Gass and Varonis 1984 and considerations ofcomprehensibility and intelligibility
BROWNE Kevin C.
Abstract   Gass and Varonis'（1984）article, The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative
speech has been widely cited in the literature of applied linguistics since its publication. Theirconclusions continue to be echoed by researchers, especially by those investigating both nonnative
speech processing and how different types of familiarity function contribute to speech processing.
Among their findings were that accent familiarity contributes to comprehensibility. This paper
presents a strong theoretical stance that their conclusions that familiarity with nonnative speechin general and accent-familiarity contribute to the comprehensibility of nonnative speech was notreliably measured and that their findings revealed more about intelligibility than comprehensibility
due to their choice of methodology that relied solely on transcription task data. Included also is a
discussion of the problem of how terms like intelligibility, comprehensibility and interpretability havebeen applied, sometimes interchangeably, by researchers that likely led to Gass and Varonis' attributing
their findings to comprehensibility. The findings of Gass and Varonis（1984）are important andvaluable to all researchers interested in how different types of familiarity impact speech processing,and this paper does not aim to discredit it; however, their findings and conclusions warrant review
and may more appropriately describe how familiarity affects intelligibility than comprehensibility.
key words: intelligibility, comprehensibility, comprehension

Ⅰ．Introduction

2016; Browne & Fulcher, 2016; Field, 2005;

A widely cited piece of research concerning

Jenkins, 2000）; however, this point has not been

how different types of familiarity affects theraised for discussion by any researchers. The

comprehensibility of L2 accented English isfollowing is a critical review of this important

Gass and Varonis'（1984）article The effect ofpiece of research that presents a strong

familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative

theoretical stance that their findings revealed

speech（e.g., Anderson-Hsieh and Koehler,

how different types of familiarity affect the

1988; Munro, Derwing and Morton, 2006;

intelligibility of nonnative speech, and that

Smith and Nelson, 1985）. They hypothesized

their conclusions concerning how familiarity

their construct of comprehensibility aswith nonnative speech in general and with aan aspect of speech processing that canparticular accent contribute to comprehension

be measured through word/utterance

were made without any compelling evidence

identification alone, which was arguably

from the data. Presented first is a summary（and is currently）more often a methodology

of Gass and Varonis' study and their main

applied to measuring intelligibility（Browne,

f indings followed by a discussion of how

山梨県立大学

国際政策学部

総合政策学科

Department of Policy Management, Faculty of Glocal Policy Management and Communications, Yamanashi
Prefectural University― 85 ―

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No.14（2019）

terms like comprehensibility and intelligibility

were used to produce 24 different 'tapes.'

have been defined and applied inconsistently

Each tape included different combinations ofthroughout the literature. These are followed

speakers reading the story, related sentencesby an explanation of the rationale supporting

and unrelated sentences in various orders.

the hypotheses presented in this paper and a

For example, 'tape 3' had Japanese Speaker 2

conclusion.

reading the related sentences first followed
by Arabic Speaker 1 reading the story and

Ⅱ．Overview of Gass & Varonis（1984）

then the unrelated sentences, but 'tape 8'

The aims Gass and Varonis investigatedincluded Arabic Speaker 1 reading the related

were the effects four types of familiarity

sentences first, followed by Japanese Speaker

have on native speakers' ability to process

1 reading the story and then Japanese Speaker

nonnative speech. The four types of familiarity

2 reading the related sentences. In this way,

they investigated were:

they were able to create sequences of speaker

1. Familiarity with topic of discourse-bothand sentence type relative to either pre or postwith a specific topic and based on "realstory reading in order to attempt to measure

world" knowledge familiarity

the four targeted facets of familiarity, and2. Familiarity with nonnative speech inprovided four independent variables:

general1. The four speakers

3. Familiarity with a particular nonnative

2. The two possible positions of the
speakers（pre-story or post-story）

accent3. Three potential possibilities for the

4. Familiarity with a particular nonnative

post-story position（1. different accent;speaker
Four speaker participants, all male

2. different speaker; 3. same speaker）

nonnative speakers（NNS）of English（Arabic

4. Two conditions（'related' or 'unrelated'）

L1 n=2; Japanese L1 n=2）, were selected fromof the sentences to the storya group of fifteen advanced level English as

Each of the 142 NS participants listeneda Second Language（ESL）students, and 142

to one tape each and completed two tasks:

native speaker（NS）students were recruitedtranscribing each sentence from both lists

as listening participants from the University

and writing a short summary of the storyof Michigan in the United States. The four

to determine comprehension. Mistakes inspeaker participants were deemed to be

the sentence transcriptions were counted"equally comprehensible"（p.67）by a review

as 'errors', and the mean number of errorsof ten ESL teachers, and were each recorded

were calculated for each speaker. These error

completing three tasks:（1）reading the North

calculations comprised the only analyses ofWind story;（2）reading a set of five 'related

the data.

sentences' that pertained to the story though

As stated earlier, comprehensibility

themselves were not included in the reading;

was measured through successful word/and（3）reading a set of 'unrelated sentences'utterance recognition, but it was never clearly

that had nothing to do with the story whose

defined as such. Rather than clearly define

contexts or topics were considered pertaining

comprehensibility in a definition form, it

to 'real world knowledge.' The recordings

was instead schematized how they believed― 86 ―

Gass and Varonis 1984 and considerations of comprehensibility and intelligibility

comprehensibility of nonnative speech toconclusions derive solely from the results ofnative speakers occurs:

transcription exercises（intelligibility tasks）

C=p α +g β +f1 γ +f2 δ +f3 ε . . . fl ζ + s η . . .

that did not include measurements or other

C=comprehensibility,

evidence to confirm the locutionary force

p=pronunciation, g=grammar,of speakers' utterances were successfully

f1=familiarity with topic,

conveyed. It is therefore arguable to suggest

f2=familiarity with person,that the findings of Gass and Varonis（1985）

f3=familiarity with speaker's native

are more associated with the how different

language, fl=fluency, s=social factors

types of familiarity impact intelligibility and（Gass & Varonis, 1984, p.67）

not comprehensibility. Of course, in orderThis schematization takes into accountto justly confirm or contest their findings

various aspects of speech, but the measures

it would be necessary to clearly understandof the effects of different familiarities on

how they interpreted and differentiated thecomprehensibility were determined throughterms 'comprehension', 'comprehensibility',transcription error ratios alone. This approach

intelligibility' and 'intelligible'. Unfortunately,is puzzling, as transcription tasks were already

we do not know.

commonly being used at that time to measure

Gass and Varonis' found that of the four

intelligibility（e.g.: Catford, 1950; Smith &familiarity types researched, 'familiarity ofRafiqzad, 1979）. Comprehensibility was more

topic' had the greatest impact to intelligibility.

commonly measured using rating scales

Results of one-tailed t-tests comparing the pre-to score how much the listeners felt theyand post-text positions of the related sentences'understood', or locutionary force（e.g., Smith

revealed significant differences of means of& Rafiqzad, 1979）. The only aspect of Gass anderrors（p<.05）for three of the four speakers

Varonis' research that delved into locutionary（p.72）. They found more errors reported inforce was having the listening participants

the pre-story transcriptions of the 'related'write brief summaries of the story they heard

sentences than those from the post-story"so that we could determine whether they had

position, which suggests that NSs were more

indeed understood the story"（p.69）. However,capable of determining the content of NNSs'

there was no discussion of these summaries or

speech if they were familiar with the specific

any results of analyses of that data anywhere

topic. Similarly, the 'unrelated' sentencesin the paper beyond that mentioning collecting

composed of information reflecting 'real world

them in the methodology. It can only beknowledge' experienced significantly lower

speculated, therefore, that all of the summaries

instance of errors（F=19.64, p=.0001）when

the listening participants provided werecompared to the 'related' sentences when they

accurate descriptions of the North Wind story,

were read in the pre-story position on the

but again that is only speculation. It is equallytapes. The differences in error ratios suggest

interesting that neither terms, 'intelligible' northat native speakers employ syntactic and'intelligibility' are included anywhere in thecontextual information to decipher segmental

paper that could have served to clarify how

errors. These findings support Dauer's（2005）

they differed from comprehensibility in theirconclusions that native speakers utilize top-

work. The basis of all of their findings anddown strategies for comprehension and― 87 ―

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No.14（2019）

Ⅲ．Comprehensibility and intelligibility

intelligibility.
Familiarity of speaker, familiarity of accent

In order to claim that the findings of Gassand familiarity of nonnative speech in generaland Varonis reveal more about intelligibility

were found to contribute to the intelligibility

than comprehensibility, it is necessaryof nonnative speech though these findings

to examine how the terms have been

were not based on any significant differencesinterpreted in the literature. Intelligibility

in the data. Familiarity of speaker andand comprehensibility have been defined

familiarity of accent were determinedthroughout the literature in many ways andcontributors to intelligibility by observing

at times interchangeably. Jenkins（2000）

speaker error instances in the pre and postcommented, "there is yet no broad agreement

story positions. Listeners did tend to find theon a definition of the term 'intelligibility': itspeakers of the same accent more intelligible

can mean different things to different people"

in the post story sentences when they had（p.70）. Comprehensibility likewise shares aencountered the other speaker of the same

similar inconsistency of its meaning among

accent reading either the pre-story sentences

researchers.

or the story, as well as for individual speakers

Munro, Derwing and Morton（2006）, forbut not in all cases. 'Japanese speaker two'

example, suggest intelligibility is "the extent

was not found to be more intelligible reading

to which a speaker's utterance is actually

the related sentences in the post position

understood" and comprehensibility, "refers

when he had provided some example of his

to the listener's estimation of difficulty inspeech prior when compared to his error

understanding an utterance"（p.112）. They

reports having heard 'Japanese speaker one'measured intelligibility through transcription

prior. 'Arabic speaker two' had the same lacktask and comprehensibility with a rating scale.

of improved error reports for the unrelatedThis interpretation was also applied by Field

sentences. In short, no significant results（2005）and Kennedy and Trofomovich（2008）

were reported to substantiate the claim

with all three papers including locutionarythat familiarity of speaker contributes toforce as an aspect of comprehensibility.

intelligibility. Additionally, the dat a onlyInterestingly, Derwing and Munro（2009）

revealed a 'tendency' for familiarity ofmaintained that comprehensibility is anonnative speech in general to contribute tomeasure of how easy or difficult it is for a

intelligibility. The evidence they provided forlistener to understand a speaker but removed

this claim was the, "small difference between

locutionary force from the interpretation

pre-text and post-text unrelated sentence"stating that, "this dimension is a judgment（Gass & Varonis, 1984, p.77）. Additionally, noof difficulty and not a measure of how muchdata was collected or included concerning theactually gets understood"（p.478）. All of theselistener participants' overall familiarity withstudies employed rating scales to measurenonnative speech to demonstrate comparative

what the listeners perceived was their levels

differences, so it can only be speculated whatof understanding with or without locutionary

their actual familiarity with particular accents,

force as an included component.

the included accents or nonnative speech ingeneral were.

Part of the problem concerning how theseterms have been interpreted and continue to― 88 ―

Gass and Varonis 1984 and considerations of comprehensibility and intelligibility

be is that if research demands intelligibility oron the following passage:comprehensibility include locutionary force ofA final point to mention is that there isutterances, intentions of speakers or not, therea tendency for the Arabic speakers toare enough precedents in the literature to

elicit more comprehension errors than theallow it or for researchers to invent new ones.

Japanese speakers.

The problem of so many interpretations ofof possible explanations for this:（1）Itthe terms has long been discussed. Smith

may be that many of our subjects wereand Nelson（1985）were among the first

more familiar with a Japanese accent

researchers to argue that intelligibility must be

than an Arabic one, as opposed to theclearly distinguished from comprehensibility

experienced teachers who were very

and interpretability in the literature andfamiliar with both（in fact, a number of

appealed to researchers to finally settle

native-speaking judges mentioned havingon how the terms should be applied. They

Oriental TAs）

argued that by separating 'intelligibility',（Gass & Varonis, 1984, p.74）'comprehensibility' and 'interpretability'

It is clear that accent familiarity data wasto describe word/utterance identification,

not collected from the listening participants

locutionary force and illocutionary force

for either of the accents represented in therespectively would provide greater clarity,

samples. Why Gass and Varonis made a point

and that it was not prudent to warehouse so

to suggest that perhaps why some judges may

many concepts and measurements into one

have been familiar with Japanese accented

term. Sadly, their plea has not been heeded.

English was because some participants had

This paper echoes their plea.

"Oriental TAs". This would imply that all

There are a number'Orientals', or Asians, speak with the same
Ⅳ．Theoretical argument and rationale

or similar accents, which is simply not true.

Gass and Varonis claim that familiarity

Their claim, therefore, that familiarity with

with nonnative speech in general and accent-a speaker's nonnative accent contributes

familiarity are contributing factors to word/

to NSs' processing of NNSs' speech was notutterance identification（or 'intelligibility' as

substantiated in their study. Equally, it was

this paper defines it）, but they did so without

not substantiated in their analyses thatsignificant or compelling evidence. As statedfamiliarity with nonnative speech in generalearlier, it is arguable because there was nois a contributing factor to comprehensibility.

discussion of the data that could have revealed

Though these are logical hypotheses, they

if the locutionary force of the utterances they

were not reliably measured in their research.

listened to were perceived. In fact, there is

It would not be logical to presume thatvery little discussion in their paper dedicatedGass and Varonis' findings imply that accent-to these two claims. It appears that perhaps

familiarity includes either familiarity with

the inclusion of accent-familiarity in the study

all topics and knowledge or the entire lexical

was a post hoc theory that occurred during

inventory all speakers of an accent may

the analyses. The conclusion that familiarity

employ. Unfortunately, this limitation ofwith a particular nonnative accent may havetheir schematic of 'comprehension' was notbeen an afterthought in their research is based

included concerning how accent-familiarity― 89 ―

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No.14（2019）

functions to benefit speech processing.

the conclusions they made are perfectly

This paper argues that any definition oflogical, if not obvious, it does not excuse

intelligibility that includes both locutionaryor render them unchallengeable. It is not

and illocutionary force cannot be applicable tothe objective this paper to argue that theiraccent-familiarity benefits.

conclusions are false, but that what they

Accent-familiarity primarily facilitates, ormeasured and what the empirical evidence

increases word or utterance identification

revealed is not sufficient to support the claim

success-rates, or 'intelligibility', and mustthat familiarity with a particular nonnative

be limited to only advantages determining

accent or familiarity with nonnative speech inthe phonological content of speech. Context

general contribute to comprehensibility.

familiarity facilitates understanding or

Gass and Varonis may not have fully

implied meaning-aspects more associated with

substantiated the claim that accent-familiarity

locutionary force, or 'comprehensibility' andcontributes to non-native speech processing

illocutionary force, or 'interpretability'（aswith significant statistical analyses, butthey are defined by Smith and Nelson, 1985）.

other studies have determined that they

It is unfortunate that comprehension was

were correct nonetheless（see Browne, 2016;never clearly defined by Gass and Varonis, orBrowne and Fulcher, 2016）. Gass and Varonis

how content familiarity and accent-familiarity

did provide reliable evidence to suggest thatwere differentiated. Nevertheless, accent-familiarity of topic（or context）significantly

familiarity was included as a contributing

increases comprehension, or intelligibility

factor of facilitating comprehension was（depending on how the terms are defined）

grouped alongside context-familiarity inof NNSs' speech by NSs. Bent and Bradlow

their conclusions, and that these important（2003）confirmed contextual clues benefit thedifferences concerning how different types

intelligibility of NNS's by NS's.

of familiarity affect speech processing（intelligibility, comprehension and

Ⅴ．Conclusioninterpretability）were not explained more

It is highly likely that Gass and Varonis（1984）paper will continue to be cited inclearly.
Gass and Varonis（1984）have been cited

future research because the findings makein several papers related to, but not limited

perfect sense, regardless that not all wereto, familiarity（Anderson-Hsieh, Johnson &substantiated through the data. Again, thisKoehler 1992; Isaacs 2008, Winke, Gass &critical review was not written with the

Myford, 2011, 2013）and comprehension of

intention to disprove their claims but to shed

nonnative speakers（e.g. Pica, Holliday, Lewis,

light on the lack of evidence that supported

and Morgenthaler, 1989; Munro & Derwing,some of their claims. If we as researchers do

1995, 1999; Derwing & Munro, 1997）. It is

not scrutinize the measures of each other's

surprising that the lack of clarity in theirclaims or employ adequate hedging to our own

defining of comprehensibility and the lackconclusions the result will be the literatureof empirical evidence to support all of thelittered with unreliable precedents.

claims they made has not been challenged or

It would be inappropriate to infer that Gassquestioned in the existing literature. Though

and Varonis' application, or schematization, of― 90 ―

Gass and Varonis 1984 and considerations of comprehensibility and intelligibility

comprehensibility is an example of catachresis,

References

or a willful example of misusing the term.

Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Koehler, K.（1988）. The effectof foreign accent and speaking rate on native

Rather, it simply represents another example

speaker comprehension. Language learning, 38

from the literature of a term whose meaning（4）, 561-613.

was in no way fixed, and they simply chose

Bent, T. & Bradlow, A.R.（2003）. The interlanguage

what they determined was most appropriate

speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of theat its conception. They likely could not predict

Acoustical Society of America, 114（3）, p.1600-

how comprehensibility, intelligibility and

1610.
Browne, K. C.（2016）. Raters' accent-familiarity levels

interpretability would be applied so differently

and their effects on pronunciation scores andand interchangeably in the future.

intelligibility on high-stakes English tests（Doctoral dissertation, School of Education）.

We researchers must consider settlingon how terms like intelligibility,

Browne, K., & Fulcher, G.（2016）. Pronunciation andintelligibility in assessing spoken fluency.

comprehensibility and interpretability are tobe applied. Though the literature continues

Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, 37.
Catford, J.C.（1950）. Intelligibility. ELT Journal,（1）,to recycle and create new interpretations, it

p.7-15.

seems prudent to suggest that any definition

Dauer, R.M.（2005）. The Lingua Franca Core: A newof comprehensibility should include aspects

model for pronunciation instruction?. Tesolof understanding the content of a speaker's

Quarterly, 39（3）, p.543-550.
D e r w i n g , T . M . & M u n r o , M . J . （ 1 9 9 7 ）. A c c e n t ,u tterance. 'Under sta nding' in this way

intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies insuggests notions of locutionary force andsecond language acquisition, 19（01）, p.1-16.

possibly illocutionary force that cannot be

Derwing, T.M. and Munro, M.J.（2009）. Putting

reliably measured through transcription data

accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles tocommunication. Language Teaching., 42（4）,alone. This paper suggests word/utterance
identification, or 'intelligibility' as Smith

p.476-490.
Field, J.（2005）. Intelligibility and the listener: The roleand Nelson（1985）suggested, should beof lexical stress. TESOL quarterly, 39（3）, p.399-

considered the first, or lowest stage, in theprocessing of speech with 'comprehensibility'

423.
Gass, S. & Varonis, E.M.（1984）. The effect offamiliarity on the comprehensibility ofd e s c r i b i n g w o r d / u t t e r a n c e m ea n i n gnonnative speech. Language learning, 34（1）,（locutionary force）and intended meaning of

p.65-87.

word/utterance defining 'interpretability'. If

I s a a c s , T .（ 2 0 0 8 ）. Assessing second language

researchers can reach an accord concerning

pronunciation: A mixed methods study. Germany:
VDM Publishing.

the meaning of these terms it can greatly aid
future researchers by reducing the amount of

Jenkins, J.（2000）. The phonology of English as aninternational language: New models, new norms,

cross-checking the literature that is currently
required when seeking examples of related

new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, S. and Trofimovich, P.（2008）. Intelligibility,

research.

comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2
speech: The role of listener experience andsemantic context. Canadian Modern Language
Review 64, p.459-490.
Munro, M.J. & Derwing, T.M.（1995）. Foreign accent,comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the
speech of second language learners. Language― 91 ―

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No.14（2019）learning, 45（1）, p.73-97.
Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M.（1999）. Foreign accent,comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the
speech of second language learners. Language
Learning, 49（1）, p.285-310.
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S.L.（2006）.
The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies
in second language acquisition, 28（1）, 111-131.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. & Morgenthaler, L.
（1989）. Comprehensible output as an outcomeof linguistic demands on the learner. Studies insecond language acquisition, 11（1）, p.63-90.
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L.（1985）. International
intelligibility of English: Directions andresources. World Englishes, 4（3）, 333-342.
Smith, L.E., & Rafiqzad, K.（1979）. English for crosscultural communication: The question of
intelligibility. Tesol Quarterly, 13（3）, p.371-380.
W i n k e , P . , G a s s , S . & M y f o r d , C . （ 2 0 1 1 ）. T h erelationship between raters' prior language
study and the evaluation of foreign language
speech samples. ETS Research Report Series,
2011（2）, p.i-67.
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C.（2013）. Raters' L2
background as a potential source of bias inrating oral performance. Language Testing, 30（2）, p.231-25.

― 92 ―