【Teaching Practice Report】

An Intelligibility-Based Approach:
Teaching English Pronunciation Toward Comprehensibility
Ian Hart
Abstract
Rikkyo University’s Department of Foreign Language Education and Research (FLER) offers mandatory English
courses for first-year students. The students take a written exam to determine their English level, allowing them tobe assigned to a class with similar leveled students. During this course, students are taught how to use criticalthinking and research skills to produce speeches and presentations, cross-examine others, rebut others’ ideas, andprovide feedback. While students are graded on their production of such skills, feedback is not given on thelearners’ phonological production. With intelligibility and comprehensibility of spoken production being vital for thelearners to respond effectively to their classmates, the research questions whether more focus should be placed on
the teaching of pronunciation and, if so, what support can be provided by the teacher. This paper provides phonemic
and prosodic analysis of two learners who belong to the same class to determine whether differences in theirproduction influence comprehension and performance. After reviewing the results, conclusions are drawn, andsupport is provided by the beliefs of other researchers in the field to determine whether the teaching ofpronunciation is necessary.
Keywords: phonology, pronunciation, EIL, ELF Core, prosodic analysis

Introduction
For Japanese learners of English, it is important for them to make their pronunciation patterns
intelligible to others. For example, at Rikkyo University, all first-year students take mandatory
content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classes: discussion, debate, and presentation. Manyof skills taught in these classes require the learners to respond, challenge, and provide feedback on
their classmates’ ideas or spoken production. However, if the initial production is not intelligible due
to issues with pronunciation, this may have a negative effect on the tasks that follow. Japaneselearners face various challenges, especially in segmental phonology, as they must learn phonemesthat do not exist in Japanese. Furthermore, the presence of L1 transfer may have a negative influenceon phonemic production, as many contrasts between the Japanese and English sound systems exist.
One example is the Japanese writing system, which is based on a syllabary rather than a phonetic
system.
This paper analyzes the segmental and suprasegmental features in the spoken performance of
two learners with English as a second language. By comparing the learners’ performance to a
standard Received Pronunciation (RP) sample, divergences from the RP model will be highlighted.
Possible reasons for these variations will be discussed in relation to the phonological systems ofEnglish and Japanese, and teaching implications will be considered.

43

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

MethodParticipants
The learners in this study were first-year university students. They were enrolled in intermediatelevel language classes, with their level being decided by their Test for English International
Communication (TOEIC) score. Their scores fell into the same bracket (300-500). The TOEIC test is
the most widely used standardized testing system in Japan, designed to measure the everyday
English skills of people working in an international environment. The test consists of two equally
graded tests: Listening Test and Reading Test.
• Learner A spent 3 months on a homestay program in Hawaii. She had an interest in Hawaiian
culture and liked watching American movies.
• Learner B had never traveled abroad. Her interests were focused on Korean pop culture.
The participants were chosen, as the majority of first-year students are placed into intermediatelevel classes, and testing suggested that their English skills were of a similar level.
Procedure
The learners were given the model dialogue (Appendix, Table.1) in advance. They were allowed
to practice reading the dialogue to minimize hesitation, improve fluency, and check comprehensionof the content. Feedback was not given, as the aim was to record an accurate representation of theirspeaking ability. The recording was then transcribed both phonemically and prosodically forcomparison with a transcribed RP model (Appendix, Table.3 & Table.4).

Results
Analysis of Learners’ Speech: Segmental Features
When comparing the learners’ production with the RP model, clear deviances can be heard.
Furthermore, how certain phonemes are pronounced differ between the learners. Phonemes
represent the smallest distinctive speech sounds, which help us distinguish one word for another(Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Unlike with English, Japanese has a more limited phonemic inventory. For
example, Japanese employs fewer consonants and vowels and no diphthongs.
In this section, an analysis of the learners’ production of vowel and consonant phonemes will begiven:
VowelsCompared to English, which has twenty vowels, Japanese only has five, though these may be
distinctly short or long (Thompson, 2002). The non-existence of English vowels in Japanese meansthat Japanese speakers may shorten (or lengthen) English vowels if they do not exist in their nativelanguage phonological system (Baba, 2001). The articulation of English vowel sounds is dependent
on the placement of the tongue. When the front part of the tongue is raised, the vowels are definedas front vowels, and when the back part of the tongue is raised, they are called back vowels. As forJapanese vowels, Tsujimura (2013) provides a summary of the five Japanese vowels, listing them asa high-front /i/, mid-front /e/, low-central /a/, mid-back /o/, and a high-back central unrounded /u/44

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY(transcribed as /ɯ/). These five vowels can be observed in all three environments: initial, medial,
and final (Baba, 2001). Before analyzing the learners’ performance, it was important to understandthe difference between these phonological systems, as there is evidence of L1 interference
throughout the sample.
One problem that stands out is the appearance of the unrounded Japanese high-back vowel /ɯ/.
This is mostly evident in Learner B’s speech, as /ɯ/ sometimes follows consonants, as seen with thewords /gɯreɪt/ and /sæŋkɯs/ (Item.2), /hævɯ/ and /dɯrɪŋk/ (Item.4), and /gɯriːn/ (Item.6).
This problem also occurs when Learner A pronounces the word quite as /kɯwaɪt/, although, the/ɯ/ phoneme is less noticeable due to the rolling transition between phonemes. This issue is likely
to be caused by the learners’ L1 understanding of katakana syllabary. In Japanese, loanwords arereformulated using the writing system (katakana), which enforces rigid consonant+vowel codification
for spelling (Lesley, 2014). Thompson (2002) suggests that consonantal clusters rarely exist, as theJapanese syllable structure is very simple. Each vowel sound has an accompanying consonant,meaning the syllabic order in Japanese is generally consonant+vowel or vowel alone. Carruthers(2006) explains that this also applies to final position consonants, which causes them to beunintentionally extended with /ɯ/ or /o/ phonemes, as seen with /havɯ/ (Item.4 & 6). This is what
Thompson (2002) calls a “rounding-off vowel,” and Brown (2008) believes this has ramifications forEnglish syllable structure, as learners find it difficult to adjust their L1 tendencies.
A less noticeable problem is Learner B’s production of the monophthong /æ/, which is
pronounced as a low central /a/. It is advised that Japanese learners stretch or lengthen the familiar
vowel /a/ to obtain a vowel identical to /æ/. As Japanese speech, lip and jaw movements tend to beminimized (Thompson, 2002), and these features may carry over into English, making an open /æ/more difficult to produce. In Learner B’s case, this slight mispronunciation does not affectintelligibility. However, as Thompson points out, this issue may also occur with /ʌ/, which can cause
confusion in pairs like “lack and luck, match and much” (p.297).
The use of diphthongs or gliding, double vowels varied through the sample. While English
makes use of eight diphthongs, Japanese consider these phonemes to be two separate sounds ofequal length. Learner A’s pronunciation of /eɪ/ in the word make (Item.3) matches that of the RPmodel, as is her production of /əʊ/ in hope. She pronounces /aɪ/ in Hi (Item.1) and quite (Item.5)
with a pronounced glide to a half-close position in the mouth. Learner B also makes good use of /eɪ/in anyway (Item.4) but deviates from the RP model by using a central /əʊ/ in problem, instead of theback, open vowel /ɒ/. This may be because /ɒ/ does not exist in the Japanese sound system.
Similarly, in Learner A’s pronunciation of the word chocolate (Item.5), the final syllable is pronounced
as /leɪt/, rather than the RP /lət/. The abbreviation choco is commonly used in Japan, so the learner
may have unintentionally perceived chocolate as two separate words (i.e., choco and late).
Another deviance from the RP model is when Learner A pronounces the word your as /jʊer/(Item.3), instead of /jɔː/ (Strong form) or /jər/ (Weak form). As /jʊer/ is General American
pronunciation, this would suggest that her experience living in Hawaii may have influenced her
production of vowel sounds.
Consonants
There are sixteen Japanese consonants, which are referred to as nonsyllabics. Unlike withEnglish, Japanese does not have closed syllables, meaning they never end in a consonant (except forthe syllable nasal “n”). English has twenty-four consonants, including six plosives, two affricates, ninefricatives, three nasals, one lateral, and three approximants. The formation of consonant sounds are45

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

described in terms of the place of articulation (i.e., where the sounds are produced), the manner ofarticulation (i.e., how the sounds are produced), and the presence or absence of voicing (i.e., whether
or not there is a vibration of the vocal cords) (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). The most notably absent
consonants from Japanese are the dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ and the labio-dental fricatives /f/ and/v/. As these consonants do not exist in Japanese, they are often substituted for other consonants.
Thompson (2002) explains that /θ/ and /ð/ may be pronounced with alveolar fricatives /s/ and/z/ or post-alveolar fricatives /ʃ/ or /dʒ/. This is partly confirmed in the learners’ sample when
Learner B is unable to produce /θ/ at the start of thanks (Item.2) and think (Item.6). Instead, thepre-initial syllable is substituted with /s/, forming /sæŋkɯs/ and /sɪŋk/. This can be hard forJapanese learners. When asked to place their tongues between the lower and upper teeth, theysometimes incorrectly press both lips on the tip of the tongue or restrict the airflow with their teeth.
Learner A’s production of the /θ/ phoneme is more natural, as she successfully pronounces /θ/ inboth thanks (/θæŋks/) and think (/θɪŋk/) in Item.7.
When producing the consonant /f/, Learner B pauses before saying the word fine (Item.4). The
learner had difficulty situating her lower lip underneath her upper teeth. As she is unable to produce
the restricted air coming out from the gap, the /f/ phoneme is not fully produced. The transition
between two consonants, an alveolar fricative /z/ to a labiodental fricative /f/, proved difficult for thelearner. Learner A’s production of the /f/ consonant is closer to that of the RP model, for example,
when pronouncing the word fancy (Item.5).
Another common problem is the articulation of /v/ as a voiced bilabial plosive /b/. Learner B’s
production of /v/ in the word have (Item.4) seems to fall somewhere between a labio-dental /v/ anda bilabial /b/. Like with /f/, the friction between the lower lip and upper teeth is not fully detectable,
producing a word that sounds more like /habɯ/ than the RP model /hæv/. However, the friction ismore noticeable with the second use of have (Item.6). In this case, the learner’s lips do not makecontact. Learner A’s pronunciation of have (Item.7) provides a more natural-sounding production of
the /v/ phoneme.
The final problem is that the lateral approximant /l/ and the post-alveolar approximant /r/ aretypically conflated and pronounced as a Japanese /r/, which Thompson (2002) describes as “a flap
almost like a short /d/” (p.298). Japanese learners have difficulty producing the consonant /r/ as it
does not exist in the Japanese sound system. This means Japanese learners find it hard to produce/r/ at the start of words as they are required to curl the tip of the tongue backward, position it central
in the mouth, and move it up and down without touching the roof of the mouth. At the same time, thespeaker’s lips move forward while curling the tip of the tongue back inside their mouths. Completing
both movements simultaneously is very challenging for Japanese learners. Regarding the productionof the consonant /l/, Japanese learners have the opposite problem, where the forward movement of
the lips distorts the sound produced. It seems difficult for them to control the movement of their lips
and must be instructed to keep freeze their lips completely. This problem occurs when Learner A
pronounces the word actually (Item.7) as /ækʧʊeriː/. From the previous examples, the analysis has
shown that Learner A’s pronunciation follows the RP model quite closely. This would suggest that theissue with /l/ and /r/ production is a more difficult challenge to overcome.
Segmental Analysis: Summary
Learner A has a better mastery of English phonemes. Learner B tends to rely more on her
understanding of her native language phonological system. While remaining mostly intelligible, a
subsequent loss of accuracy may cause comprehension issues for listeners unfamiliar with Japanese46

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

phonemic production.

Analysis of Learners’ Speech: Suprasegmental Features
When considering syllables and larger units of speech, it is important to analyze thesuprasegmental features. This is often referred to as the study of prosody, with features that form thebasis for important functions including articulatory shortcuts, rhythm, stress, and intonation (Roach,2010).
Assimilation
Assimilation happens when phonemes at word boundaries are influenced by each other, causing
either the final consonant of the first word to change sound (regressive assimilation) or the initialconsonant of the second word to be affected by the preceding word (progressive assimilation)(Rogerson-Revell, 2011).
During the learners’ performance, assimilation was rarely used. In Item.5, Learner A uses
regressive assimilation to change the /t/ of what to a /d/ sound, allowing smoother linking to thefollowing schwa /ə/. However, she fails to use progressive assimilation to produce /ʧ/ in /əbaʊ ̺ ʧuː/
(about you).
ElisionWhen sounds are not pronounced in connected speech, which would be pronounced if the word
occurred in isolation, this is called elision (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Both learners make good use of
elision in unstressed syllables to produce more rapid speech. In Item.4, Learner B elides both the /t/and /d/, resulting in a glottal stop after each word to produce /wɒ ʃu wiː/ (what should we). Learner
A also elides /t/ to produce a more rapid connection between /dʒəs hæv/ (Item.7). Learner B elides/k/ at the end of drink (Item.4) and think (Item.6), which affects intelligibility. Although, this may nothave been intentional.
Weak Forms
Weak syllables are unstressed and typically contain a short vowel or schwa (Rogerson-Revell,2011). While the learners did use the schwa at times, especially when producing weak forms ofarticles, they did not use them enough to reduce unstressed vowels. For example, have waspronounced as /hæv/ rather than a weaker /həv/ and /frɒm/ instead of /frəm/ for the word from.
While some people may believe that the use of weak forms is not entirely necessary for L2 English
speakers, if learners are unaware that they exist, it may be difficult for them to understand speakers
who do use them (Roach, 2009).
Stress, Intonation, and Rhythm
While the Japanese are good at repeating stress/intonation patterns, there are limited parallels
between the prosodic systems of the two languages (Thompson, 2002). With English, intonation is an
important vehicle for meaning, helping the listener to “get a clearer picture of what the speakerintends to mean and fulfils many, overlapping functions, including attitudinal, grammatical, discursive
and pragmatic” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 179). While tones are only found on a small number ofprominent syllables in English, they can “affect the interpretation of an utterance in terms of the
speaker’s intended meaning” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 180).
An examination of the prosodic transcription of the learners’ performance reveals their47

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

placement of the tonic stress (i.e., most prominent stress point in the unit) mostly agreed with the RPmodel. There are some differences, in particular, at the end of items 1, 3, and 6. In all three utterances,a rising tone is incorrectly used on the final syllable of the unit. In Japanese, questions usually havea rise on the utterance-final question participle ka (Thompson, 2002). As Japanese learners aretaught the basic rule of using rising intonation with English questions, their knowledge of bothlanguages could help explain possible L1 interference. Unnatural use of rising tones is also evident
in items 5 and 8. Even though questions are not being asked, both learners A and B apply high-rising
pitch movement to words choco/late and prob/lem.
Apart from some other errors regarding the misuse of a fall-rise or rise-fall, stress at a syllable
level remains intelligible. Both learners follow similar stress patterns; however, Learner A’s
utterances would sound more natural to a native English speaker’s ears. Learner A has a morenatural-sounding rhythm. Roach (2010) explains that “in speech, we find that syllables take the placeof musical notes or beats” and “in many languages, the stressed syllable determines the rhythm”(p.36). If you clapped your hands at the point of each stress point, you would find that the time
between each stressed syllable would be quite regular. This is what Roach calls “stress-timed.” With
Learner A, the time between each stressed mark remains quite regular, producing a natural-sounding
rhythm. However, Learner B has difficulty maintaining regular stress-timed rhythm.
Suprasegmental Analysis: Summary
Both learners’ use of stress is generally acceptable. While stress is often applied to theappropriate tone units, intonation varies in accuracy, with tonic syllables often rising in pitch. LearnerA’s production sounds more natural due to better stress-timed rhythm. Assimilation and linking arelacking; however, elision is used and is accurate for the most part. Although, weak forms would help
to provide more natural sounding production.

Teaching Implications
Leather (1999) believes that native speaker listeners pay more attention to suprasegmentals thansegmental accuracy (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Derwing and Munro (Derwig & Munro, 1997) conclude
that “improvements in NNS comprehensibility, at least for intermediate and high-proficiency
learners, is more likely to occur with improvement in grammatical and prosodic proficiency than asole focus on correction of phonemic errors” (Rogerson-Revell, 2011, p. 242). In schools, the use ofminimal pairs is sometimes used to teach the difference between word sounds; however, the analysis
questions the usefulness of such teaching approaches. In Levis and Cortes’ (2008) study of minimal
pairs in spoken corpora, their research suggests that “many minimal pairs in the textbooks probably
fail a very basic test of usefulness” (p.202). I often found that the learners are receptive to clear
explanations of phonemic differences; however, intelligibility issues occur, especially when speaking
with their NNS classmates. Jones (1997) comments on the overuse of phonemic drills and minimal
pairs and promotes a greater emphasis on the communicative function of suprasegmentals. For
functional intelligibility to be achieved, learners must understand how prosody operates in realistic
contexts. Greer and Yamaguchi (2008) suggest that dictation practice is useful to encourage reflection
on weak and strong forms, while Brown (2008) introduces the use of haiku writing to reduce L1
influence. Poetry is popular with researchers, as it can raise learners’ awareness of connectedspeech, consonant clusters, and stress placement (Makarova, 2006).
Based on the viewpoints highlighted above, various techniques were used in the CLIL classes48

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

taught during the duration of this study. In the English presentation classes, rather than using
standard phonemic drills, the presentation of minimal pairs and phonemic differences was given
through gamified listening trees (Figure.1).
Figure.1
Gamified Listening Tree

Figure.2
Visual Presentation of Phonemes

Previous studies (e.g., Chou, 2014; Werbach & Hunter, 2015; Baptista & Oliveira, 2018; Hart,
2020) support the idea that by adding competitive elements to learning activities, both intrinsic andextrinsic motivation can be raised, resulting in improved learner input and output. The phonemic
differences between the minimal pairs were explained visually with diagrams (Figure.2), thenpracticed first by listening to the teacher and finding the correct answer, and then the learners
practiced reading the pairs while their classmates listened to find the answer. Points were awarded.
In addition, the video sharing app, Flipgrid, was used to record and share the learners’ presentations.
This allowed the learners to view themselves speaking and self-evaluate with a focus on bothphonemic and suprasegmental features. They also provided feedback on other learners’ presentations,making them aware of issues in comprehensibility from the perspective of a non-native speaker(NNS) while also commenting on vocal effect (e.g., pitch, stress, intonation, tone). With presentations
and debates being based around real-life issues, information was presented through videos of real-life
circumstances and conditions, showing how the language that they might potentially use operates inrealistic contexts. TED talks were very useful in showing students how prosody is utilized in effective
speeches and presentations.
By contrast, other researchers believe that the majority of communication breakdowns are due
to segmental errors, especially for NNS-NNS interactions. In today’s world, English is used as aninternational language between people who do not share a common native tongue. Crystal (1997)
estimates that less than a third of the world’s competent English speakers are native speakers,49

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

making them a minority. Widdowson (1994) explains that English belongs to everyone who speaks
it, not just to native-speakers. This is referred to as English as an International Language (EIL),
where the target community is “an international community in which all participants have an equalclaim to membership” (Jenkins, 2002, p. 85). Jenkins explains that EIL provides “the right for
speakers to express their (L1) regional group identity in English by means of their accent, as long as
the accent does not jeopardize international intelligibility” (p.85). This implies that learners do notneed to strive for standard pronunciation, such as RP. Instead, new international standards may beconsidered, replacing the native-speaker model. By re-evaluating core/non-core features of spoken
English, Jenkins (2000), creator of the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) core, provides a set ofphonological and phonetic features that are important for intelligibility between NNSs. While thesefeatures require pedagogic focus for production, Jenkins suggests that many other items do notcause intelligibility issues and are unnecessary (e.g., weak forms, stress timing, word stress, andpitch movement).
These implications suggest that learners should be given a choice. If Japanese learners’ goals
are more relevant to EIL intelligibility, then less emphasis should be put on Standard English models,and more phonemic and prosodic errors should be tolerated. Furthermore, learners should be given
more exposure to non-native, localized accents of English, while teaching materials should bedesigned around an EIL foundation.

Conclusion
The analysis has been enlightening. While Learner A’s production followed more closely to the
RP model than Learner B’s, their individual goals were never taken into consideration. Learner B’s
production remained intelligible, for the most part, and she may not strive for native-like production.
I feel that I am in a better position to focus on the core items that may affect intelligibility from an EIL
perspective. Standard English norms remain as a teaching model, so there is a growing need for theincreased awareness of EIL/ELF standards in EFL classrooms. Furthermore, by raising theawareness of the phonological and prosodic differences between the learners’ L1 and English,
teachers are in a better position to achieve improved learner outcomes and more intelligible output.

50

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

References
Baba, E. (2001). Native Language Influence on the Production of English Sounds by Japanese
Learners. The Reading Matrix, 1.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2018). Gamification and serious games: A literature meta-analysis andintegrative model. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 306-315.
Brown, H. (2008). The reduction of extra syllables in Japanese EFL learners’ pronunciation throughhaiku practice. The Language Teacher, 32(2), 9-14.
Carruthers, S. (2006). Pronunciation difficulties of Japanese speakers of English: Predictions basedon contrastive analysis. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 4(2), 17-24.
Chou, Y.-k. (2014). The Octalysis Framework for Gamification & Behavioral Design. Retrieved from
Yukaichou: https://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamificationframework/
Crystal , D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge City Press.
Derwig, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four
L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1-16.
Greer, T., & Yamauchi, M. (2008). Pronunciation tasks for academic study skills. The Language
Teacher, 32(10), 5-6.
Hart, I. P. (2020). Fostering Intrinsic Motivation through Intergroup Relationships. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 8, 137-146.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A Sociolinguistically Based, Empirically Researched Pronunciation Syllabus forEnglish as an International Language . Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83-103.
Jones, R. H. (1997). Beyond ‘listen and repeat’: Pronunciation teaching materials and theories ofsecond language acquisition. System, 25(1), 103-112.
Leather, J. (1999). Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning, 49(1),1-37.
Lesley, J. (2014). A Phonological and Prosodic Analysis of English Pronunciation by Japanese
Learners. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 12, 18-31.
Levis, J., & Cortes, V. (2008). Minimal Pairs in Spoken Corpora: Implications for Pronunciation
Assessment and Teaching. Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic
language assessment, 197-208.
Makarova, V. (2006). The effect of poetry on English pronunciation acquisition by Japanese EFL
learners. The Language Teacher, 30(3), 3-9.
Roach, P. (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roach, P. (2010). Phonetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum
International International Publishing Group Ltd.
Thompson, I. (2002). Japanese Speakers. In M. Swan, & B. Smith, Learner English (4th ed., pp.
296-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsujimura, N. (2013). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2015). The gamification toolkit: Dynamics, mechanics, and components forthe win. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-89.
51

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4),705-716.

52

AN INTELLIGIBILITY-BASED APPROACH: TEACHING ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TOWARD COMPREHENSIBILITY

Appendix
Table 1Model Dialogue

Table 2
RP Phonemic Transcription
A: ‖ ˈhaɪ ˈhaʊ wəz jə ˈtrɪp ˈjestədi ‖B: ‖ ˈgreɪt ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frəm ə ˈbɪt əv ə dɪˈleɪ ɒn ðə ˈmæntʃɪstə ˈtreɪn ‖A: ‖ ˈwel aɪ həʊp ɪt ˈdɪdnt meɪk ju ˈleɪt fə jər əˈpɔɪntmənt ‖B: ‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt wəz ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈeniweɪ ‖ ˈwɒt ʃəd wi ˈhəv tə ˈdrɪŋk ‖A: ‖ aɪ kwaɪt ˈfænsi ə ˈhɒt ˈtʃɒklət ‖ ˈwɒt əbaʊt ˈju ‖B: ‖ mm aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl hæv ˈɡriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈɡəʊ ənd ˈɔːdə ‖ ˈʃəl aɪ ‖A: ‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈæktʃʊəli ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl dʒəst ˈhəv ə ˈkɒfi ɪnˈsted ‖B: ‖ ˈʃʊə ‖ ˈnəʊ ˈprɒbləm ‖ aɪl bi ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪt ‖Table 3
Phonemic Transcription Comparison
Item Learner
1.

A

2.

B

3.

A

4.

B

5.

A

6.

B

7.

A

8.

B

RP Transcription(including weak forms)

Learners’ Performance‖ ˈhaɪ ˈhaʊ wəz jə ˈtrɪp ˈjestədi ‖‖ ˈhaɪ haʊ wɒz jɔː trɪp jestəˈdeɪ ‖‖ ˈgreɪt ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frəm ə ˈbɪt əv ə dɪˈleɪ ‖ ˈgɯreɪt ˈsæŋkɯs ‖ ˈwel ‖ əˈpɑːt frɒm ə ˈbɪt ɒv (ə)ɒn ðə ˈmæntʃɪstə ˈtreɪn ‖dɪˈlaɪ ɒn də ˈmænʧɪsta ˈtreɪn ‖‖ ˈwel aɪ həʊp ɪt ˈdɪdnt meɪk ju ˈleɪt fə jər ‖ ˈwel ‖ aɪ ˈhəʊp ɪ(t̚) ˈdɪdnt meɪk juː ˈleɪt fɔː jʊerəˈpɔɪntmənt ‖apɔɪntˈment ‖‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt wəz ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈeniweɪ ‖ ˈwɒt ʃəd wi ˈhəv tə ‖ ˈnəʊ ‖ ɪt (w)ɒ(z) ˈfaɪn ‖ ˈenɪweɪ ‖ ˈwɒ(t̚) ʃu(d̚) wiːˈdrɪŋk ‖ˈhabɯ tuː ˈdɯrɪŋ(k̚) ‖‖ aɪ ˈkuwaɪt ˈfænsiː æ ˈhɒ(t̚) ʧɒkəˈleɪt ‖ ˈwɒd əˈbaʊt‖ aɪ kwaɪt ˈfænsi ə ˈhɒt ˈtʃɒklət ‖ ˈwɒt əbaʊt ˈju ‖ˈjuː ‖‖ mm aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl hæv ˈɡriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈɡəʊ ənd ˈɔːdə ‖ maːm aɪ ˈsɪŋ(k) aɪl habu ˈgɯriːn ˈtiː ‖ aɪl ˈgeʊ ənd‖ ˈʃəl aɪ ‖ɔːˈda ‖ ˈʃæl ˈaɪ ‖‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈæktʃʊəli ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl dʒəst ˈhəv ə ˈkɒfi ‖ ˈθæŋks ‖ ˈækʧʊeriː ‖ aɪ ˈθɪŋk aɪl ˈdʒəs(t̚) hæv əɪnˈsted ‖ˈkɒfi ɪnsˈted ‖‖ ˈʃʊə ‖ ˈnəʊ ˈprɒbləm ‖ aɪl bi ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪt ‖53‖ ˈʃɜːr ‖ ˈnəʊ prəʊˈblem ‖ aɪl biː ˈbæk ɪn ə ˈmɪnɪts ‖多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Table 4
Prosodic Transcription Comparison
Line Learner

RP Transcription

Learners’ Performance1.

A‖ Hi how was your /trip yesterday? ‖2.

B‖ /Great |thanks. ‖ vWell, ‖ a|part from a |bit of a ‖ |Great ^thanks. ‖ ^Well, ‖ a|part from a |bit of (a)de|lay on the \Manchester |train. ‖de|lay on the \Manchester |train. ‖3.

A‖ |Well I hope it |didn’t make you |late for your ‖ /Well ‖ I |hope it |didn’t make you |late for youravppointment? ‖a|ppoint/ment? ‖

4.

B

5.

A

‖ I quite |fancy a |hot \chocolate. ‖ |What about \you? ‖ I |quite |fancy a |hot choco/late. ‖ |What a|bout/you? ‖‖

6.

B‖ Mm I |think I’ll have |green \tea. ‖ I’ll |go and ‖ Mm I |think I’ll have |green \tea. ‖ I’ll |go and|/\order, ‖ /shall I? ‖/order, ‖ shall I? ‖7.

A

‖ \Thanks. ‖ vActually, ‖ I |think I’ll just |have a ‖ \Thanks. ‖ vActually, ‖ I |think I’ll |just have a||\coffee in stead. ‖/coffee in stead. ‖8.

B‖ \Sure, ‖ |no \problem, ‖ I’ll be |back in a \minute. ‖ ‖ /Sure, ‖ |no prob/lem, ‖ I’ll be |back in a \minute. ‖||‖ Hi how was your trip yester/day? ‖||‖ \No, ‖ it was \fine. ‖ \Anyway, ‖ |what should we ‖ \No, ‖ it was \fine. ‖ vAnyway, ‖ |what should we|have to \drink? ‖have to /drink? ‖|54