 = extremely satisfied</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1 2 3 4 5</td></tr></table>
Duckinoska-Mihajlovska
Perceptions of naturalness, difficulty & speech rate

<table><tr><td>Do you think that formal training in English phonetics and phonology helps you improve your pronunciation?</td><td>a) It is definitely helpful.<br>b) It is helpful in some ways.<br>c) It is not helpful at all.</td></tr><tr><td>Do you speak any other foreign language(s)?<br>If yes, please state which one(s).</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Part 2

In this part, you will listen to several recordings. We are interested in your thoughts about the recordings. You will not be tested on any phonetic/phonological aspect. Please follow the instructions as to what recording you need to listen to and how many times. **You need to double click on the icon for the audio to start.**

**Step 1:** Listen to **Recording 1 only once** and then answer the questions below.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Recording 1.mp3</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>How easy was it to understand recording 1?<br>1 = very difficult<br>5 = very easy</td><td>1 2 3 4 5</td></tr><tr><td>Did you find any pronunciation aspect particularly challenging to understand?<br>Please describe it in your own words.</td><td></td></tr></table>

**Step 2:** Listen to **Recording 2 only once** and then answer the questions below.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Recording 2.mp3</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>How easy was it to understand recording 2?<br>1 = very difficult<br>5 = very easy</td><td>1 2 3 4 5</td></tr><tr><td>Did you find any pronunciation aspect particularly challenging to understand?<br>Please describe it in your own words.</td><td></td></tr></table>

**Step 3:** Listen to **Recording 1** and **Recording 2 one more time**, if necessary, and then compare Recording 1 and Recording 2. **Please read the questions first before listening.**

<table><tr><td>Which of the two recordings sounds more natural to you?</td><td>a) Recording 1<br>Please explain why:</td></tr></table>
Duckinoska-Mihajlovska
Perceptions of naturalness, difficulty & speech rate

<table><tr><td></td><td>b) Recording 2<br/>Please explain why:<br/><br/>c) They both sound the same to me.</td></tr><tr><td>Did you notice any obvious differences<br/>between the two recordings? Choose as<br/>many as applicable.</td><td>a) The speaker speaks faster.<br/>b) Some sounds have been left out.<br/>c) Some extra sounds have been added.<br/>d) Some words have been left out.<br/>e) Some words are pronounced shorter.<br/>f) Sometimes there are no pauses between two words.</td></tr></table>

**Step 4:** You will listen to excerpts from both recordings and answer the questions below. You can listen to each excerpt **up to five times**.

Listen to **Excerpt 1**. Pay attention to the way 'was' is pronounced in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 1.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Is 'was' pronounced the same in both recordings?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>b) No<br/>If not, what is different?</td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 2**. Pay attention to the way 'as' is pronounced in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 2.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Is 'as' pronounced the same in both recordings?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>b) No<br/>If not, what is different?</td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 3**. Pay attention to the verb phrase in the clause in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 3.wav</figcaption></figure>
<table><tr><td>Are all the words in the verb phrase fully pronounced?<br/>Please explain if you notice any difference between Recording 1 and Recording 2.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 4**. Pay attention to the first two words in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 4.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Do you notice any additional sound(s) in between the two words?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>If yes, what sound(s)?<br/>b) No</td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 5**. Pay attention to the first two words in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 5.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Do you notice any additional sound(s) in between the two words?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>If yes, what sound(s)?<br/>b) No</td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

## About the author

**Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska** is a Language Instructor in the Department of English Language and Literature, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia, where she teaches courses in Contemporary English and Academic Writing. Her main interests include English phonetics and phonology, learner autonomy, and teacher and student wellbeing. She serves as treasurer of IATEFL's PronSIG and assists with blog writing.

Email: iduckinoska@flf.ukim.edu.mk