A Study on Pronunciation Instruction for Japanese Learners’
Acquiring Global Intelligibility: From the Viewpoint of English as an
International Language

A Dissertation
Submitted forthe Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
English Language Education
to Kansaigaidai University
By Kanae Ohashi

November2020

iAcknowledgement
This study could not have been completed without the kindness and generosity ofmany people. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor,
Professor Harumi Ito, who has given me consistent support, encouragement, guidance
and patience throughout my study at Kansaigaidai University. I would not have beenable to complete this dissertation if it was not for him. I am grateful that I had theopportunity to be his student again.
I would also like to thank Professor Seiichi Suzuki at Kansaigaidai University forproviding me with valuable advice. In addition, I would like to thank Professor Masao
Niisato at Kandaigaidai University for helping me study previous literatures.
Further, I would like to thank Mr. Angus Hall, who proof-read, checked myEnglish and gave me helpful comments on my dissertation during a difficult time in his
life, Professor Yoshiko Shikaura at Kansaigaidai University who introduced herinternational students to me, and all the participants in the research who provided mewith the authentic data for this study.
In addition, I would like to thank my husband, Kris Ohashi, who helped me evenafter long tiring days at work, and my children Karin and Kaito, who put up with mybeing stressed while struggling with my study. My family have always given me strength
and will continue to do so from now on too.
Finally, I am sincerely grateful for my parents who have supported me throughout
my life. I would especially like to dedicate this dissertation to my late mother, Yumi
Furukawa, who had suddenly passed away two weeks before I completed thisdissertation, for being always there for me to support and encourage me. She taught me
the value of challenging myself no matter what may happen. I wish I could share theachievement with her. However, I am certain she is watching me from somewhere.
It is difficult to truly thank everyone who helped me through my research, and there
are many others who have helped me along the way, although their names are not written
here. Thank you to all for helping and supporting me throughout this entire process.

ii

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study ································································· 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study ······································································ 3
1.3 Significance of the Study ································································· 4
1.4 Structure of the Dissertation······························································ 5Part 1: Overview
Chapter 2 History of Pronunciation Instruction in Foreign/second Language
Teaching and Research on Pronunciation
2.1 Introduction ················································································ 8
2.2 A Historical Review of Foreign/second Language Teaching ························· 82.2.1 Before 1850 ·········································································· 82.2.2 Reaction to the Traditional Approach ················································· 92.2.3 Prosperity and Decline of Audio-Lingual Method between 1940 and 1970 12
2.2.4 Advent of CLT and Its Stream Toward Today ··································· 14
2.3 Place of Pronunciation Instruction in Main Methods ································ 18
2.3.1 From Traditional Grammar Translation Methods to the Direct Method ······ 19
2.3.2 Reform Movement ·································································· 20
2.3.3 Audio-Lingual Method and Situational Language Teaching ··················· 22
2.3.4 Decline of Pronunciation Instruction and Advent of Various Methods ······· 23
2.3.5 Communicative Language Teaching ·············································· 24
2.3.6 Application of Empirical Research on L2 Pronunciation to Teaching ········ 26
2.4 Direction of Pronunciation Instruction in Foreign/ Second Language Teaching · 27
2.5 Summary and Direction of the Current Study········································· 30

Chapter 3 Current Situation of Pronunciation Instruction in English Language
Education in Japan

iii

3.1 Treatment of Pronunciation in the Course of Study ·································· 32
3.1.1 Six Revisions until 2017 ···························································· 33
3.1.2. The Latest Version of 2017 ························································ 35
3.2 Treatment of Pronunciation in English Textbooks···································· 38
3.2.1 Amount of Pronunciation Sections of Each Textbook ·························· 39
3.2.2 Pronunciation Features Covered in Each Textbook ····························· 41
3.2.2.1 Segmentals ······································································ 41
3.2.2.2 Suprasegmentals································································ 43
3.2.3 Summary and Issues of the Textbooks ············································ 47
3.3 Treatment of Pronunciation in Questions in Entrance Examinations ·············· 48
3.3.1 Common Entrance Examination for University ································· 48
3.3.2 Contents of the Test ································································· 49
3.3.2.1 From 2001 to 2006 ····························································· 49
3.3.2.2 From 2007 to 2020 ··························································· 51
3.3.3 Summary ············································································ 51
3.4 Problems and Issues Regarding Pronunciation Instruction in Japan ·············· 53
3.4.1 Goal of Pronunciation Teaching/Learning ······································· 53
3.4.2 The Need for More Emphasis on Pronunciation in English Classroom ····· 55
3.4.3 Teacher’s Attitude Toward Pronunciation Instruction··························· 57
3.5 Summary ·················································································· 58

Part 2: Theory
Chapter 4 English as an International Language
4.1 Globalization and English ······························································· 62
4.1.1 Brief History of Spread of English ················································ 62
4.1.2 Factors Making English an International Language ······························ 63
4.1.2.1 Number of Speakers ··························································· 64
4.1.2.2 Geographical Distribution ····················································· 64
4.1.2.3 Uses of English in Various Fields ············································ 65
4.2 Diversity of Users of English ··························································· 68

iv

4.2.1 Three circles·········································································· 68
4.2.2 Specification of Each Circle ······················································· 69
4.2.3 Characteristic Pattern in Use of English in Each Circle ························ 71
4.2.4 English for wider communication: Language hierarchy ························ 75
4.3 Searching for a Norm for English as an International Language in ················ 78
ELT (English Language Teaching)
4.3.1 Terminologies ········································································ 78
4.3.1.1 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) ··········································· 78
4.3.1.2 English as a Global Language ················································ 79
4.3.1.3 English as an International Language (EIL) ································ 80
4.3.2 Pedagogical Norm of EIL ·························································· 81
4.3.3 Needs for Norms of Spoken Language of EIL··································· 83
4.4 Summary ·················································································· 85

Chapter 5 English Pronunciation Instruction and Intelligibility
5.1 Conceptual Framework of Intelligibility··············································· 86
5.1.1 Intelligibility as a Goal of Pronunciation Instruction ··························· 86
5.1.2 Place of Intelligibility in Oral Communication ·································· 87
5.1.2.1 Intelligibility as the First Step in Message Understanding in Oral
Communication································································· 87
5.1.2.2 Other Higher-level Factors Required for Oral Communication ·········· 89
5.1.3 Intelligibility as Speakers’ Responsibility ········································ 91
5.1.4 From Intelligibility to Global Intelligibility ······································ 91
5.2 Proposed Factors Determining Global Intelligibility ································· 95
5.2.1 Previous Research on Factors Determining Intelligibility ······················ 95
5.2.2 Factors Determining Intelligibility in International Communication ········· 99
5.3 Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility ······················································104
5.3.1 Previous Studies on Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility ·························104
5.3.2 Theoretical Framework for Capturing Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility ····107
5.3.2.1 Suprasegmental Features ·····················································107

v

5.3.2.2 Segmental Features ··························································· 112
5.4 Summary and Unsolved Issues ························································ 115

Part 3: Research
Chapter 6 Research 1: Research on Japanese University Students’ Knowledge,
Learning Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation
6.1 Introduction ·············································································· 118
6.2 Method ···················································································· 119
6.2.1 Participants ·········································································· 119
6.2.2 Questionnaire ·······································································120
6.2.3 Data Analysis ·······································································120
6.3 Results ····················································································121
6.3.1 Students’ Knowledge of Pronunciation ··········································121
6.3.2 Students’ Learning Experience of English Pronunciation ·····················123
6.3.3 Students’ Attitude Towards English Pronunciation ·····························1256.3.4 Relation Between Students’ Knowledge, Learning Experience and ········129
Attitude Towards English Pronunciation
6.3.4.1 Relation Between Learning Experience and Knowledge ··············130
Pronunciation
6.3.4.2 Relation Between Attitude Towards English and Knowledge···········133
of Pronunciation
6.4 Discussion ················································································135
6.5 Summary ·················································································138

Chapter 7 Research 2: A Study on Pronunciation Factors Affecting Japanese
Learners’ Global Intelligibility
7.1 Introduction ··············································································139
7.2 Objective ·················································································141
7.3 Method ····················································································143
7.3.1. Participants ·········································································143

vi

7.3.2. Procedure ···········································································144
7.3.3. Data Analysis·······································································144
7.4 Results and Discussion··································································145
7.5 Summary ·················································································149

Chapter 8 Research 3: Research on Sentence-level Strategies for Improving
Japanese Learner’s Global Intelligibility
8.1 Introduction ··············································································150
8.1.1 Background ········································································150
8.1.2 Theoretical Framework for the Research·······································151
8.1.2.1 Sentence Stress ·······························································151
8.1.2.2 Role of Explicit Instruction ·················································153
8.1.3 Objectives ··········································································154
8.2 Method ····················································································156
8.2.1 Participants, Time and Place ·····················································156
8.2.2 Procedure···········································································157
8.2.3 Data Analysis ····································································· 159
8.3 Results and Discussion··································································160
8.4 Summary ················································································ 163

Chapter 9 Conclusion
9.1 Summary of the Study ··································································167
9.2 Pedagogical Implications, Unsolved Issues and Suggestion for Further
Research ··················································································171

References ····················································································173
Appendices ···················································································186

vii

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Pronunciation Teaching Approaches of Main Methods ··················· 19

Table 2.2

Empirical Research that Supports ESL Pronunciation Teaching ······· 28

Table 3.1

Transition Seen in the Speech Sound Items in ····························· 34
Junior High School Course of Study

Table 3.2

Sound Items Seen in the Junior High School Course of Study (2017) ·· 36

Table 3.3

Pronunciation Sections in Each Textbook ·································· 40

Table 3.4

The Use of Pronunciation Terms of Each Textbook ······················· 41

Table 3.5

Treatment of Segmentals of Each Textbook································ 42

Table 3.6

Treatment of Suprasegmentals of Each Textbook ························· 44

Table 3.7

Question Patterns Seen from 2001 to 2006 Test ··························· 50

Table 3.8

Question Patterns Seen from 2007 to 2020 Test ··························· 52

Table 4.1

Scholarly Journal Production by Language ······························· 66(Lobachev, 2008, p.4)

Table 4.2

Book Publishing by Language (Lobachev, 2008, p.2) ···················· 66

Table 4.3

Newspaper and Magazine Production by Language ······················ 67(Lobachev, 2008, p.3)

Table 5.1

The Lingua Franca Core Proposed by Jenkins ····························100

Table 5.2

Consonant Phonemes of English ··········································· 112(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996, p.47)

Table 5.3

Consonant Phonemes of Japanese ·········································· 113(Adopted from Table 4 in Kubozono, 1998, p.42)

Table 5.4

Problems of Segmental Features Found in Japanese Learners ·········· 114

Table 6.1

Students’ Knowledge of Phonemes ········································121

Table 6.2

Students' Knowledge of Word Stress ·······································122

Table 6.3

Students' Knowledge of Phonetic Alphabet ·······························122

Table 6.4

The Students' Ability to Explain How to Pronounce a Phoneme /f/ ····123

Table 6.5

Students’ Learning Experience of English Pronunciation ···············124

Table 6.6

The Phonetic Features Regarded Important by the Students ············127

viii

Table 6.7

Q1: Have You Ever Studied Phonetic Alphabet? ·························131

Table 6.8

Q3: Have You Ever Been Taught the Following Phonetic Features atJunior/Senior High School? ·············································132

Table 6.9

Q4: Has Your English Pronunciation Ever Been Corrected by an
English Teacher at Junior/Senior High School? ·······················132

Table 6.10 Q1: Do You Think Knowledge of the Phonetic Alphabet Leads toCorrect Pronunciation?···················································134
Table 6.11 Q3: Do You Think That Your English Pronunciation is Intelligible to
Native and Non-native Speakers of English? ·························135
Table 7.1

Descriptive Statistics of Assessment of Intelligibility and ···············145
Contributing Factors by NS and NNS Raters

Table 8.1

Rated Scores for Intelligibility ··············································160

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1.1

Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix (Levis,2005, p.382) ············ 5

Figure 1.2

Outline of the Dissertation ················································ 6

Figure 4.1

The Branch of World English (Graddol, 1998, Figure 5) ·············· 64

Figure 4.2

Proportion of Internet Users by First Language(Graddol, 2006, p.44) ······················································ 67

Figure 4.3

Kachru's Three Circles Model of English Used Worldwide(Crystal 2003, p.61) ························································ 69

Figure 4.4

Graddol's Three Circles of English of the 21st Century(Graddol 1998, p.10) ······················································· 74

Figure 4.5

The World Language Hierarchy (Graddol, 1997, p.13) ················ 76

Figure 4.6

English Language Hierarchy for Singapore(Mckay, 2002, p.56) ························································ 77

Figure 5.1

The Six Primary Speech Habits (Palmer 1924, p.327)················· 87

Figure 5.2

Schematic Diagram of a General Communication System(Shannon 1948, p.2) ························································ 88

Figure 5.3

A Blueprint for the Speaker. (Levelt,1989, p.9) ························ 89

Figure 5.4

Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix ································· 92(Levis, 2005, p.382, Figure1)

Figure 5.5

World Englishes Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix ·············· 93(Levis, 2005, p.383)

Figure 5.6

The Various Features of English Pronunciation ························ 96(Gilakjani. 2012, p.120)

Figure 5.7

The Rhythm of a Syllable-timed Language ······················

110(Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.73)
Figure 5.8

The Rhythm of a Stress-timed Language ······························· 110(Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.73)

Figure 5.9

The Stress-timed Nature of English ····································· 111(Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.74)

xFigure 5.10 Japanese and English Vowels (Imai,1980, p.23) ······················· 112
Figure 7.1

Assessment Criteria of intelligibility of the Speech ··················· 143

Figure 7.2

Path Diagram of Affecting Factors for Intelligibility Rated ·········· 146
by the Native Speakers of English

Figure 7.3

Path Diagram of Affecting Factors for Intelligibility Rated ·········· 146
by the Non- Native Speakers of English

Figure 8.1

The Role of Explicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition ··················· 153(Ellis, 2008, p.423)

Figure 8.2

Explanation of Sound Pattern ············································ 157

Figure 8.3

Practice of Sentence Stress ··············································· 158

Figure 8.4

A Slide Shown to the Experimental Group····························· 158

Figure 8.5

A Slide Given to the Control Group····································· 159

1

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background of the StudyIn the history of foreign/second language teaching, various teaching methods havebeen used, such as the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual method in the past, tocurrent the Communicative Approach. In Japan, in the time when Grammar-Translationand the Audio-Lingual methods were dominantly used, language form was excessively
emphasized. However, with the spread of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
since the 1980s, function and content of language have been emphasized over language
forms, such as grammar and pronunciation. The message conveyed in oral
communication, or oral out-put competence receives particular focus. As one measure tofoster oral communication competence, MEXT (the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology) urges English classes to be done completely in English.
While the fostering of students’ oral communication competence has been pushedforward, looking at my own experiences at teaching English at the high school anduniversity levels, and in conducting research on current English education in Japan,
pronunciation instruction seems to be less-prioritized than fostering oral out-put
competence. Though the educational guideline of junior and senior high school stipulates
paying attention to English phonological features and English textbooks cover the
pronunciation of each phoneme, rhythm, stress, and intonation, pronunciation instruction
seems to be left to each English teacher’s discretion on its instruction method and content.
One reason for this situation can be attributed to the pervasion of audio material, such as
CDs, and more recently, digitized audio file, such as mp3. Learners have beenencouraged to learn various phonological features of English by themselves throughlistening to the materials, and explicit teaching on pronunciation tends to be omitted.
Also, English phonology is currently not a compulsory subject for English teacher
training courses. This means that university students are able to attain a teacher’s2certificate of English without knowledge of English phonology. Therefore, it is likely tohappen that an English teacher who does not have systematic knowledge of English
phonology nor confidence in his/her own pronunciation would avoid pronunciation
instruction. Some research on junior/senior English teachers have shown that teachers
are generally not confident in teaching pronunciation (e.g., Shibata et al., 2006).
In the current situation of Japanese English education, English education reform
has been urged along with globalization. Fostering out-put competence, particularly oral
out-put competence for international communication has become of much importance.
In a time where the number of Japanese people, including business people andresearchers introducing academic content to the world, who communicate with nativeand non-native speakers of English is rapidly increasing, pronunciation instruction
should be emphasized given that pronunciation is essential in successful oral
communication in English. Research have shown that error in pronunciation is the largest
cause of communicative break-downs (e.g., Gallego, 1990; Jenkins, 2000). Therefore, it
is of urgent necessity to make English phonology a compulsory subject for English
teacher training courses, and to provide junior/senior English teachers withpronunciation training. It is also crucial to establish an effective pronunciation
instruction guideline. However, before discussing these matters, an inevitable question
related to pronunciation instruction arises; what level of pronunciation should a Japaneselearner/speaker of English aim for?
Regarding the question, there has been an opinion that Japanese learners should
aim for native-like pronunciation, such as RP (Received Pronunciation) and GA (General
American). On the other hand, in this global time when there is a wide variety of English,
there is also the opinion that Japanese learners can speak “Japanese English” (Suzuki,2000).
Under the current situation of English as an international language, approximately
a quarter of the world’s population has the capacity to communicate in English to a usefullevel as of 2000 (Crystal, 2003). The globalization of English is steadily growing, andthe number of non-native English speakers using English as a second language exceeds
the number of native speakers by a ratio of three to one (Crystal). There is also a wide

3

variety of English. Even in the Inner Circle defined by Kachru (1988), there are manyvarieties, such as British, American, Canadian, Australian, South African and so on. In
the Outer Circle, there are also many varieties such as Indian and Malaysian English. A
statistic shows that 74 % of oral English communications between tourists around theworld do not involve an English native speaker. (Graddol, 2006). This means there is ahigher chance that Japanese leaners communicate with non-native speakers.
Given the current situation of English, it is now required for leaners to become
capable of communicating and making themselves understood by not only native
speakers (NSs) but also non-native speakers (NNSs) who have various cultural
backgrounds. In such time, it does not seem realistic to aim for native-speaker-likepronunciation as a pedagogic goal of English pronunciation, nor feasible for many adultJapanese learners after their so-called “critical period.” On the other hand, it ismeaningless for Japanese learners to speak English which is understood only by
Japanese or native speakers who are accustomed to Japanese English in this global era.
Thus, this author claims that Japanese learners are encouraged to speak English which isunderstandable by people with various backgrounds, while maintaining their identity. In
other words, Japanese learners are to aim at attaining internationally intelligible English
pronunciation, or global intelligibility hereafter. This paper attempts to reveal what
components are contained in global intelligibility, i.e., internationally intelligible English
pronunciation, and provide guideline to foster the global intelligibility of Japaneselearners’ English pronunciation.

1.2 Purpose of the Study
More than a half century ago, Abercrombie (1956) stated that general learners ofEnglish should aim for “comfortably intelligible” pronunciation, not for a “perfect”
pronunciation. Comfortably intelligible pronunciation meant “a pronunciation which canbe understood with little or no conscious effort on the part of the listener (p.37). Since
then, there have been many studies regarding the factors of what determines
intelligibility of English pronunciation (e.g., Gimson, 1978; Jenkins, 2000; Quirk, 1981).
This paper investigates the factors determining global intelligibility, particularly

4for Japanese learners, based on the theoretical construct of intelligibility, by referring toprevious literature. The factors are also investigated by conducting research and analysisof the data. A guideline for Japanese learners to guarantee global intelligibility of English
pronunciation is then suggested. In summary, the purposes of the study are as follows:(1) To build the theoretical construct regarding factors determining global intelligibility.
(2) To investigate the factors determining the global intelligibility of English
pronunciation through analysis of Japanese university students’ speech from both
native and non-native speakers’ points of view.
(3) To suggest pedagogical guidelines which guarantee global intelligibility forJapanese learners based on results retrieved from previous articles and texts and theresearch conducted here.

1.3 Significance of the Study
Being intelligible in pronunciation has been viewed as a one-way process of anative speaker of English assessing whether a non-native speaker’s utterance isunderstandable enough from a native speaker’s perspective. Nelson (1982) clearly statedthat “we want to examine whether a speaker of a non-native variety of English is
intelligible to a speaker of a native variety, and if not, why not” (p.59). In communication
in English, the interaction shown as C in the Figure 1.1 has been emphasized until
recently. However, as already stated, this view is problematic since the globalization of
the world has never been more rapid than currently, and English is steadily becoming a
global language. Thus, there is a high probability that the interlocutor of acommunication is a non-native speaker. More attention should be focused on interaction
shown in D.

5

Figure 1.1
Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix (Levis,2005, p.382)
LISTENER
Native Speaker

Nonnative Speaker

NativeSpeaker

A. NS → NS

B. NS → NNS

Nonnative
SpeakerC. NNS → NS

D. NNS → NNS

SPEAKER

Regarding Japanese EFL learners’ phonological intelligibility, there are some studies on
it from both native and non-native speakers’ perspectives (e.g., Kashiwagi & Snider,2013). However, still many studies have focused on it from the native speaker’s point ofview. Keeping in mind that being intelligible to both native and non-native speakers is
crucial now, it is hoped that this paper leads to the better understanding of the factors
defining the global intelligibility both in theoretical and practical levels, and bring aneffective guideline for pronunciation instruction for pedagogical use.

1.4 Structure of the Dissertation
In order to fulfill the three purposes stated above, this paper is divided into threemain parts as seen in the Figure 1.2. The first part (Part 1) reports the past and current
situation regarding pronunciation instruction in L2 teaching with a purpose of gaining
better understanding of issues related to pronunciation instruction both in the world andin Japan. The content includes the historical overview of pronunciation instruction in L2
teaching and current situation of pronunciation instruction in English language educationin Japan, by examining how Educational Guidelines, major English textbooks andformal examinations cover pronunciation.

6

The second part (Part 2) describes the theoretical construct of intelligibility of English
pronunciation in terms of the fact that English is rapidly becoming a global language.
Finally, in the third part (Part 3), in an attempt to determine the factors affecting global
intelligibility, three studies are conducted. Based on the results, in the conclusion, aguideline which guarantees global intelligibility for Japanese learners is suggested.

7Part 1
Overview

8

Chapter 2
History of Pronunciation Instruction in Foreign/Second Language Teaching
and Research on Pronunciation

2.1 Introduction
Throughout history, foreign language education has experienced changes andmodifications, depending on historical backgrounds, individual regional circumstances,and other factors. Various methodologies, approaches and techniques have been adopted
based on these factors. As Richards and Rodgers (2014) point out, such changes havemainly focused on two factors. The first set of changes have been made around the goalsof language teaching, such as a move toward oral proficiency rather than reading
comprehension as the goal of language study. The second changes have been concernedwith theories of the nature of language and of language learning.
Language education history has changed from the period where learners weremerely exposed to a target language without any particular theoretical bases, to theperiod where approaches and methods have been developed based on scientificknowledge. The theoretical bases have been extended from linguistics to applied,
psychological and sociolinguistics, and other related fields of science (Tazaki,1995).
This chapter first describes the historical changes that have taken place in foreign
language education. Subsequently, the place and way of pronunciation instruction ineach approach and method are stated. Finally, current pronunciation instruction research
is discussed, and the future direction of pronunciation instruction is explored.

2.2 A Historical Review of Foreign/Second Language Teaching
2.2.1 Before 1850
In the middle ages in Europe, teaching Latin was the center of the educational
curriculum, when Latin was still a real language. As time elapsed, Latin became a deadlanguage that was only used for special cases. However, it remained an important subject

9in the educational system. Latin was taught through translation and via a grammaroriented approach. This teaching method is the so-called Grammar Translation Method(GTM).
GTM was used widely until the early of 19th century for foreign language teaching.
In fact, it is still being used in a lot of ESL/EFL teaching. In GTM classes, teaching focus
is mostly on reading and writing. A typical exercise is to translate sentences from thetarget language into the mother tongue. The leaners are expected to familiarize
themselves with foreign literature, and to deepen their understanding of their own L1
grammar by learning the grammatical rules of a foreign language. It is also expected thatthe learners develop intellectually by learning a foreign language in GTM (LarsenFreeman, 2000).
In the classical teaching approach or method, represented by GTM in the 19th
century, written language, not spoken language for actual usage, was prioritized. It isapparent that the result of learning through GTM is the inability to use the language forcommunication.

2.2.2 Reaction to the Traditional Approach
Between 1850 and 1880, there appeared educators and researchers who reacted
against the traditional teaching method whose focus on written language with the resultof producing learners who could not use the foreign language they had been studying.
They claimed that oral proficiency should be prioritized. Berlitz (1852-1921), forinstance, who was born in Germany, later went to America and then became an English
teacher teaching immigrants there, claimed that learning a foreign language should bedone using the same process that an infant undergoes to acquire his/her mother tongue
and attempted to apply this process to language learning. He established the Berlitz
School of Language which currently has schools in 70 countries (Murphy & Baker,2015).
In Europe, Gouin and Marcel in France and Predergast in England also questioned
the traditional teaching methods, such as GTM. They were interested in prioritizing
speaking over reading and writing (Tazaki, 1995). Gouin developed a teaching approach10

based on observation of infants and children using their mother tongues (Richards &Rodgers, 2014).
The methods proposed by the educators and researchers above stated (Gouin
Method, or Psychological Method, Berlitz Methods, or Natural Method) are generally
known as “Direct Method (s).” The basic principles of the Direct method are:
1. Instruction is given in the target foreign language only.
2. Acquiring the sound of the language is prioritized over writing and grammar
learning.
3. Actions, pictures and demonstrations are used to make a direct link between aforeign language and meaning.
4. Grammar is learned inductively (Tazaki, 1995).

Successors of the Direct Method in the 20th century proposed so-called “naturalistic
methods”, such as comprehension methods which set the term of exposing learners to
the language sound before teaching them to speak. These methods include Asher(1977)’s Total Physical Response, and Krashen and Terrell (1996)’s Natural Approach.
Many researchers had criticized the Direct Method, and as Rivers (1968) pointed
out, the main problem with the Direct Method is that it tried to apply the process ofinfants acquiring their mother tongue to adult or adolescent learners who had alreadyestablished their L1 language habits. However, Tazaki (1995) states that it cannot bedenied the method is still effective, particularly for introductory-level teaching. Also,
Richards and Rodgers (2014) argue that “one of the lasting legacies of the Direct Method
was the notion of ‘method’ itself”, and it presented “the first of many debates over how
second and foreign languages should be taught” (p.14).
The stream of the Direct Method led to the so-called “Reform Movement” which
was acknowledged as a milestone of foreign language teaching. In 1886, phoneticians,
such as Henry Sweet in England, Wilhelm Viëtor in Germany, and Paul Passy in France,
who researched and analyzed the sound of languages scientifically, established theInternational Phonetic Association in Paris. The Association then developed theInternational Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) in order to transcribe any languages in 1888.

11

These movements are referred to as “the Reform Movement” and they have had a great
effect on foreign language teaching.
Walters (2009) states three reasons for considering the Reform Movement asimportant. The first is that it emphasized the importance of a scientific approach toselecting and dealing with the content of teaching a foreign language. The second is thatit emphasized the importance of accurate pronunciation so that the learners could makethemselves understood. The third is that the Reform Movement principles have formeda base for applied linguistics today.
Wilhelm Viëtor (1850-1918) and Henry Sweet (1845-1912) who were involved in
the Reform Movement suggested that foreign language teaching should start withpronunciation instruction, and teachers needed the full-scale knowledge of phonology(Tazaki, 1995). Their claims were the same as the Direct Method in terms of prioritizing
sounds of language. However, they were essentially different in terms of teaching alanguage in a scientific and organizational way, not by intuitively imitating sounds.
Later in the 19th century, Harold Palmer (1877-1949) who was the first directorof the Institute for Research in English Teaching (IRET) in Japan and A.S. Hornby(1898-1978) also claimed that oral language should take precedent in foreign language
teaching. They adopted the Reform Movement principles, such as teachingpronunciation by utilizing the International Phonetic Alphabet. They admitted some useof leaners L1 in teaching and the role of translation, and this was an eclectic position.
They established the scientific foundation of foreign language teaching (Richards &Rodgers, 2014; Tazaki, 1995). Their approach to language teaching is called the Oral
Approach or Situational Language Teaching.
According to Richards and Rodgers (2014), the following are the main
characteristics of the Oral Approach:

1. Language teaching begins with the spoken language. Material is taught orally
before it is presented in written form.
2. The target language is the language of the classroom.
3. New language points are introduced and practiced situationally.

12

4. Vocabulary selection procedures are followed to ensure that an essential generalservice vocabulary is covered.
5. Items of grammar are graded following the principle that simple forms should betaught before complex ones.
6. Reading and writing are introduced once a sufficient lexical and grammatical basis
is established. (p.47)

The influence of the Oral Approach is still seen in many ESL/EFL classrooms andtextbooks. Richard and Rodgers (2014) state that one of the biggest legacies of the Oral
Approach is its PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) format. As highlighted up to thispoint, the new stream of a foreign language teaching as a reaction to the traditional
approach provided the basic foundation for language teaching development thereafter.

2.2.3 Prosperity and Decline of Audio-Lingual Method Between 1940s and 1970
In the 1940s, there appeared the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) in North America,
which was supported by the theory of structural linguistics and behaviorism, andSituational Language Teaching in Great Britain which was a successor to the Oral
Approach.
In structural linguistics, languages are approached in a scientific manner and its
important tenet is that “the primary medium of language is oral: Speech is language”(Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.63). Therefore, speech was thought of as the first priorityof language teaching. Behaviorism also flourished at that point. Behavioristpsychologist Skinner posited that language learning was a process of habit formation.
When there is a stimulus, there is a response triggered by the stimulus. Then, when the
response is repeated appropriately, it is reinforced.
Many linguists, such as Fries (1945), were influenced by the behaviorist
perspective of the nature of foreign language learning, that learners respond to newlearning content as stimulus, and the response becomes reinforced when the response isappropriate, by informing them that the response is correct.
Structural linguistics development led to an analysis of language structure, and the

13findings of contrastive analysis were adopted into the syllabus. The method which values
the sound of language and its structure is called the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM).
Celce-Murcia (2013) points out that ALM is similar to the Direct Method but adds
features from structuralism and behaviorism. She outlines the method as below:

a. begins lessons with dialogs
b. uses mimicry and memorization because it assumes that language is habit
formationc. grammatical structures are sequenced
d. grammar is taught inductively
e. skills are sequenced: listening and speaking- reading and writing (postponed)
f. pronunciation is stressed from the beginningg. vocabulary is severely limited in the initial stages
h. great effort is made to prevent error
i. language is often manipulated without regard to meaning or content
j. the teacher’s role can be compared to that of a dog trainerk. the teacher must be proficient only in the structures, vocabulary, etc. that
she/he is teaching, since learning activities and materials are carefully controlled(pp.3-4)

ALM was the first language teaching method based on linguistics and psychology(Tazaki, 1995). It was dominant from the 1940s to the 1960s with its peak occurring
during the 1960s. However, ALM began to be criticized for prioritizing the form of alanguage over the content. It was also claimed that it neglected the innate nature oflanguage acquisition and human perceptual ability. Furthermore, a lot of learners wholearned using the Audio-Lingual procedure claimed that the experience was boring andunsatisfying, and they could not use the skills acquired in the ALM outside of theclassroom settings (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
While ALM prospered, the Cognitive approach / Cognitive-Code-Learning (CCL)
appeared in the 1960s based on Chomsky’s transformational-generative grammar and14

cognitive psychology as its theoretical foundation. The proponents of the cognitive
approach emphasized understanding the structure and rules of the target language
intellectually, and language learning as “an active mental process rather than a processof habit formation” (Murphy & Baker, 2015, p.47).
Other than CCL, there appeared various teaching methods in America in the 1970s.
Representatives of these approaches include Community Language Learning, the Silent
Way, Suggestopedia, and Comprehension approaches, such as Total Physical Response(TPR). Murphy and Baker (2015) call them the “designer methods of the 1970s” (p.50).

2.2.4 Advent of CLT and its Stream Toward Today
In the 1970s, as a reaction to CCL, researchers started to claim that learners did
not become capable of communicating in the target language even after they had
acquired the linguistic structure. It was also suggested that learners who learned in CCL
could produce sentences accurately inside the classroom, but they could not use themproperly in the outside world. That meant knowing the rules of linguistic usage was not
sufficient (e.g., Widdowson, 1978).
Under these circumstances, Hymes (1971) proposed that communicativecompetence was necessary in order to be able to communicate, not just linguisticcompetence proposed by Chomsky. Richards and Rodgers (2014) explain thecommunicative competence as below:

The concept of communicative competence entails a much broader understanding of
language as a means of getting things accomplished in an appropriate manner.
…essentially, language and communication are interdependent in the sense that
language serve the purpose of communicating the speaker’s objectives. (pp.85-86)

In Europe, particularly in England, there was a functionalism tradition as a reaction to
Chomsky and other CCL components’ formalism. Those functional linguists, such as
Firth and Halliday, perceived languages in their social context and pursued research into
language acquisition, discourse analysis and pragmatics. Additionally, Speech Act

15

theory proposed by Austin, Searle and Grice, approached language usage in terms of its
functional aspect (Tazaki, 1995).
In the 1970s, political and economic exchange flourished among EC countries. As
a result, having foreign language proficiency became more and more important. These
circumstances led to the Council of Europe’s project formed by specialists, such as Van
Ek and Wilkins. The project attempted to guarantee European adult citizens a thresholdlevel of foreign-language ability for communication. The project analyzed learners’social, vocational and academic needs and formed a unit/credit system. In an attempt toestablish the system, a notional/functional syllabus was suggested.
Those changes brought about a shift from a linguistic structure-centered approach,such as Cognitive-Code-Learning to Communicative Approach in the late 1970s to thebeginning of the 1980s (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a teaching method that applies thetheory of Communicative Approach with acquiring communicative competence as agoal of teaching and learning. In CLT, the function of language is prioritized over theform of language, and a functional syllabus is generally adopted in CLT. Richards andRodgers (2014) describe the characteristics of the communicative view of language as
below:

1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function of language is to allow interaction and communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structuralfeatures, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified
in discourse.
5. Communicative competence entails knowing how to use language for a range ofdifferent purposes and functions as well as the following dimensions of language
knowledge.
･Knowing how to vary use of language according to the setting and theparticipants (e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to16

use language appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication)･ Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives,
reports, interview, conversations)･ Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s
language knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication
strategies). (pp. 89-90)

CLT is different from other existing methods in the sense that there is “no single text orauthority on it emerged, nor any single model that was universally accepted as
authoritative” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.86). However, as Littlewood (1981) points
out, one of its characteristic features is that it puts systematic focus on functional as well
as structural aspects of language.
Furthermore, Richards and Rodgers (2014) describe the basic elements of learningtheory of CLT, which were inferred from CLT practices as follows:

the communication principle: activities that involve real communication promotelearning.
the task principle: activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningfultasks promote learning.
the meaningfulness principle: language that is meaningful to the learner supports thelearning process. Learning activities are consequently selected according to how wellthey engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely
mechanical practice of language patterns). (p.90)

In CLT, since individual learning activity is considered important, the syllabus, which isthe framework of conducting each activity is the center of discussion. For example,
Wilkins (1976)’s notional syllabus, which stipulated semantic-grammatical categories(e.g., frequency, motion, location) and communicative functional categories is the firstand most influential syllabus (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Various syllabuses were
proposed thereafter.

17

The most salient feature of a CLT classroom is that all the learning activities aredesigned with communicative intent in mind. Learners are expected to use the target
language through communicative activities, such as games, role-playing and problemsolving tasks based on its learning principle, that is, meaningful communication
promotes language learning.
CLT has been pervasive until now and there have been various approaches which
derived from this approach. For example, CBI (content-based instruction) has its origins
in French immersion education in Canada and was systemized in North America in the
1980s. It is known as an approach used by native speaker teachers who teach ESL
learners, mostly in North America. Brinton (2003) states that the distinguishing featureof CBI is that the concurrent learning of a specific content and related language use skills
in a content driven curriculum.
On the other hand, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) started in
1995 when the Council of Europe set a foreign language education goal ofplurilingualism, fostering European citizens who are able to communicate in languages
other than their own. CLIL has mainly been adopted in the EFL environment, where
English is taught as a foreign language. In the CLIL approach, non-native English
teachers normally teach subjects other than English by using English. Dalton-Puffer(2011) states that “CLIL can be described as an educational approach where curricular
content is taught through the medium of a foreign language, typically to students
participating in some form of mainstream education at the primary, secondary, or tertiarylevel” (p.183). In addition, TBLT (Task-Based Language Teaching) is the approach
where “the primary unit for both designing a language programme and for planning
individual lessons should be a ‘task’” (Ellis, 2009, p.223).
As briefly stated, various approaches and methods have been developed based on
CLT and its theoretical foundation. These approaches and methods are widespread
nowadays. At the same time, past popular approaches and methods are still relevant andof importance in the current language learning environment. Thus, current ESL/EFL
teachers tend to take rather eclectic and flexible approaches according to their own
learners and situations. The next section investigates how pronunciation instruction has

18

been regarded and dealt with in each approach and method.

2.3 Place of Pronunciation Instruction in Main Methods
In the history of language teaching, pronunciation had not been understood as wellas grammar and vocabulary nor studied systematically by linguists, language teachersand other related specialists until shortly before the beginning of the 20th century. Kelly(1969), for instance, stated that pronunciation instruction had received relative neglect
in the language classroom compared to grammar and vocabulary. However, as stated in
the preceding section, the situation changed shortly before the Reform Movement.
Murphy and Baker (2015) show four Waves of pronunciation instruction during thepast 150 years as follows:

Wave 1. A “precursor” period beginning in the mid-1800s, during which pedagogical
specialists began to reject conventional conceptions of language teachingin favour of an intuitively-based emphasis on spoken communication.
Wave 2. The reform movement initiated in the late 1800s that saw the developmentof the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and the application ofprinciples from phonetics to language pedagogy.
Wave 3. The influence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which, by themid-1980s, spawned the development of new teaching materials to facilitate
the incorporation of pronunciation in CLT classrooms.
Wave 4. The application of empirical research to pronunciation instruction, whichbegan in earnest in the 1990s.

Table 2.1 shows the pronunciation teaching approaches of the main methods (based on
Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; and Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The next section describes thesewaves along with the place of pronunciation instruction in main methods and approaches.

19

Table 2.1
Pronunciation Teaching Approaches of Main Methods
Years

MethodIts philosopy of pronunciation teaching

Since the Middle
Ages

The GrammmarTranslation
MethodOral communication is not the primary goal of language
instruction. Therefore little attention is given to speaking, andalmost none to pronunciation.

the late 1800s
and early 1900s

The Direct Method

Oral communication is seen as basis and pronunciation should
be worked on right from the beginning of language instruction.

1930-1960

The Audio-Lingual
Method/Oral Approach

Pronunciation is very important and is taught explicitly fromthe start. Teachers should provide studetns with a good model.
Teachers used a visual transcription system or articulation
chart.

1960s

The Cognitive
Approach

It deempasized pronunciation in favor of grammar andvocabulary because,its advocates aruged (1) native-likepronunciation was an unrealistic objective and (2) time would
be better spent on teaching more learnable items.

The Silent Way

Language is not learned by repeating after a model. Withvisual cues the teacher helps students develop their own inner"criteria" for correctness. They must trust and be responsible
for their own production in the target language.

1970s
The pronunciation syllabus is primarily students initiated andCommunity Language
designed.Students decide what they want to practice and use
Learning
the teacher as a resource.

mid-to late1970s-Present

Communicative
ApproachStudents should work with language at the discourse or
suprasentential level. The ultimate goal is communication.This
focus on laguage as communication brings renewed urgency tothe the teaching of intellibile pronunciation.

2.3.1 From Traditional Grammar Translation Methods to the Direct Method
As seen in the preceding section, before Wave 1, until the middle of 19th century,
written language was prioritized over spoken language and learners were expected toread and translate literature. Therefore, there was little focus on speaking. In these
traditional methods, such as the Grammar Translation Methods and reading-based
approaches, oral communication was not the main goal of teaching. Thus, the sounds oflanguage received little attention. When pronunciation is taught in the traditional

20

approaches, individual word pronunciation is practiced by repeating monotonously andthere is almost no instruction on the suprasegmental features of a language, such as
intonation and rhythm (Ogawa, 1982).
In the 1850s, as stated in the preceding section, specialists and researchers
emerged who claimed oral proficiency as a primary goal of language teaching, such as
Berlitz, Gouin, Marcel, Pedergast. Murphy and Baker (2015) call this movement Wave
1, the first wave of pronunciation teaching. The influence of the specialists was rather
limited in language classrooms, but its stream led to the more widespread teaching
method, that is, the Direct Method which appeared in the end of 19th century.
In the Direct Method, pronunciation received attention from the beginning of
instruction. Pronunciation is taught through intuition and imitation. Students wereencouraged to imitate the model presented by the teacher or recordings as accurately as
possible and repeat them. Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) define the teaching approach
represented by the Direct Method as “an intuitive-imitative approach”.

An intuitive-imitative approach depends on the learner’s ability to listen to andimitate the rhythms and sounds of the target language without the intervention of any
explicit information; it also presupposes the availability of good models to listen to,a possibility that has been enhanced by the availability first of phonograph records,
then tape recorders and language labs in the mid-twenties century, and more recentlyof audio-and videocassettes and compact discs. (p.2)

The Direct Method later led to naturalistic methods in the 20th century. The examples ofthe methods are Asher (1977)’s Total Physical Response, and Krashen and Terell(1996)’s Natural Approach. The salient feature of these methods is that they assumed
learners received and understood input without production at the first stage of learning,and production then occurred naturally.

2.3.2 Reform Movement
Between the 1880s and the beginning of the 1900s,the Wave 2,or the second wave

21

of pronunciation teaching occurred. The Reform movement, which was a milestone ofpronunciation instruction, occurred during this period. As a part of the movement, thedevelopment of the International Phonetic Alphabet by phoneticians, such as Henry
Sweet, Wilhelm Viëtor and Paul Passy had a particularly strong impact on foreign
language education thereafter.
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) state that “A phonetic alphabet made it possible toaccurately represent the sounds of any language because, for the first time, there was aconsistent one-to-one relationship between a written symbol and the sound it represented”(p.3). Setter and Jenkins (2005) also admit that IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) is“capable of representing the full inventory of sounds of all known languages” and “Thepervasiveness of the IPA in pronunciation teaching and research is attested by the fact
that, over a hundred years later, it is still the universally acknowledged system ofphonetic transcription” (p.2).
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) state that phoneticians involved in the International
Phonetic Association proposed the following principles of language teaching and thatthey had a great influence on current language teaching, particularly pronunciationteaching. The principles are seen below:

・The spoken form of a language is primary and should be taught first.
・The findings of phonetics should be applied in language teaching.
・Teachers must have a solid training in phonetics.
・Learners should be given phonetic training to establish good speech habit. (p.3)

Although there were times when pronunciation instruction was dismissed after the
Reform Movement, the principles are still evident (Setter & Jenkins, 2005). The
pronunciation instruction approach based on these principles is dubbed “an analyticlinguistic approach” in contrast to “an intuitive-imitative” approach suggested by CelceMurcia et al. (1996). According to them, an analytic-linguistic approach “utilizes
information and tools such as phonetic alphabet, articulatory descriptions, charts of the
vocal apparatus, contrastive information, and other aids to supplement listening,22

imitation and production,” and it “explicitly informs the learner of and focuses attention
on the sounds and rhythms of the target language” (p.2).
In many of today’s pronunciation-dedicated language classes, both the intuitiveimitative approach and analytic-linguistic approach have been integrated and are used
(Murphy & Baker, 2015).

2.3.3 Audio-Lingual Method and Situational Language Teaching
The time period between the Reform Movement in the 1920s and the 1950s, whenthe Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) in America and Situational Language Teaching inGreat Britain appeared, is called “a period of consolidation” by Murphy and Baker (2015). According to them, a lot of research on native English speakers’ pronunciation was
conducted in terms of both segmental and suprasegmental levels during this time.
In the1950s, Abercrombie (1956) claimed the necessity of “comfortably
intelligible pronunciation” (p.37). Abercrombie’s view of pronunciation goals has had agreat impact on the current goals of pronunciation instruction (e.g., Munro & Derwing,2011). In 1950s, Audio-Lingual Method also appeared and flourished. In ALM, oral
skills were prioritized and pronunciation was taught explicitly from the beginning of
instruction (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Its pronunciation instruction is similar to the Direct
Method in the way that a teacher presents a model of pronunciation, and learners imitate
the model, and repeat them, but different in the way a teacher teaches pronunciation
explicitly by using phonetic information such as the IPA system and an articulatory chart.
ALM is an analytic-linguistic approach.
One of the most characteristic activities of ALM is presenting leaners withminimal pairs, that is, “pairs of words that differ in meaning on the basis of a change in
only one sound” (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, p.40). In ALM, pronunciation accuracy is
crucial. Contrastive analysis predicts the difficulty of pronunciation for learners
according to their L1. These difficult phonemes are practiced by presenting and having
learners practice the difference by repeating. The following are examples:

23

/θ/

/s/

thank

sank

think

sink

bath

bass

math

mass

As stated, pronunciation instruction was the priority of language teaching both in the
ALM and Oral Approaches along with accurate grammar. The order of pronunciation
instruction then was started from segmentals and then moved to suprasegmentals. That
reflected the view of language and language learning approaches of ALM and Oral
Approach. Morley (1991) explains the view as follows:In general, language was viewed as consisting of hierarchies of structurally related
items for encoding meaning. Language learning was viewed as mastering these
forms, the building blocks of the language, along with the combining rules forphonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, sentences. The pronunciation class in thiswas one that gave primary attention to phonemes and their meaningful contrasts,
environmental allophonic variations, and combinatory phonetic rules, along withstructurally based attention to stress, rhythm, and intonation. (pp.484-485)

2.3.4 Decline of Pronunciation Instruction and Advent of Various Methods
As stated in the preceding section, Cognitive-Code-Learning (CCL), which had
its heyday in the 1960s, emphasized grammar and vocabulary. On the other hand, little
attention was paid to pronunciation due to the following reasons. Firstly, it had beenargued that native-like pronunciation was an unrealistic objective and could not be
achieved (Scovel, 1969). Secondly, as Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) discuss, it was believedthat pronunciation was less learnable than other items such as grammatical structures
and words.
Under such circumstances, there was wide debate over the importance ofpronunciation as an instructional focus and whether pronunciation was teachable, or24learnable in the course of ESL curriculum between the end of the 1960s and the
beginning of the1970s. As a result, pronunciation instruction received less attention in
many programs, ESL curriculum and materials (Morley, 1991). Seidlhofer (2001)
explains during that time, that “pronunciation lost its unquestioned role as a pivotal
component in the curriculum, and class time spent on pronunciation was greatly reduced
or even dispensed with altogether” (p.57).
However, according to Murphy and Baker (2015), CCL perspectives contributed
to the development of pronunciation instruction thereafter by attracting teachers’
attention to pursuing more analytic-linguistic ways of teaching.
Through the decade of the 1970s, there appeared various methods other than CCL.
Among them, in the Silent Way, accurate production was emphasized by visualizing eachsound, stress and intonation, using a “sound-color chart” and “rods” (Larsen-Freeman,
2000). Also, Community Language Learning which was developed by Curran who was
influenced by the Humanistic Approach, emphasizes pronunciation and set a lot of
pronunciation practice in its teaching.
In the 1970s, a lot of ESL researchers suggested a change of focus and an
expansion of classroom practice. They started to present pronunciation-related topics onarticles. Morley (1991) states that these topics were to be issues of continuing concern
into the 1980s, and categorizes them as follows:(a) basic philosophical considerations for teaching pronunciations; (b) the
importance of meanings and contextualized practice; (c) learner involvement, selfmonitoring, and learners’ feelings; (d) learner cognitive involvement; (e)intelligibility issues; (f) variability issues; (g) correction issues; (h) increasing
attention to stress, rhythm, intonation, reductions, assimilations, etc.; (i) expanded
perspectives on listening/pronunciation focus; (j) attention to the sound-spelling link
(p.486).

2.3.5 Communicative Language Teaching
The third wave of pronunciation instruction, or Wave 3 referred by Murphy and25

Baker (2015) occurred in late 1970s when Communicative Language Teaching wasdeveloped. Since CLT focuses on developing leaners’ communicative competence as ateaching goal, and its focus is communication, pronunciation instruction both onsegmental and suprasegmental level became crucial (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996;
Seidlhofer, 2001). By this time, intelligible pronunciation was generally accepted as oneof the necessary components of communicative competence (Morley, 1991).
Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu (2010) classify the CLT approach to pronunciation
instruction as an integrative approach adopting both intuitive-imitative and analyticlinguistic approaches. Pronunciation activities based on CLT principles are generally inthe form of activities, such as information gap and role-play, which have leaners engage
in meaningful communication.
However, communicative activities based on meaningful interaction diverted
learners’ attention from language form, such as pronunciation, to content of language
while an attempt to develop leaners’ communicative competence is made as a primary
goal of teaching (Seidlhofer, 2001). As a result, more value is put on developing interestin communicating in a language than accuracy of form. These characteristics of CLT led
to a decline in focus on pronunciation instruction in the ESL classroom (Brinton, 2017).
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) point out that there is no definite method ofpronunciation instruction in CLT as follows:

Having established that intelligible pronunciation is one of the necessary componentsof oral communication, the next issue is methodological: How can teachers improve
the pronunciation of unintelligible speakers of English so that they become
intelligible? This is a problem for Communicative Language Teaching, since
proponents of this approach have not dealt adequately with the role of pronunciationin language teaching, nor have they developed and agreed-upon set of strategies forteaching pronunciation communicatively. (p.8)

In addition, there was relatively less research on foreign/second language
pronunciation instruction compared to reading and writing from the1980s to the 1990s.

26That reflected the degree of maturation of pronunciation instruction. However, Murphy
and Baker (2015) state that “while research base may have been thin, third wave
specialists of the 1980s-1990s were successful in integrating imitative-intuitive,
analytic-linguistic, and communicative means of teaching pronunciation” (p.54).
Seidlhofer (2001) also affirms “the absence of one particular methodological orthodoxy”
can be an opportunity for teachers to choose the most appropriate approach according totheir learners. Seidlhofer also states the importance of recognizing that the role ofEnglish in the world has been reconceptualized, and it has been accompanied by a“broadening of attitudes towards different native-and non-native varieties, including
accents” (p.57). These changes have made pronunciation teaching more diversified thanever.

2.3.6 Application of Empirical Research on L2 Pronunciation to Teaching
The Wave 4 of pronunciation instruction, which saw the application of empiricalresearch to pronunciation instruction started at the beginning of the 1990s (Murphy &Baker, 2015). There had appeared various teaching approaches and methods before
1990s, however, there was still a lack of empirical research in an attempt to improve thequality of foreign/second language pronunciation instruction. Brown (1991) lamented
that pronunciation instruction had not received enough attention from researchers at thatpoint.
However, Morley (1991) stated that interest in pronunciation instruction in thelanguage classroom then seemed to grow again after it was reduced and sometimes
almost eliminated from the curriculum. From that point, pronunciation instruction started
to receive attention from teachers and researchers. As already stated, intelligible
pronunciation was considered an essential factor in communicative competence.
In spite of the growing interest in pronunciation instruction, however, research in
the field was still relatively little even after the year 2000. According to Brinton (2017),
the number of articles on pronunciation remained less than 10 % of all articles in Applied
Linguistics Journals between 2000 and 2010. Levis (2015) indicates that until the early
2000, foreign/second language pronunciation research was characterized by “scattered27

nature of work, and a lack of institutional support” (p.1), and as a result, teachers reported
that they could not respond to their students’ needs on pronunciation.
However, the situation surrounding pronunciation instruction started to change
when TESOL Quarterly’s commissioned volume issued in 2005 was dedicated topronunciation research. Brinton (2017) affirms that this volume “marked an importantmilestone” (p.258) in pronunciation instruction and research. After this, there were more
articles and presentations on pronunciation at conferences. In addition, the first annual
conference dedicated to foreign/second language pronunciation issues was establishedin 2009. The conference was Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching(PSLLT), held in Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Brinton (2017) recognizes its
achievement in providing an important venue for teachers and researchers alike to share
their work. This movement then led to publication of the “Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation” by Benjamin in 2015. The journal was dedicated to the area of study andit brought “the legitimacy to pronunciation research” (Brinton, 2017, p.258).
For the first time in the history of pronunciation instruction, in the Wave 4,
foreign/second language pronunciation became established as a firmly independent fieldof research, where the empirical research being conducted serves to support advances inpronunciation research, as in the same manner as foreign/second reading and writing.
Brinton (2017) welcomes the new stream as follows:This fortuitous juncture of research and practice is all too rare in Applied Linguistics
in general and sets the stage for a future where researchers and practitioners can workside by side to continue building a bright future for pronunciation research andpedagogy. (p.266)

2. 4 Directions of Pronunciation Instruction in Foreign/Second Language Teaching
As seen in the preceding section, interest in foreign/second pronunciation
among teachers and researchers has been increasing. This section describes the current
main foci of foreign/second pronunciation and pronunciation instruction. Table 2.2
shows three macro-level focus of research topics (based on Murphy & Baker, 2015, p.57,

28

Table 3.1).

Table 2. 2
Empirical Research that Supports ESL Pronunciation Teaching
Macro-level Theme A: exploring what to teach in English pronunciation
Theme 1: Effects of segmentals and supra-segmentals on the intelligibility/comprehensibility of L2 speech and implications for teaching ESL
Theme 2: Effects of sociocultural factors on the intelligibility/comprehensibilityof L2 speech and implications for teaching ESL
Theme 3: Contrasting analyses of L1 and L2 English speakers’ production andimplications for teaching ESL
Macro-level Theme B: exploring how to teach pronunciation effectively
Theme 1: Establishing priorities in pronunciation instruction
Theme 2: Impact of instruction on learner intelligibility and/or phonologicalimprovement
Theme 3: Pronunciation strategies for successful oral communication
Macro-level Theme C: teachers’ cognitions (belief and knowledge) and learners’
perspectives on pronunciation instruction
Theme 1: Learners’ preferences regarding pronunciation instruction, feedback
and accents
Theme 2: Learners’ language awareness, aural comprehension skills andimproved pronunciation
Theme 3: Teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about pronunciation instruction

Brinton (2017) also shows the research foci of pronunciation and pronunciation
instruction as below:
1. Pronunciation as a construct: Research into the general nature of pronunciationand its subcomponents;
2. The learner: Research into issues that affect the learner’s acquisition of L2
phonological features;

29

3. The teacher: research into issues that affect the teacher’s ability to function
effectively in the pronunciation classroom; and4. The classroom: Research into issues related to classroom pedagogy (p.259).

As seen in the Murphy and Baker (2015)’s classification, “Macro-level Theme A,”
learners’ intelligibility and comprehensibility account for a large portion of research.
Brinton (2017) also states as a construct of learners’ pronunciation, the relation between
accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility plays a relative role. Brinton defines accent,intelligibility and comprehensibility as below:

accent is used to refer to the degree to which a speaker sound “foreign” or deviatesfrom a given variety of English.
intelligibility refers to the extent to which that speaker’s utterance are easily
understood by the interlocutor
comprehensibility, which is defined as the degree of effort required on the listener’s
part to comprehend the speaker. (p.259)

Regarding the relation between accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility, Derwing
and Munro (1997) report from their experimental research that they are related to eachother, but not equivalent, and accented speech does not necessarily impede intelligibility.
As for Brinton’s classification of research focus, 2 (the learner), Brinton (2017)
suggests learners’ variables contributing to pronunciation mastery as follows: (1) the
learner’s L1, (2) age of L2 acquisition, (3) gender, (4) language aptitude, (5) attitude
toward the L2 and L2 speakers, (6) type and amount of motivation, (7) length ofresidence in an English-speaking country, (8) amount of formal L2 instruction, and (9)the relative amount of L2 and L2 use (p.261).
Regarding the classification 3 (the teacher), Brinton (2017) presents factors
contributing to individual teacher’s skill levels as follows: (1) quality of teacher
preparation, (2) opportunities for professional development, (3) the guidelines oflanguage policies and/ or educational standards, (4) the availability of teacher resources,

30

and (5) whether the teacher is a native or non-native speaker (p.262). For example, in
their study examining the effects of whether the teacher was a native or nonnative
speaker of English, Levis et al. (2016) report that being a native speaker English teacher
or not is not a crucial factor in teachers being effective pronunciation teachers.
In their description of research focus, “Theme 2” of “Macro-level Theme B,” thatis, the impact of instruction on learner intelligibility and/or phonological improvement,
Baker and Murphy (2011) conclude that classroom-based research findings have shown
explicit instruction improves leaners’ pronunciation intelligibility and comprehensibility.
Some examples of the research will be shown in Chapters 5, 7 and 8.
Regarding classroom-based research, Brinton (2017) presents research viewpoints
focusing on “how effective and explicit focus on pronunciation is, which methods ofpronunciation feedback lead to better results, whether teaching materials reflect researchfindings, how most effectively to assess leaners’ pronunciation, how to integratetechnological advances into the teaching of pronunciation, and which items are most
crucial to include in the pronunciation syllabus for EIL” (p.263). Of all the topics, thelast one shown by Brinton is a relatively new area of research and it has a “wide-reachingsocio-political impact in the field” (p.264). It concerns EIL (English as an international
language) or English as Lingua Franca (ELF). According to Brinton (2017), research inthis area attempts to establish a minimum “common core” (Jenner, 1989) of phonologicalfeatures which enables non-native speaking users (NNS) of ELF to communicate withother NNS-ELF users effectively.
As seen in the brief summary, pronunciation instruction research includes various
fields and topics. It also has been affected by the changing nature of English as aninternational language in the increasingly globalized world today. Therefore, further
research according to the current situation of English in each field will be necessary
moving forward.

2.5 Summary and Direction of the Current Study
This chapter first described a brief history of language teaching. Various teachingapproaches and methods developed based on their theoretical backgrounds in modern

31times. The place and the degree of receiving instructional focus of pronunciation havechanged according to each approach or method. However, uninterrupted interest in
pronunciation has been growing since the 1990s even though the research in the field
was not sufficient at the time.
After 1990, more research started to be conducted and empirical findings havebeen applied to classroom pronunciation instruction. In that sense, the field has great
potential to grow further and it is expected that the state-of -the art empirical findings
will be applied to instruction.
Since the current research is on Japanese leaners’ pronunciation, it is crucial toconsider the situation of a country like Japan, where English serves as a foreign language.
In the ESL environment, leaners might need to approximate their pronunciation to theL1 variety of English in order to adapt themselves to the L1 cultures. However, in an
EFL country like Japan, leaners are not necessarily required to approximate a certain L1
model, and each leaner has his/her own condition, such as need and motivation. Given
that intelligibility of English pronunciation is an essential component, it can be inferredthat exploring the factors determining Japanese leaners’ intelligibility and an adequate
approach to teach intelligible English pronunciation to Japanese learners is required.
Also, in this period when English has become an international language, it is imperative
to take intelligible pronunciation as EIL into consideration.
In an attempt to focus on Japanese learners’ pronunciation intelligibility, it isessential to understand the current situation of English pronunciation instruction in Japan.
The next chapter assesses the situation by analyzing the Course of Study issued by THE
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), English
textbooks used in junior high schools, pronunciation questions in examinations andcurrent issues.

32

Chapter 3
Current Situation of Pronunciation Instruction
in English Language Education in JapanAs seen in the previous chapter, there has been a growing interest in
pronunciation instruction in ESL/EFL settings worldwide after being rather depreciatedwith the advent of the communicative approach. This chapter sees whether the current
situation regarding pronunciation instruction is the same in Japan.
In order to understand the current situation of pronunciation instruction in Japan,
this chapter first describes how pronunciation is placed in the Junior High School
Course of Study issued by the MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology). Secondly, it analyzes the contents seen in junior high school English
textbooks. Thirdly, it shows the treatment of pronunciation questions in thestandardized entrance examination for universities. Finally, it discusses the issues
regarding pronunciation instruction in English education in Japan.

3.1 Treatment of Pronunciation in the Course of Study
The Course of Study was originally created as a draft after World War Ⅱ in 1947.
Since then, it has been revised seven times. In 2017, the seventh revision was issued. In
the 1Course of Study of 2017, the aim of the revision of 2foreign language education
was stated as follows:

In a time when globalization is rapidly increasing and communication proficiency inforeign languages is seen as a requirement not only to a limited number of people
with certain types of jobs, but to the more general population. Therefore, improving

1
2

Retrieved from MEXT website: https://www.mext.go.jp/content/1413522_002.pdf
In the Course of Study, it is stipulated as “foreign language”, not “English”.

33

foreign language proficiency is crucial. (p5, translated by the author)

A significant change has been seen in the elementary and junior high school levels where
English is now being taught as a subject with 70 classes a year from grade five. This has
influenced the contents indicated in the Junior High School Course of Study. Before
describing the details of the latest version, the transition of pronunciation instruction isinvestigated in the next section.

3.1.1 Six Revisions until 2017
This section looks at how English sound and pronunciation has been stipulated
and developed in the 3 past six versions of the Junior High School Course of Study,
starting in 1958. English was introduced as a subject, commencing in junior high school.
Therefore, in this section, the Junior High School Course of Study was chosen, based on
the view that the situation of pronunciation instruction and paradigm can be revealed byexamining the introductory level of instruction.
The first Course of Study was issued as a draft in 1947 by the then Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture. In 1958, it was issued as a Ministry notification with alegally binding agreement. Thus, this section examines the versions, starting with theone issued in 1958.
Table 3.1 shows the transition of speech sound, or pronunciation contents in thefour revisions from 1958 to 1998. The 1989 and 2008 versions are not shown in the tablesince the contents are almost the same as 1977 and the latest respectively
According to Koreto (2017), in the 1958 version, the instruction for the learning
activities were more clearly defined than the first draft, but in terms of sounds, there were
just three contents and only stress and intonation were listed as specific contents to teach.
In the 1969 version, pauses in sentences and sentence stresses were added. The
outstanding change made in the 1977 version is seen in Content (a) “contemporary

3

Retrieved from a database of the former course of study:
https://www.nier.go.jp/guideline/index.htm

34

standard pronunciation”, instead of “contemporary British and American standard
pronunciation” seen in the 1969 version. Regarding intonation, in the1977 version, it
was stipulated as “basic sentence intonation.”

Table3.1
Transition seen in the Speech Sound Items in Junior High School Course of Study
Revised in 1958
2 Contents(1) Elements
A. Speech Sound(a) Contemporary British or American standard pronunciation(b) Speak and read with primary stress(c) Speak and read with rising and falling intonations
3 Points to note in teaching(3)International Phonetic Alphabet can be presented in order to teach English specific sounds
as a supplementary method.
Revised in 1969 (Implemented in 1972)
2 Contents (2)A.Speech Sound(a) Contemporary British or American standard pronunciation(b) Rising and falling intonations in sentences(c) Basic pauses in sentences(e) Basic stresses in sentences(f) Primary stress in words
3 Treatment of the contents (The second grade)(1) International Phonetic Alphabet can be taught regarding (a) in the contents.
Revised in 1977 (Implemented in 1981)
２ Contents (2) Elements(a) Contemporary standard pronunciation(b) Basic sentence intonations(c) Basic pauses in sentences(d)Basic stresses in sentences(e) Word stresses
Revised in 1998 (Implemented in 2002)
2 Contents (3) Elements
A Speech Sound

3 Lesson Plan Design and Treatment of theContents(a) Contemporary standard pronunciation(b) Sound changes that result from the linkingof words(c）Basic stresses in words, phrases andsentences(d) Basic sentence intonations(e) Basic pauses in sentences(1)d When teaching English sounds, continuous
teaching of pronunciation contents shown in 2 A
is necessary in terms of attaching importance on
listening and speaking. International Phonetic
Alphabet can be used as a supplement whennecessary.

35

In the 1969 version, the intonation was limited to “rising and falling intonations insentences.” Also, any reference to IPA (the International Phonetic Alphabet) was notincluded in the 1977 version.
In the 1989 version, communication-oriented tendency was listed in the objectives,
which stated that it was desirable to “foster the attitude to communicate in English
actively.” IPA is not referred to in the version. This might be a reflection of the view ofCommunicative Language Teaching (CLT) which pays more attention to meaning thanform, such as pronunciation, with its heyday occurring during the 1980s.
In 1998s version, more specific content of “(b) Sound changes that result from thelinking of words” was added. Also, in 1989 version, stresses were divided into word andsentence stress, but this was changed to “(c) Basic stresses in words, phrases andsentences.” In addition, IPA was included again.
The 2008 version covered the same contents as the 1998s. However, the English
activity class was introduced at the elementary school level in 2008, thus in section (4)“treatment of contents,” a phrase that “pronunciation is to be taught in association with
spelling” was added. Also, in the “Lesson Plan Design and Treatment of the Contents”
section 3 (c), the phrase “Continuous instruction of Contents (A) is necessary throughpronunciation practice by paying attention to the difference from Japanese” was added.
The transition of the contents from 1958 to 2008 shows that sound or
pronunciation contents have become more specified in the newer version. The mostnoticeable change is that the model of pronunciation was changed to “contemporary
standard pronunciation” in 1977 from “contemporary standard British and American
pronunciation.” In addition, the pronunciation contents were three in 1969, but increased
to five in 1977, and “sound changes that result from the linking of words” was added in1998.

3.1.2 The Latest Revision of 2017
In the 2017 revision, framework of teaching was changed to four skills and fiveareas from the former four skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking). In the newframework, speaking was divided into two areas, that is, interaction and presentation.

36This change was made based on the framework of CEFR (Common European
Framework of Reference of Languages). As pointed out by Kaneko and Matsuura (2017),
the area of interaction of speaking is an essential part of communication.
In order to accomplish the objectives in the five areas (listening, reading, speakinginteraction, speaking-presentation, and writing), the latest version of the Junior HighSchool Course of Study provides the contents in speech sound, or pronunciation as seen
in 4Table 3.2.
This section sees the detailed explanation seen in the handbook issued by MEXT
along with the Course of Study. In the 2017 version, the sound, or pronunciation contents
are the same as the previous (2008) one. Also, the contents of (1) A are the same in thefifth and sixth grade of elementary school Course of Study (p.158).

Table.3. 2
Sound Items Seen in the Junior High School Course of Study (2017)
2. Contents(1) Elements
A. Speech sounds(a) Contempory standard pronunciation(b) Sound changes that result from the linking ofwords(c) Basic stresses in words, phrases and senteces(d) Basic sentence intonations(e) Basic pauses in sentences

3. Lesson Plan Design and Treatment of theContents
C
For pronunciation instruction, continuous
instruction of the langauge elements indicated in
2 (1) A is necessary. Pronunciation should begiven through acitivities like pronunciation
practice while taking heed of the differences
between English and Japanese. Instruction usingphonetic notation can also be provided as asupplement to pronunciation instruction as theneed arises.

For each content, the handbook provides an explanation and examples. Regarding (a)contemporary standard pronunciation and (b) sound changes that result from the linkingof words, the followings are the explanations.

(a) Contemporary standard pronunciation

4

English translation is retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/newcs/youryou/eiyaku2/gai.pdf (p.5).

37

English is used as a communication tool on a daily basis worldwide. There is muchdiversity in pronunciation and usage with various ways of use. With such diversity
in pronunciation of current English, a so-called standard English, which is not
specific to a certain area or group of people, nor too colloquial, is to be taught tostudents to acquire pronunciation that enables them to communicate with a diverse
range of people. In teaching pronunciation, it is crucial to pay full attention to thedifferences between Japanese and English sounds, such as the difference in thenumber and kinds of vowels and consonants, and consonant clusters of English (e.g.,school, street, books) (p.30, translated by the author).

(b) Sound changes that result from the linking of words
When English is spoken, each word is usually not pronounced separately, but pluralwords are pronounced in succession. English is spoken smoothly and rhythmicallyby linking words in this manner. On the other hand, the linking of words makes it
difficult to understand the spoken utterances. Therefore, it is important to beaccustomed to such sound changes (p.30, translated by the author).

The following are examples.
･Linking of two words
There is an apple on the table.
Take it easy.
･When two words are linked, a sound is deleted
What time is it now?
I don’t know.
･When two words are linked, two sounds are affected each other
Would you tell me the way to the library?
Why don’t you join us? (p.30-31）

Regarding (c) and (d), brief explanation will be stated. As for “basic stresses in words,
phrases and sentences,” it is stated that English has a weak-strong stress pattern, and38stressed syllables occur at regular intervals, which makes for the characteristics ofEnglish rhythm. It is also stated that the place of sentence stress depends on the degreeof importance of the information as below:

I played soccer with Kén.
I played sóccer with Ken.

Regarding (d) basic sentence intonations, it is to be encouraged to teach students English
basic intonation. Regarding (e) “basic pauses in sentences,” the important role of pauses
in sentences in both of reception and production of sentences is explained.
This section has looked at the sound or pronunciation contents seen in the latest
version of the Junior High School Course of Study of 2017. The contents are the sameas in the previous version (2008), but in the handbook, two points are added. First, since
English has started to be taught as a formal subject from the fifth grade of elementary
school, the explanation includes the association with the contents of the teaching inelementary school. Secondly, regarding the content (a) “contemporary standard
pronunciation,” the following phrase has been added. “It indicates that students aretaught to acquire pronunciation that enables them to communicate with diverse people”(p.30, translated by the author). It implies that MEXT is more conscious of EIL (English
as an international language) than the previous ministry in a time of rapid globalization.
The next section examines how English pronunciation is placed in authorized
English textbooks. Since it was thought that the general framework of pronunciation
instruction can be seen by analyzing the instruction of basic items, junior high school
textbooks are analyzed.

3.2 Treatment of Pronunciation in English Textbooks
This section analyzes the three authorized English textbooks for junior highschools. They are New Horizon, English Course 1-3 (NH) by Tokyoshoseki, New Crown(NC) English Series 1-3 by Sanseidou, Sunshine English Course (SS) 1-3 by Kairyudou.
There are six authorized textbooks and these three textbooks by the publishers account39

for approximately 583% of the share. Thus, these three textbooks were chosen to beanalyzed.
Sections covering items of sounds or pronunciation, including practices in eachchapter, independent pronunciation sections and appendixes are examined. The
following are the analyzed items:

Segmentals
1. How to pronounce each phoneme: if there are explanation and practice
exercises
2. How to pronounce each phoneme: if the way to pronounce is shown with adiagram of the vocal organs and articulatory regions
3. If there are explanations and practice exercises in IPA
4. If there are explanations and practice exercises associated with spelling
5. If words are shown with IPA
6. If minimal pairs are shown
Suprasegmentals
7. If there are explanations and practice exercises in word stress
8. If there are explanations and practices in phrasal stress
9. If there are explanations and practice exercises in sentence stress

10. If there are explanations and practice exercises in intonation
11. If there are explanations and practice exercises in pauses in sentences
12. If there are explanations and practice exercises in adjustments in connectedspeech

3.2.1 Amount of Pronunciation Sections of Each Textbook
Each textbook has sound, or pronunciation sections. They are included in one
unit/chapter/lesson, and usually a brief explanation and some practices are provided in a5

Retrieved from NIKKEI (2015, October 30):
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASDG30H7Z_Q5A031C1CR8000/

40

small portion of the page in question. Table 3.3 shows the number of pronunciation
sections in each textbook. Each of the textbooks has its name for the pronunciation
section, such as Sound Box in NH.

Table 3.3
Pronunciation Sections in Each Textbook
TextbookNH
grade
Sound Box
number
1
4
2
6
3
5

NC
Sounds555SSpronouncation clinic
11
12
11

In these “pronunciation sections,” each textbook shows and focuses on the pronunciationof each phoneme, stresses in words and sentences, intonation, rhythm, sound changes
that result from the linking of words, and phonics. The way the items are presented varies
between the different textbooks. The third-grade textbook of NH, for example, presents
the stress difference of compound nouns and nouns with adjectives (e.g., White House,
white house). Other than that, it contains dictation practices listening to big numbers,
and how to practice reading aloud by doing shadowing. Technically, they are not about
pronunciation itself, but about making students accustomed to English sounds and theway to practice producing these sounds.
Also, there are usually a line of practice of pronunciation at the bottom of each or
every other page in each textbook. The pronunciation points of words or phrases seen ineach unit are presented after an icon to show pronunciation (NH, NC) or with the word
“pronunciation.” For example, NH shows the phoneme that should be noticed as an
example as below:ball bought [ɔː]NC has a brief explanation or instruction on phonemes, intonation, sentence stress,
linking of words and phonics. An example is as below:

41

Say the sentence, paying attention to the linking of sounds.
Just a moment./ help yourself./ enough for you.

Table 3.4 indicates the use of pronunciation terms of each textbook.

Table 3.4
The Use of Pronunciation Terms
NH
IPA

✓

Vowel, consonant✓

Intonation✓

Word stress

✓

SS

NC

✓

✓

Sentence stress
Rhythm✓✓As seen in the Table, NH uses most of the terms, but SS and NC do not use them.
Regarding intonation, SS presents “raising and falling of voice,” and NC describes“weakness and strength of sound” as word stress. Vowel and consonants are the one termthat all three textbooks use.

3.2.2 Pronunciation Features Covered in Each Textbook
3.2.2.1 Segmentals
Table 3.5 indicates treatment of segmental features covered in each textbook. As
stated in the previous section, it was examined as to whether the six items are includedin each textbook.
The First item to examine is if there are any explanation and practice of the way
to pronounce phonemes. Each textbook offers explanations and practice of phonemes
which are difficult for Japanese learners (e.g., /r/, /l/, /θ/, /ð/, /ɘː/). However, only NH
presents the explanation and practice in the lessons, and the other two textbooks put themin the appendix.
Secondly, it is checked if the way to pronounce is shown with a diagram of vocal

42

organs and articulatory regions. Only NH shows the phonemes of /θ/, /ð/, /f/, /v/, and theother two textbooks put them in the appendix.

Table.3.5
Treatment of Segmentals of Each Textbook
1. Each phoneme: explanation
Each phoneme: practice

NH

NC

SS

✓

✓(appendix)✓(appendix: consonants only)

✓

✓

✓

2. Each phoneme with diagram ✓(θ,ð,f,v only) ✓ (appendix) ✓ (appendix: vowels only)✓

3. IPA: explanation
IPA: practice
4. Phonics: explanation

✓

✓

✓

Phonics: practice

✓

✓

✓

5. Words are shown with IPA

✓

✓

✓

6. Minimal pairs

✓

✓

✓

Thirdly, regarding IPA, NH shows [ɑ], [ʌ], [æ], [r], [s], [ʃ], [θ], [f], [v] with
explanations. However, the other two textbooks do not include them although all three
textbooks show the IPA with new words from second grade textbooks (analyzing item 5in the Table 3.5).
Fourthly, each textbook spends about two pages showing phonics at the beginningof the first grade. NC gives detailed explanations with the title of “spelling andpronunciation-phonics”, covering vowels and consonants, voiced and unvoiced sounds,
and consonants to pay attention to (l, m, w, r, n, th). NC also has a lot of practices thatmake students pay attention to spelling and pronunciation as in the following example.

Divide the following words into two groups, paying attention to the sound of bold
letter. Then discuss the rules of spelling and sound.
1) cut nice2) glad

good

cry

dance

music

vegetablelarge

century
gym

big

43

Besides the explanation at the beginning of the first grade and appendix, NH, forexample, shows underlined part of words with IPA as in the example below:

only, open [ou], orange, bought [ɔː]SS has a list of phonics in the appendix for the third grade. Besides this, the textbook
presents new words with underlined letters in order to highlight pronunciation as in theexample below:

won

son / song

Finally, minimal pairs (e.g., three-tree, see-she, ramp-lamp) are shown in each textbook.

3.2.2.2 Suprasegmentals
Table 3.6 on the next page indicates the treatment of suprasegmental features
covered in each textbook. As presented in the previous section, each textbook was
examined to see if there were another six suprasegmental features covered.
First, each textbook highlights the stressed part in the word as below:

guitar (NH) / interesting (NC) / guitár (SS)Regarding stress of English, Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) state that “stressed syllables aremost often defined as those syllables within an utterance that are longer, louder, andhigher in pitch.” They also state “From the listener’s point of view, the most salientfeatures of stress are probably longer vowel duration in the stressed syllable and higher
pitch” (p.131). This means not only strength, but also length and height in pitch areimportant to make any stress salient. However, none of the textbooks include an adequate
explanation of the characteristics of English stress. For example, in NH, there is thefollowing explanation: “Words in English and the equivalent in Japanese Katakana
English are pronounced differently, particularly regarding stress.” NC and SS both have

44

instructions that are respectively “Say words with attention to weak-strong soundpatterns in words,” and “Say words with attention to the strong part of words.”

Table.3.6
Treatment of Suprasegmentals of Each Textbook
NH

NC

SS

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

10. Intonation-explanation✓✓

Intonation-practiceYes-No Question

✓

✓

✓

Wh-type Question

✓

✓

✓

Expressing feelings✓✓

7. Word stress- explanation
Word stress-practice
8. Phrasal stress-explanation✓

Phrasal stress-practice
9. Sentence stress, rhythm-practiceSentence stress, rhythm-explanation✓

Multiply instances
Alternative question✓

Affirmative,command✓

Tag question✓

Confirmation✓

11. Pauses in sentence - explanation✓

Pauses in sentence - practice✓

12. Adjustments in connected speech- explanation✓

Adjustments inconnected speech- practice

✓

✓

✓
✓

linking✓✓✓

assimilation

✓

✓

✓

deletion✓✓

Secondly, only NH presents practice of phrasal stress to show the difference
between stressed words in compound nouns and nouns modified with adjectives:

The following phrases in two groups are different in terms of the stressed word.
A an art museum

a soccer teamB a famous museum

a good team

45

Thirdly, regarding sentence stress and rhythm, NH explains that “In English
sentences, some parts are pronounced strongly and in an extended way, while other parts
are pronounced weakly and bluntly.” Only NH expresses English stresses with the word
“extended.” NC has the instruction: “Say sentences, paying attention to weak-strong
sounds and rhythm,” whereas SS’s instruction is “Say sentences, paying attention to theweak-strong rhythm.” Each textbook highlights sentence stress in the following way:

The trains are not running. (NH)I think it’ll be interesting. (NC)My sister plays it too. (SS)Also, NH has the explanation: “pronounce the word that is an answer to a question in astrong way” and present an example with the stressed word in bold as seen in theexample:How long are you going to stay?
― For five days.

NC also presents explanations, such as “when you want to correct what you said, say thepart strongly,” “Say the important word strongly,” along with some practice exercises.
SS is unique in pointing out the height of the stressed part, as in “Read the sentence,
paying attention to the words of highest (bold letter) pitch” for the following sentence:

When she was a baby, she became very ill.

Fourthly, as seen in Table 3.6, each textbook provides explanations and practice inintonation used in various function. However, the treatment depends on the textbook,
except Yes-No question and Wh-type question. Fifthly, regarding pauses in sentences,46

each textbook provides adequate practice.
Finally, regarding adjustments in connected speech, in the Course of Study
analyzed in the previous section, it was stated that “sound changes as a result of thelinking of words.” In the Course of Study, the characteristics of the sound changes are
divided into three categories as follows:

1. Linking of two words
2. When two words are linked, a sound is deleted.
3. When two words are linked, two sounds are affected by each other

These can be categorized as the features of adjustments in connected speech, although
the phenomena of adjustments are so complicated that it is difficult to divide into only
three categories. However, the three features are analyzed in this study, based on thecontents presented in the Course of Study. The three features are defined according to
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996).

1. Linking of two words as “linking”: connecting of the final sound of one word or
syllable to the initial sound of the next
2. When two words are linked, a sound is deleted --- “deletion”: the process whereby
sounds disappear or are not clearly articulated in certain contexts
3. When two words are linked, two sounds affect each other---“assimilation”: a given
sound (the assimilating sound) takes on the characteristics of a neighboring soundEach textbook has explanations and practices in the adjustments to connected speech as
in the following examples:“English sounds can change by the linking of neighboring sounds, or affecting andaffected by neighboring sounds.”
I had a lot of good food.

Where did you travel this winter?

(NH)

47

Also, NC and SS have adequate practice exercises as below:“Be careful in linking words when you say the sentences.”
How about this one? / How much is it? / Here’s your change. (NC)“Be careful in sound changes and linking of words when you say the sentences.”
Would you like anything else?
I’d like to take care of children. (SS)Each textbook shows the linking visually, so it is easy to understand when practicing.
However, adequate explanations are not included.

3.2.3 Summary and Issues of the Textbooks
It can be said that the English textbooks in question effectively present the fiveelements of pronunciation shown in the Junior High School Course of Study. As statedpreviously (Table 3.2), the contents are:(a) Contemporary standard pronunciation(b) Sound changes that result from the linking of words(c) Basic stress patterns in words, phrases and sentences(d) Basic sentence intonation(e) Basic pauses in sentences

However, the contents are presented in association with words and phrases inunits/lessons/chapters, and they are not presented in a systematic order. Also, theindependent pronunciation sections do not necessarily cover pronunciation itself, butsometimes they include the way to practice reading aloud or listening, such as NH, asstated in the previous section.
Regarding segmental features, each textbook raises awareness regarding thedifficult pronunciation of phonemes for Japanese learners in various ways, such as

48

presenting minimal pairs. However, a detailed explanation of the way to pronounce theseis only shown in the first-grade textbook of NH. The other two have the appendices atthe end of the book. It is assumed that not many students go through textbooks to see
how to pronounce a phoneme. There are inadequate explanations of the features eventhough there are practice exercises, such as phonics. Specific explanations are usually
put in the appendix, so it is likely that students cannot access the information without theteacher’s assistance.
The same thing is true for suprasegmentals. Each textbook adopts an approach toraise awareness of the features and present some practices, but there is a concern thattreatment of the features depends on the individual teacher.
For example, stressed syllables are pronounced longer, louder and higher in pitch,
but none of the textbooks uses the word “longer” when discussing word stress. Also,
each textbook presents intonation practice, but there is inadequate explanation. The sameis true for pauses in sentences and adjustments of connected speech. The features arealso presented in the textbooks, but they are not presented in a way as to make students
think about basic rules. For example, NC has practice exercises designed to makestudents divide sentences by listening to read-aloud sentences, but other textbooks havealready shown the division of sentences.
In general, the textbooks cover the contents suggested by MEXT in the Course of
Study, and the ways to present them are devised effectively. On the other hand, theportion of pronunciation in the textbooks is rather small. Also, as discussed previously,
most of the contents do not have enough in the way of explanation. Thus, it is supposedthat teaching the contents is not explicit unless a teacher focuses on them, and learning
can be inductive. However, in order to learn inductively, more practice exercises areneeded than are provided in the current textbooks.

3.3 Treatment of Pronunciation in Questions in Entrance Examinations
3.3.1 Common Entrance Examination for University
The standardized entrance examination for universities in Japan is a test called the“center test,” and has been created by an independent administrative agency, the National

49

Center for University Entrance Examinations from 1990 to 2020 (1989-2019 schoolyear). The English test has listening and writing sections. The writing test still includes
questions on pronunciation even after the listening test was introduced in 2006. The
listening test consists of 25 questions with four parts, and 50 points as a full score. The
writing test consists of 54 questions with six parts of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary,reading comprehension and so on. The full score is 200 points. All the questions arepresented in multiple choice form.
The “center test” will be changed to a new standardized examination, with a focus
on evaluating students’ thinking, judging and expressive ability, not only on knowledge
and skills, from the school year 2020 (it will be commenced in January, 2021).The trial
test has been revealed and the writing test does not have a pronunciation section. The“center test” started in 1990 (the school year 1989), however, in order to determine recent
trends in the pronunciation segment, the next section focuses on the questions from 2001
to 62020 (the school year 2019) and how they have changed. The years when the test
was conducted are usually expressed by the school year in question, however, in order
to avoid confusion, the actual years are given hereafter.

3.3.2 Contents of the Test
3.3.2.1 From 2001 to 2006
When looking at the questions included in the tests of 2001 to 2020, the contents
of pronunciation questions covered stress only until 2006. Table 3.7 shows the patternsof the questions from 2001 to 2006. The instructions of the test are written in Japanese.
They have been translated into English by the author.
The test of 2001 has eight pronunciation questions and it accounts for 20 points
out of the 200 points in the final score. The portion of the points was changed to 16 points
out of 200 in 2002 and it had not changed up to the year 2007 when the points werechanged to 19.

6

Retrieved from the website: Nihon no gattsukou [Schools of Japan] (2020).
https://school.js88.com/scl_dai/center_data

50

Table 3.7
Question Patterns Seen from 2001 to 2006 test
Pattern 1. Questions of word stress
Choose word that has a different primary stress from the other three.
（Part1A Question1, 2001)①disgust②drama③problem④southern

Pattern 2. Questions of weak and strong form of function words
Choose the sentence whose pronunciation of the underlined word is different
from the other three.(Part1B Question2, 2001)①Are you for the new proposal or against it?
②Can you ask for a menu, please?
③The Christmas gift is from Mary, not for her.
④What do you take me for?
Pattern 3. Questions of sentence stress
Choose the word that is pronounced with the strongest stress in the underlined
sentence.(Part1C, Question3, 2001)
Marion: Harry, are interested in women’s soccer?
Harry: Not really. I’m not a big fan of soccer.
Marion: Too bad. I have a spare ticket to a soccer match next week.
Harry: Well, I like watching soccer.
①I② like③ watching④ soccer

Pattern 4. Questions of word stress
Choose the combination of words that have correct word stress.
(Part1A Question2, 2002)
The coach (a)forgot to tell the swimmer that his (b)record had been broken by a rival.
① (a) forgót (b) récord
② (a) forgót (b) recórd③ (a) fórgot (b) recórd④ (a) fórgot (b) récord

The test of 2001 has two questions of the Pattern 1 seen in Table 3.7, another twoof the Pattern 2, and another four of the Pattern 3. The original questions of the Pattern
3 have a longer conversation with four underlined parts. An excerpt of the conversationis shown here. The unique point of the test of 2001 is a question regarding the weak andstrong form of function words as seen in pattern 2 in Table 3.7. The pattern is eliminatedthe following year.
The features covered in the pronunciation questions from 2001 to 2006 are only

51

word and sentence stress. From 2002 to 2006, the formats of the questions are the same.

3.3.2.2 From 2007 to 2020
In 2007, questions identifying the pronunciation of phonemes of spelling appeared,
as seen in Table 3.8 in the next page. In 2007, the pronunciation section covers 19 points
out of 200, 16 points on the test of 2008 and 2009, and 14 points from 2010 to 2020.
In the tests of 2007, 2008, and 2009, aside from questions in phonics, some uniqueways were adopted to present the questions of sentence and word stress, as seen in Table
3.8. For example, the questions on word stress are presented as seen in Pattern 6, showing
syllabificated words, and as in Pattern 8, presenting word stress pattern with circles. Also,
the sentence stress questions from 2007’s test require students to identify the speaker’s
intention, as seen in Pattern 7, and the last question in the 2009 test asks students to
identify the proper rhythm of the sentence. However, these kinds of questions were
eliminated from the 2010 test, and the format of the test is the same from 2010 to 2020.
The format contains the first four questions on phonics, as seen in Pattern5 in Table 3.8
and the second four questions on word stress, as seen in Pattern 1 in Table 3.7.

3.3.3 Summary
As seen in the previous section, questions on sentence stress in various formats were
presented until 2009. However, after 2010, only phonics and word stress questions
appeared on the tests. It can be inferred that the entrance examination is one of the biggest
factors in motivating high school students to study English, therefore, there is a highchance that the two items, that is, phonics and word stress are more taught than otheritems in high school.
Although the “center test” started to include listening section from 2006, thepronunciation questions remained in place after that date. There have been opinions
doubting the validity of pronunciation questions in written tests in order to evaluate

52

Table 3.8
Question Patterns Seen from 2007 to 2020 Test
Pattern 5.Questios of phonics- pronuncation represented by spelling
Choose the word where the underlined letters are pronunced differently form theother three words. (Part1A, Question1, 2007)①assure②classic③efficient④socialPattern 6. Questions of word stress - syllabificated words
Choose the number of combination of words that has different stress locations.
(Part1B, Question1,2007)① en-ve-lope② ma-te-ri-al③ ef-fec-tive④ em-bar-rass-ment

fur-ni-ture
psy-chol-o-gy
in-ter-view
li-brar-i-an

hor-ri-ble
re-mark-a-ble
rec-og-nize
phi-los-o-phy

Pattern 7. Questions of sentence stress- a speaker's intention
In the following sentence, when the speaker stresses the word in boldface, What
does the speaker intend to convey? Choose the appropriate answer from 1 to 4.
(Part1C, Question1, 2007)
Can you come to dinner on Friday at eight?
① I know your friend can’t come, but can you?
② If lunch is inconvenient, what about dinner?
③ If you can’t come on that day, how about Friday?
④ You work until seven? How about an hour later?
Pattern 8. Questions of word stress- stress pattern
Choose the words that hase the following word stress pattern(weak-strong-weak) (Part1B Question2, 2008)① adequate② argument③ delicious④ utilize

Pattern 9. Questions of sentence stress
Which of the following indicates sentence stress of the undrlined sentence mostaccurately? Stress is indicated by(Part1D Question7, 2009)
While holding down botton C, press both D and F for five seconds. Oh, dear,
it's so complicated that I feel confused just reading the manual.

① It's so complicated that I feel confused just reading the manual.
② It's so complicated that I feel confused just reading the manual.
③ It's so complicated that I feel confused just reading the manual.
④ It's so complicated that I feel confused just reading the manual.

53

students’ actual pronunciation skills, since the time when the former standardized test
was conducted (e.g., Wakabayashi & Negishi, 1991). On the other hand, there are someresearchers who support the validity of these questions. For example, Shirahata (1992)
claims that word stress questions actually reflect students’ skills in word stress when they
speak.
There are undoubtedly positives and negatives regarding pronunciation questionsin written tests, but nonetheless, the discussion around this area have been neglected inrecent years, and the pronunciation questions are to disappear in the new standardized
examination which will commence from the school year 2020. It can be anticipated that
actual pronunciation skills, those useful for speaking and listening, will be focused on
more than knowledge about pronunciation.

3.4 Problems and Issues Regarding Pronunciation Instruction in Japan
3.4.1 Goal of Pronunciation Teaching/LearningThis chapter has investigated the treatment of pronunciation in the Junior HighSchool Course of Study, authorized English textbooks of junior high school andpronunciation questions in the standardized entrance examination.
As stated in the English Course of Study issued in 2017, in this rapidly globalized
era, communication proficiency in English has never been needed more than now, andimproving Japanese leaners’ communication proficiency is an urgent task. In other words,
growing not only active attitudes to communicate in English but also true
communication proficiency is required. When thinking of oral communication,
pronunciation is a crucial factor for successful communication. In teachingpronunciation to Japanese learners, then, what is the goal of pronunciation?
In the above stated Course of Study, the 1958 and 1969 versions stipulated“contemporary standard British or American English pronunciation” were to be taught
to students. Then, from the 1977-year version, the phrase “British or American” wasdeleted. Instead, the pronunciation to be taught was stipulated as “contemporary standard
English pronunciation.” This reflected the change of general belief that British andAmerican English pronunciations were standard. British or American pronunciation was

54

no longer regarded as a single standard model because varieties of English began to berecognized. As a result, English came to be regarded as a global language.
When looking at the phrase “contemporary standard English pronunciation”, aquestion arises, that is, what is meant by the term “contemporary standard English
pronunciation”? Even though it has not been clarified by MEXT yet, the consensus ofresearchers now is that the ESL/EFL teaching and learning goal of pronunciation is notnative-like pronunciation with a single L1 model as a standard, but intelligible
pronunciation. As Derwing and Munro (2005) state; “In communicatively oriented ESL
settings, improved intelligibility is generally identified by pedagogical specialists as themost important outcome of pronunciation instruction” (p.384).
Levis (2005) describes the goal of pronunciation teaching and learning as having
been affected by two contradictory principles, that is, the “nativeness principle” and the“intelligibility principle.” Until the 1960s, the nativeness principle was pervasive,
however, some research showed that it is almost impossible for learners after the age ofadolescence to acquire native-like pronunciation (e.g., Scovel, 1969). As a result, theintelligibility principle has become the new norm for pronunciation instruction. However,there are still many ESL/EFL teachers and learners who regard native-like pronunciation
as a goal of teaching/learning (e.g.,Timmis, 2002).
Levis (2005) discusses the idea that both principles will continue to influence
pronunciation instruction in the language curriculum. The situation of the nativenessprinciple can still be seen in Japan as well as other countries. Almost all models ofpronunciation in textbooks which are presented to students are American or British atjunior and senior high school levels in Japan. And a lot of teachers and learners still aim
for native-like pronunciation. On the other hand, MEXT has already suggested theextrication from the nativeness principle in the version of the 1977 Course of Study.
Some Japanese researchers, at the same time, contend the necessity to promote
intelligible English and pronunciation as EIL (English as an international language) (e.g.,
Torikai, 2016b).
In this increasing globalized world, English has already become a common
language for a much larger number of NNSs (non-native speakers) than NSs (native

55

speakers), as stated in the next chapter. Accordingly, it is possible that a lot of Japaneseleaners will need to communicate with people from various backgrounds in English.
When engaging in oral communication in an international setting, intelligible
pronunciation to as many interlocutors as possible is crucial. However, MEXT has notreferred to the intelligibility principle even though it has already been suggested that
there should be distance taken from the nativeness principle. It also seems that the
intelligibility principle has not spread adequately in Japanese English education. In otherwords, the goal of pronunciation teaching and learning has not been clarified, thus, it isdifficult for both teachers and learners to have an outlook of teaching/ learning, which isa serious issue seen in pronunciation instruction in English education in Japan.
Another issue is that in the Course of Study, the pronunciation goal is not divided
into a goal for listening and one for speaking. For example, adjustments of connectedspeech are necessary skills in order to listen to NS’s utterances, however, it isquestionable as to whether they are necessary for intelligible pronunciation when
speaking.
Considering the issues above, it can be said that identifying intelligible
pronunciation as EIL is essential in the first place. Although the detailed features arestated in Chapter 5, Jenkins (2000), for instance, suggests a lingua franca core (LFC) for
maintaining international intelligibility among NNSs.
As stated, it is essential to identify some core, such as LFC proposed by Jenkins(2000), for Japanese learners to maintain intelligibility of pronunciation as EIL. However,an initial shared awareness of the pronunciation goals, such as intelligibility, is required
for those involved in English education in Japan.

3.4.2 The Need for More Emphasis on Pronunciation in English Classroom
The analysis of the Course of Study, English textbooks, and the standardized
entrance examination imply that pronunciation instruction is not emphasized as much asother items, such as grammar in English education in Japan. Firstly, the analysis of the
Course of Study in section 3.1 has revealed that the contents of pronunciation are
relatively little compared to other items. Also, it does not specify the model, or goal of

56

pronunciation instruction. Secondly, it has been stated that the English textbooks do notprovide explicit explanation nor adequate practices as seen in section 3.2. Thirdly, as
seen in section 3.3, the portion of pronunciation questions in the written standardized
test is 14 points out of 200, which is relatively small. Also, the new standardized written
test starting in 2021 does not have pronunciation questions at all. These might lead to therelative de-emphasis of pronunciation.
On the other hand, as stated in section 3.1, instruction contents are divided into
four skills and five areas (listening, reading, writing, speaking-interaction, speakingpresentation) from the former four skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking). Thisshows more emphasis is being put on communication than before. Also, the eliminationof pronunciation questions from the standardized test may lead to more focus on the
instruction of pronunciation as skills (listening and speaking), not as knowledge. In otherwords, in order to adjust to the changes, pronunciation instruction is probably expected
to change to be useful for communication. A question arises here, that is, what features
does useful pronunciation instruction have?
In CLT that emphasizes communication, pronunciation should be taught throughmeaningful interaction (e.g., Brinton, 2017), which encourages teachers to teachimplicitly through a lot of communicative activities, rather than drills and explicit
explanation separated from other contents. Whereas, research has proved theeffectiveness of explicit pronunciation instruction (e.g., Saito & Lyster, 2012; Gordon etal., 2012). Also, as Jones (1997) points out, automatic drills and imitation used in the
Audio-Lingual Method are valid in the first stage before moving to communicative andmeaningful practices.

It appears that while both imitation and discrimination drills have an important placein the teaching of pronunciation as a means to help articulation become more
automatic and routinized, they are best seen as a step towards more meaningful,communicative practice. (p.106)

Consequently, explicit instruction and adequate practice is necessary when it comes to57pronunciation. However, the analysis of the textbooks reveals that neither explicit
explanation nor adequate practices based on meaningful and communicative interaction
are adequate.
On the other hand, English began to be taught as a formal subject from the fifth
grade of elementary school starting in 2020. At the elementary school level, implicit
teaching with a lot of input is effective, but it is uncertain if there is enough time andresources to teach pronunciation in that way at the elementary school level.
With Teaching English at the elementary school level in mind, first of all, more
focus on pronunciation instruction is imperative. Following this, it is important to findout an approach with a balance of growing communication proficiency and, explicit andimplicit teaching of pronunciation with sufficient input.

3.4.3 Teachers’ Attitude toward Pronunciation Instruction
Analysis on the Course of Study, textbooks and the standardized tests revealed
that more emphasis could be put on pronunciation instruction in Japan. With emphasis
on proficiency in communication, which is a crucial factor for oral communication,
searching for a direction toward effective pronunciation instruction for communication
is essential hereafter. Research has indicated that explicit instruction for pronunciation iseffective. However, analysis of junior high school English textbooks indicates that it
depends on the approach by the teacher as to whether various pronunciation features aretaught explicitly. In order to know the situation at the junior and senior high school, thissection analyzes the existing research focused on teachers.
Shibata et al. (2006) investigated the actual condition of pronunciation instruction
by distributing a questionnaire to 224 teachers of junior and senior high schools. The
survey showed that IPA, phonics, segmentals and 7 features of connected speech,suprasegmentals were not taught adequately. However, the degree of importance theteachers placed on pronunciation was reported as high except IPA. They also reported
that teachers’ confidence in teaching pronunciation was generally low, particularly in
7

Shibata et al. call the features as “renon” in Japanese, which means “linked sounds.”

58

phonics and IPA.
Similarly, Orii (2015) reported that there was a correlation between the teachingfrequency and teachers’ knowledge in IPA, individual phonemes, phonics and pauses insentences. Another piece of research targeting junior and high school teachers by Otsuka
and Ueda (2011), reported that a lot of teachers agreed that they taught word stress,
intonation and pauses in sentences. On the other hand, half of the teachers did not teach
IPA.
Shibata et al. (2008) point out that teachers’ confidence in teaching pronunciationinfluenced actual pronunciation instruction. The teachers’ confidence related to theirexperience of learning pronunciation themselves. According to Shibata et al. (2008),
only 69.8 % of the teachers had learned phonology and 47.9% of them had actuallylearned how to pronounce before. Torikai (2016a) points out the issue that English
phonology is not a compulsory subject in current teachers’ training curriculum.
These are the issues regarding teachers. First, frequency of pronunciation
instruction is not adequate at junior and senior high school in general. Second, thefrequency and focus on pronunciation features taught at classroom depends on theteacher. Thirdly, the dispersion of pronunciation instruction is related to teachers’
knowledge, learning experience and attitude toward pronunciation.
Teachers’ awareness of the importance of intelligible pronunciation,anddeveloping teachers’ training to make teachers able to teach intelligible pronunciationand curriculum to teach them are crucial hereafter.

3.5 Summary
In order to understand the current situation of pronunciation instruction in Japan,
this chapter first looked at how the Junior High School Course of Study stipulates thepronunciation contents by comparing the former versions to the latest version of 2017.
The contents of pronunciation have changed to be more specific as the revisions were
issued. For example, “sound changes that result from linking of words” was added fromthe 1998-version. Also, as stated previously, pronunciation to be taught was“contemporary standard British or American pronunciation” until the 1969 version, but

59

in the 1977s, “British or American” was deleted, and was changed to just “contemporary
standard pronunciation” However, it needs to be clarified and presented clearly to
educators.
Secondly, an analysis of authorized English textbooks of junior high school
reveals that each textbook covers the pronunciation contents in the Course of Study. They
are presented in a way as to raise students’ awareness. Nevertheless, the amount ofpractice is not sufficient, given that adequate input is necessary for students to internalize
them. Also, the explicit explanation on pronunciation is inadequate, so it seems to dependon the teacher as to whether they teach the content in class.
Thirdly, pronunciation questions from 2000 to 2020 in the standardized entrance
examination for university were examined. Until 2009, there were questions on sentencestress in various formats, but from 2010, there are only two types of questions-that is,spelling and pronunciation, and word stress. In addition, there is no pronunciationquestions in the new standardized written test from 2021, and pronunciation instruction
at high school is expected to change accordingly.
In this globalized world with English as an international language, acquiring
intelligible pronunciation in international settings is imperative for Japanese leaners.
However, pronunciation instruction is not emphasized as much as other skills, such as
grammar in English education in Japan. Consequently, more emphasis on pronunciation
is a basic requirement. Then starting from the point with more emphasis, there are threeissues regarding pronunciation instruction in Japan. First is where to put the goal ofpronunciation teaching/learning and how to describe the goal of intelligible
pronunciation. In other words, what constitutes intelligibility needs to be clear. Second,should intelligibility of pronunciation be set as a goal, it should be considered how thegoal can be achieved in the current situation where communication is prioritized. At thesame time, it is also necessary to consider how to distinguish intelligibility of listening
and speaking. Third is that to raise teachers’ awareness of the importance of intelligible
pronunciation and foster their skills to teach pronunciation.
This study particularly examines the first and second issues, that is, what
constitutes intelligibility of pronunciation, and how to achieve the goal of intelligible

60

pronunciation. In order to understand the intelligibility of EIL (English as aninternational language), the next chapter examines the current situation of thedevelopment of EIL.

English textbooks consulted:
New Crown English series 1-3. Sanseido.
New Horizon English course 1-3. Tokyoshoseki.
Sunshine English course 1-3. Kairyudou.

61Part 2
Theory62

Chapter 4
English as an International Language

4.1 Globalization and English
English is by far the most international language. When defining an international
language, a large number of native speakers of a language does not necessarily make it
an international language. Mandarin, English, Spanish, Hindi and Arabic are the fivelanguages spoken the most as native languages. However, an international language
needs to be spoken by a large number of speakers whose mother tongues are different.
In that sense, English can be called an international language. Crystal (2003) estimatedthat one fourth of the world population is capable of communicating in English, and at
the time the number was one and a half billion, and the number has been growing. Also,
the number of non-native speakers of English exceeded the number of native speakers,
and it has been increasing.
Crystal (2003) contends that the predominance of a language over other languages
is closely related to its economical, technological and cultural power. McKay (2017) also
claims that some languages have more linguistic power over other languages at present,
and possessing English ability presents a sign of education, affluence, cosmopolitanismand power. The following section examines how English has obtained such status.

4.1.1 Brief History of Spread of English
Some geographical, historical and sociocultural factors led to the first spread ofEnglish as described by Crystal (2003). At the end of 16th century, most people who
spoke English as their mother tongue lived in the British Isles, whose population was
thought to be between five and seven million (Crystal, 2003). The 16th century in Europe
is referred to as the Age of Exploration, when European countries competed in obtainingcolonies in Asia, Africa and America. Although Spain and Portugal preceded thecompetition, Britain ultimately won out, and its language and culture expanded overseas.

63This was the period when the foundation of the subsequent spread of English was laid.
After that, colonization and immigration from Britain to America and othercolonies happened. As a result, education in English was introduced in many places in
the world. By the beginning of the 19th century, Britain had become the leading country
in commerce and industry in the world. The Industrial Revolution which began in Britain
increasingly spread English.
By the end of the 19th century, America has become the most rapidly growing
economic country and took the place of Britain which started to withdraw from its
empire. Crystal (2003) summarizes the history of the first spread of English in this way:

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English was the language of the leadingcolonial nation-Britain. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it was the languageof the leader of the industrial revolution-also Britain. In the late nineteenth century
and the early twentieth it was the language of the leading economic power- the USA.
As a result, when new technologies brought new linguistic opportunities, English
emerged as a first-rank language in industries which affected all aspects of societythe press, advertising, broadcasting, motion pictures, sound recording, transport andcommunications. (Crystal, 2003, p.120)

Furthermore, the Internet started in USA in the 1960s and the subsequent spread of theprivate use of the Internet contributed to the spread of English.
English spread in the manner described above. According to Crystal (2003), thenumber of speakers of English who lived only in the British Isles was approximately fivemillion at the end of Elizabeth I (1603)’s reign. This number had increased to 250 million,
approximately by 50 times, by the beginning of Elizabeth II (1952)’s reign.

4.1.2 Factors Making English an International Language
This section describes the reasons English is regarded as essentially aninternational language. The sub-sections look at each reason.

64

4.1.2.1 Number of Speakers
Graddol (1998) showed the top five languages of a large number of L1 speakers
at the time. They were Mandarin Chinese (1,113 million), English (372 million),
Hindi/Urdu, (316 million), Spanish,(304million), and Arabic (201million) (p.8).
However, as stated above, unless such languages are spoken by a large number of nonnative speakers, they cannot be referred to as an international language which serves asa language of wider communication. The most spoken language including the speakers
of 8L2 are English (1268m), Mandarin Chinese (1120m), Hindi (637m), Spanish (538m),
and French (277m). In this sense, English exceeds Mandarin Chinese.

4.1.2.2 Geographical Distribution
Not only does it possess a large number of speakers, English is used in many partsof the world. English is used as L1 in over 30 territories, and as L2 in approximately 75
countries (Graddol, 1998).

Figure 4.1
The Branch of World English (Graddol, 1998, Figure 5)

The countries where English is spoken as L2 are spread widely across South Asia, South-

8

Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/ethnologue200

65

east Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean, many of which are the former colonies of Britain.
Figure 4.1 shows the geographical spread of English worldwide.

4.1.2.3 Uses of English in Various Fields
English is used in various fields. First of all, the use of English in internationalorganizations is described. For instance, English has a role as an official and working
language in international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union,
ASEAN and APEC. According to Crystal (2003), of the 12,500 internationalorganizations listed in the 1995-1996 Union of International Associations’ Yearbook,approximately 85 per cent make official use of English.
Secondly, the position of English in the economy is identified. Economic power
and a language predominance are closely related to each other. Graddol (1998) presents
an example of the phenomenon of the increasing number of learners of Japanese
worldwide between 1982 and 1989 when there was a rise in the value of the Japanese
yen against the US dollar. He states that “It is clear that a language which is spoken byrich countries is more attractive to learners than one which provides no access to personal
betterment or lucrative markets” (p.28).
The recent spread and popularity of English are attributed to US economic
development with overwhelming economic power. Also, economic globalization has
contributed to the more recent expansion of English. Nowadays, the world’s largest
corporations are no more nation states, but rather the transnational state. Graddol (1998)
reports two thirds of international trade in goods is conducted by TNCs (Transnational
corporations). These TNCs’ global activities are promoting English.
Thirdly, the status in the field of academia, education and publishing will be
investigated. According to Lobachev (2008), scholarly journals written in English
accounted for approximately 45% of all the journals in 2007. The proportion was far
higher than that of German (11%) as the second most used language for journals (seeTable 4.1).

66

Table 4.1
Scholarly Journal Production by Language (Lobachev, 2008, p.4)

Regarding education, Graddol (2006) reports that between two and three million students
go overseas to study every year, and one third of the students go to either the USA or the
UK. Also, 46 % of the students choose English speaking countries for their studies. In
addition, more than half of the students studying abroad are taught in English.
When looking at publishing, books written in English accounted for 21 % of all
published in 2007, according to Lovachev (2008) as seen in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2
Book Publishing by Language (Lobachev, 2008, p.2)

Finally, the status of English in media, the Internet and entertainment are described.
Table 4.3 was complied by Lobachev (2008), who examined the world’s largest databaseof bibliographic and publisher information, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory in 2007.

67

English accounts for the overwhelmingly large portion in newspaper and magazine
production.

Table 4.3
Newspaper and Magazine Production by Language (Lobachev, 2008, p.3)

Regarding the Internet, Graddol (2006) shows the portion of Internet users whose
English is their L1 (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2
Proportion of Internet Users by First Language (Graddol, 2006, p.44)

According to Graddol (2006), English users accounted for 32% of all users in 2005.

68

However, this portion has been rapidly declining. That was because there appeared
alternatives published in their L1 for bilingual users. Also, Lobachev (2006) reports 82 %of web pages were written in English on the World Wide Web, in 1997, but that number
had dropped to 56% in 2002.
Regarding entertainment, McKay (2002) summarizes Crystal (1998)’s
investigation into entertainment as below:･ Motion pictures: in the mid-1990s, the United States controlled about 85 per centof the world film market.
･ Popular music: of the pop groups listed in The Penguin Encyclopedia of PopularMusic, 99 per cent of the groups work entirely or predominantly in English.
(p.17)

4.2 Diversity of Users of English
4.2.1 Three Circles
The history of the spread of English and the current situation of English in theworld have been discussed in the previous section. This section examines how English
is used in the world. As already stated, the number of non-native speakers (NNSs) of
English is larger than native-speakers (NSs) and English has various functions and roles
around the world.
Kachru (1988), one of the pioneers in world English research, categorizes theworld into three groups based on its first language and institutional penetration as seenin Figure 4.3.Kachru documented varieties of English based on their geographicalcontext and established theoretical framework for World English(es) theory. He
contended that World Englishes had developed in the Outer Circle which has more than
two languages used on a daily basis, where linguistic borrowing takes place.

69

Figure 4.3
Kachru's Three Circles Model of English Used Worldwide(Crystal 2003, p.61)
Expanding circle

Outer circle

Inner circle
e.g. USA,UK 320380 million
e.g. India,Singapore
300-500 million

e.g. China, Russia
500-1,000 million

McKay (2017) applauds Kachru’s achievement in recognizing the varieties of English
and their validity other than Inner Circle English. However, McKay points out thelimitation of the approach, that is, it recognizes language use in terms of nation-state, but
nowadays, borders between nations have become more porous. In other words, thedifferences between the circles are seen fixed in Kachru’s approach, but in reality, they
are not. However, a lot of researchers recognize the value of Kachru’s approach in termsof its usefulness in capturing the whole image of English today.

4.2.2 Specification of Each Circle
This section examines the details of each circle suggested by Kachru (1988). The
Inner Circle represents countries and territories where the primary language is English,
and where the majority of the population speak English. It includes countries, such as
UK, US, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Crystal (2003) estimates thenumber of L1 speakers of English, including pidgin and creole versions, was about 400
million in the year of 2000. Sato (1989) defines pidgin and creole as follows:

the term creole is “reserved for a variety of language newly created by children in a

70

multilingual context, typically where a pidginized variety already exists for purposesof rudimentary intergroup communication among adults who have different native
languages (e.g. on sugar plantations in the early 1900’s in Hawaii) . A pidgin is
usually said to differ from a creole in that the former is a second language while thelatter is the native language of its speakers, typically the children of the pidginspeakers” (pp.143-144).

The Outer Circle includes countries which were former colonies of Britain.
English is not usually their L1, but it has the status of the official language, or is used asa second language on a daily basis. More than 50 countries, such as Singapore, India,
and Malawi, are included. Walker (2010) explains that in many Outer Circle countries,
English was imposed through colonization, however, after becoming independent, many
countries chose English as an official language. That was because in multi-lingual
countries, such as India and Malaysia, English had become a useful tool in intra-country
communication. Another reason indicated by Walker was that English had developed
into a local variety, influenced by the country’s or region’s language grammar, lexis andpronunciation. As a result, English was not seen as a foreign language anymore.
As a result of this process, there are varieties such as Indian English, Nigerian
English, and Singapore English. These versions of English are called World Englishes(Kachru), and New Englishes (Walker, 2010; Crystal, 2003). Crystal (2003) states that
South Asian Englishes, such as Indian English, are still young languages aged about 200
years. However, they have become one of the most distinctive varieties in the English
speaking world.
Crystal (2003) claims that calculating the number of English speakers of the Outer
Circle is extremely difficult not only because of the difficulty in obtaining appropriate
data, but also the difficulty in setting a level for distinguishing “competent users” fromL2 learners.
While taking the difficulties into consideration, Crystal (2003) estimated there
were 430 million ESL users at the time. The number was higher than that of those who
had English as a first language. According to Walker (2010), the population of L1

71

speakers has been stable, whereas, the population of ESL speakers is growing inaccordance with the growing population in the countries of the Outer Circle.
The countries in the Expanding Circle have never undergone colonization by an
Inner Circle country nor given English a special administrative status. However, thesecountries recognize the importance of English as an international language, and English
is taught as a foreign language there. Countries, such as China, Japan, Greece, Poland
and a lot of other countries are included. The number of EFL speakers in the Expanding
Circle has been growing as much as that of ESL speakers. Therefore, it is also difficult
to calculate the exact number of speakers because of the difficulty in setting the line
between competent speakers and those who are not. Crystal (2003) set a criterion for thecompetent speaker of the Expanding Circle as “a medium level of conversational
competence in handling domestic subject-matter” (p.68). Based on this criterion, hecalculated the number of EFL speakers in the Expanding Circle to be about 750 million
at the time.
Consequently, the number of NNSs far surpasses that of NSs. Crystal (2003)
calculated the ratio was 1:3. As stated above, the situation regarding the three circles,
and its classification suggested by Kachru in 1988, is now changing. However, the threecircle- classification and Crystal’s calculation of the number of speakers are helpful inunderstanding the wide spread of English and its diversity.

4.2.3 Characteristic Pattern in Use of English in Each Circle
It has been stated that there are more NNSs than NSs of English currently, andEnglish is used in geographically, linguistically and culturally diverse regions. English
is used in various international contexts as an international language. This section
describes the actual conditions of the usage of English in each circle.
First, in English speaking countries of the Inner Circle, as a matter of course,
English is the primary language. However, according to Crystal (2003), the US census
of 2000 reported 82 % of its citizens over five years old, 215 million, used only English
at home. In other words, the remaining 18 % used other languages at home. In addition,

72

the 9 census conducted in 2011 in Canada, where there are two official languagesEnglish and French revealed that 17.5％ of its population is bilingual in English andFrench. It was also reported that 11.5% of citizens speak a language other than English
and French at home.
McKay (2002) states that “English in Inner Circle contexts is used for all publicdomains within the country, giving bilingual users considerable exposure to the various
registers of the language” and as a result, many bilingual users “come to identify withthe culture of the Inner Circle country and become members of English-only speechcommunities” (p.35). In other words, in the Inner Circle, English is used and functions
on an intra-country-basis and bilingual users of English there are expected toaccommodate themselves to the L1 norm of the country they live.
Secondly, the situation in the Outer Circle will be clarified. As stated in theprevious section, many Outer Circle countries are former colonies of Britain. Afterbecoming independent, English has continued to be used as an official or second
language in the multilingual settings.
For example, in India, English and Hindi are official languages of central
government. There are also 22 scheduled languages, which include Hindi, but do notinclude English. In contrast to 43.63 % of L1 speakers of 10Hindi of all the population,
the percentage of L1speaker of English is 0.02％, according to the results or the 2011
census of India. Many Indians are bilingual or trilingual speakers who use English withother languages. Crystal (2003) estimates that one third of the Indian population is“capable of holding a conversation in English” (p.46-47) at the time of writing.
In multilingual societies, such as India, English functions in communication
between people with different mother tongues. The use of English in the Outer Circle
has distinctive characteristics, such as “code-switching.” Graddol (1998), describing thebilingual situation in Outer Circle countries, states that English implies social distance,
formality, and officialdom. When two bilingual speakers of English communicate, they
Retrieved from Statistic Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/assa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011001-eng.cfm
10Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_
speakers_in_India
9

73

tend to switch between two languages as part of negotiations. Bilingual speakers in theOuter Circle use code-switching as a communicative resource.
McKay (2002) indicates that English has started to be used in more contexts
including informal contexts in “multilingual English-using Outer Circle countries”(p.36) and its usage pattern is becoming similar to that of bilingual immigrants of the
Inner Circle. However, McKay describes the difference:

A major difference, however, is that whereas bilingual users in the Inner Circle
countries may want to link their English learning and use with the culture of thecountry in which they live, bilingual users in other countries do not have this in goal.
(p.37)

Kachru (1982) lists the characteristics of English in the Outer Circle, which he called“institutionalized varieties” (p.38):(a) they have an extended range of uses in the sociolinguistic context of a nation;(b) they have an extended registers and style range;(c) a process of nativization of the registers and styles has taken place, both in formal
and in contextual terms;(d) a body of nativized English literature has developed which has formal and writing
is considered a part of the larger body of writing labeled English literature.
(pp.38-39)

English in the Outer Circle has developed and established as a variety, such as IndianEnglish. Bilingual users of English in the Outer Circle “use English as a language ofwider communication both within their own country and with countries of the Inner andExpanding Circle” as described by McKay (2002, p.37).
Finally, the pattern in use of English in the Expanding Circle will be explained.
English is primarily used with the purpose of wider communication beyond national andlinguistic boundaries. Some countries in the Expanding Circle, such as Japan, are purely

74

monolingual countries. Many Japanese do not need to use English in their daily lives.
According to the Statistics Bureau of Japan, the population of Japan isapproximately11125.93million as of 2020. Of the population, the number of foreigners
living in Japan is only 122.93million (data of 2019), that is, the percentage is only 0.02%.
The number includes people other than English speakers. The low contact ratio rate
between Japanese and English speakers obstructs the spread of English, as suggested by
McKay (2002).
The aforementioned Kachru (1982) described the English used in the Expanding
Circle, as “performance varieties”. According to Kachru, the performance varieties are
restricted to a functional range in certain contexts, such as tourism, commerce and otherinternational transactions.
However, the situation of English in the Expanding Circle is changing. In
contrast to countries like Japan, where English spread is not taking place, Graddol (1998)
asserts some countries which were categorized as in the Expanding Circle have changed
from EFL to the ESL context.

Figure 4.4
Graddol's Three Circles of English of the 21st Century(Graddol, 1998, p.10)
Possiblelanguage
Possibleshift

languageshift

375 million
L1 speakers

1112

375 million
L2 speakers

750 millon
EFL speakers

Retrieved from http://www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/new.html
Retrieved form http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_touroku.html

75

The countries are as follows: Argentina, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia,
Honduras, Lebanon, Myanmar, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama,
Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates. Thechanging pattern is shown in Figure 4.4. The pattern in use, function and role of English
is different in each of the three circles, as seen above. However, the boundaries of thecircle are becoming vague and the pattern of English use in each circle is changing.

4.2.4 English for Wider Communication- Language Hierarchy
When considering English as an international language, it is crucial to understandthe place of English alongside other languages. Graddol (1998) maintains that languages
are in hierarchically ordered positions as seen as Figure 4.5.
Looking at Figure 4.5, at the bottom of the pyramid are languages used for
informal purposes with one’s family and friends. They are geographically based, andlanguages that children learn first as a mother tongue. The higher up the pyramid are thelanguages used for more formal and pubic domains with “greater territorial reach” after
the expression of Graddol (1998).
At the top of the pyramid are international languages used for public
administration and higher education. Since the status of French is declining, English is
now becoming “more clearly the global lingua franca” (p.13) according to Graddol(1998).
With wide communication beyond national boarders in mind, being capable of the
top of the pyramid is necessary. It goes without saying that not everyone has thecapability to access the highest level. However, Graddol (1998) contends that, as a resultof the changing pattern of international communication, more and more people arelearning the languages at the top for wider communication. In order to understand theparticular position of English which can serve as a common language with greater
territorial reach, this section describes the sub-varieties of English within a certain
broader variety. In this section, varieties of English in Singapore are taken as an example.
Lick and Alsagoff (1988) assert that all the varieties of English are systematic with
their own rules.

76

Figure 4.5
Proportion of Internet Users by First Language (Graddol, 2006, p.44)

The Big Languages
English French

Regional Languages(Languages of the United Nations)Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, German, Russian,
SpanishNational Languages
Around 180 languages
serve over 180 nation states

Official Languages
within Nation States
Around 600 language worldwide

Local Vernacular Langauges
The remainder of the world's
6000+ languages

Therefore, they are linguistically equal. They showed some examples of ‘Singlish’ which
is used in an informal context such as in the example below:‘She kena sabo by them’(‘She was sabotaged by them’)

According to them, the sentence is based on a grammatical rule of Singlish. In that sense,
Singlish is a valid language and linguistically equal to other varieties. However, there
are people in Singapore who accuse Singlish of being “bad English.” On the other hand,some people advocate Singlish because it represents the Singaporean identity.
McKay (2002) states that the situation of English in Singapore reflects the fact that
all the language varieties are linguistically equal, but that they are not socially equal. She
presents the hierarchy of English in Singapore, following the concept of Kachru (1986)’s“cline of bilingualism” as seen in Figure 4.6.

77

Figure 4.6
English Language Hierarchy for Singapore (Mckay, 2002, p.56)
Standard English
Used for wider communicationand official puropose
Standard Singapore English
Used for primary educationand local news
Singlish
Used with family and friends

According to McKay (2002), “The inverted pyramid illustrates that Standard English has
a greater territorial reach” (p.56). Other elements are also important for an individual’srepertoire to show the degree of formality and relation to the role of the speaker as
pointed out by McKay. However, not everyone is able to access all the varieties, that is,elements of cline of bilingualism in the same way as the world language hierarchy.
Tay (1982) explains that the cline of bilingualism contains basilect, mesolect andacrolect. Acrolect is a variety spoken by educated people, and not very different fromstandard English of the Inner Circle. Mesolect has its unique grammatical characteristics,
and basilect diverges greatly from the standard form, and is used in very informal
contexts. The three types correspond to the English language hierarchy for Singapore
shown in Figure 4.6.
In this way, there are varieties within a variety. Each variety has a different
function. For example, mesolect and basilect express the identity of the people in acountry, or region. People are able to share the sense of belongings to the local society
by using basilect and mesolect. On the other hand, acrolect has a wider geographicalreach, thus it is a necessary variety for individuals who engage in international
communication.
Although varieties of English have been expanding and developing, the top of thevariety within a variety is close to the L1 standard and it can be used for wider
communication. The varieties at the lower layer of the hierarchy should be as valued as
the top since they have their own roles and functions as stated above. However, there is

78

no denying that the top of the hierarchy is to be promoted as a norm for foreign/second
language learners/speakers to access, given that the majority of bilingual users of English
learn English in educational settings. When English serves as an international language,
it needs to be intelligible among people from various backgrounds, beyond national andcultural boundaries. Considering setting a norm for learners of English, it probably
benefits them to be taught English for wider communication, which might be called
English as an international language (EIL). The question which arises here, is ‘what isEnglish as an international language like and is there a definite norm for it’? The next
section attempts to answers this question.

4.3 Searching for a Norm for English as an International Language in ELT (English
language teaching)English has become an international language as a communication tool forcommunication between both NSs and NNSs. It is used worldwide and there are manyvarieties developed in various regions. However, at the same time, when the varieties
become so diverse with their own norms then English cannot serve as an international
language. Given that many L2 speakers/learners of English learn English in educationalsettings, presenting norms for English as an international language should be promoted
hereafter in this rapidly globalizing world. There have been attempts to identify thenorms in English language teaching. However, before discussing them, it is necessary todefine the terminologies used for teaching English as an international language.

4.3.1 Terminologies
4.3.1.1 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)
According to Walker (2010), the term ‘lingua franca’ was originally used to referto a pidgin used for commerce in ports in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Middle Ages.
This first lingua franca was based on Italian, including elements of Arabic, French, Greek,
Spanish and Turkish. Jenkins (2007) explains that the original lingua franca has “itsplurilinguistic composition, then, clearly exemplifies an intrinsic and key feature of
lingua francas: their hybrid nature” (p.1). Since historical lingua francas did not have

79NSs, Jenkins claims that its strict interpretation of ELF is a contact language between
people who do not have a common native language or culture, excluding “NSs of ENL(English as a Native Language)” (p.1).
Although there are some definitions for ELF, researchers of ELF observe data of
the use of NNSs’ English in order to identify emerging norms for English as a common
language among NNSs, as their shared interest. Jenkins (2007) clarifies her idea
regarding ELF, as follows: “That is, ELF does not exclude NSs of English, but they are
not included in data collection, and when they take part in ELF interactions, they do not
represent a linguistic reference point” (p.3).
In other words, when referring to ELF, the subjects who are communicating in
English is emphasized. In the case of ELF, the subjects are usually NNSs. Although NS
are present in ELF communication, ELF has its own norms, different from the ones ofNSs. Walker (2010) summarizes the definition:

Summing up, ELF represents a community of users of English. The members of thiscommunity are predominantly non-native speakers. Native speakers are not excluded,
but if they wish to join the EFL community, they can only do this by respecting ELF
norms. What native speakers cannot do in ELF contexts is to impose their particular
set of native-speaker norms. Nor can they expect the members of the ELF community
to adjust to these norms. (p.7)

4.3.1.2 English as a Global Language
Crystal (2003) refers to the English used extensively in the world as a “global
language”. He presents the conditions necessary for a language to obtain global status.
First of all, a global language needs to have not only a large number of L1 speakers, butalso L2 speakers. Also, it needs to have an extensive geographical reach as L2, withspecial status as a second language (SL), or foreign language (FL) in each community.
The situation is described in 4.1.2.
In order to obtain special status in a SL or FL community, there are two main
methods, according to Crystal. First, the language should be an official language and80

used in government, legal, media, and educational systems. Crystal states that English is
an official language or has a special status in over 70 countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria,
India, Singapore, and Vanuatu. Secondly, the language should be prioritized over otherlanguages in the foreign language education in a country, even though the language does
not have any official status. According to Crystal, English was the most frequently taught
language in over 100 countries at the time of writing. Crystal declared that English had
obtained an unchallenged global language status as follows:

Because of the three-pronged development- of first-language, second-language, andforeign-language speakers- it is inevitable that a global language will eventually
come to be used by more people than any other language. English has alreadyreached this stage. (p.6)

Consequently, the term English as a global language seems to emphasize its global status
in the world, shedding light on its nature of spreading beyond national boundaries.
Jenkins (2007) refutes the term, ‘English as a global language’, since it does notprovide clarity for the types of communication it represents. In addition, the term has the
mistaken implication that English is spoken by all people everywhere.

4.3.1.3 English as an International Language (EIL)
Jenkins (2007) states that the terms, English as an international language (EIL)and English as lingua franca (ELF), are often confused with each other. Some researchers
regard EIL as a blanket term for all the language use, regardless of NSs, or NNSs. Other
researchers limit its use to interaction between NNSs.
Smith (1976) defines an international language as “one which is used by peopleof different nations to communicate with one another”, (p.38) and discusses international
language in terms of its culturally neutral characteristics. McKay (2002) elaborates
Smits’s notion of an international language, and defines EIL as below:

1 As an international language, English is used both in a global sense for international

81

communication between countries and in a local sense as a language of wider
communication within multilingual societies.
2 As it is an international language, the use of English is no longer connected to theculture of Inner Circle countries.
3 As an international language in a local sense, English becomes embedded in theculture of the country in which it is used.
4 As English is an international language in a global sense, one of its primaryfunctions is to enable speakers to share with others their ideas and culture. (p.12)

McKay (2002) summarizes her definition as that EIL “is used to communicate acrosslinguistic and cultural boundaries” (p.38) and “whenever English is being used alongsideother languages in a multilingual context as the unmarked choice for purposes for wider
communication, English in some sense is being used as an international language” (p.38)
In other words, EIL focuses on the subject of communication and types ofcommunication in the same way as ELF. Although McKay (2002) does not exclude NS
from EIL communication either, she refers to EIL as English which is independent fromL1’s cultural norms.
Seidlhofer (2005) maintains that “when English is chosen as the means ofcommunication among people from different first language backgrounds, acrosslinguacultural boundaries” (p.339), it is desirable to use ELF. This research defines EIL
as English used in the type of communication defined by Seidlhofer when she refers to
ELF. Furthermore, the detailed nature of EIL suggested by McKay (2002), is includedin the definition of EIL. In this research, the term EIL is adopted hereafter.

4.3.2 Pedagogical Norm of EIL
When English disperses into different forms, it becomes mutually unintelligible
among speakers with different L1. As a result, it cannot serve as an international
language. With the era of rapid globalization, interest in promoting EIL in pedagogy andresearch is growing. Given that the ultimate aim of teaching/learning English for many
NNSs is to teach/obtain capability to communicate in an international context, setting

82

norms of EIL for learners is a concern for researchers and educators. When thinking ofnorms for EIL, the question arises as to which English should be promoted as a model,
and what can be regarded as standard English for EIL.
Researchers have discussed standard English, and promotion of (one) English asa norm(s). The discussions are mainly about determining the model as standard topresent foreign/second language learners. For example, Quirk (1989) contends that
promoting a variety of Outer Circle English in classrooms is “ill-considered reflexes ofliberation linguistics” (p.23) and that the standard of L1 native norms should bepromoted. He states as follows:

Filipinos, like Indians, Nigerians, Malaysians, are learning English not just to speakwith their own country folk but link themselves with the wider English-using
community throughout the world. It is neither liberal nor liberating to permit learners
to settle for lower standards than the best, and it is a travesty of liberalism to tolerate
low standards which will lock the least fortunate into the least rewarding careers.
(pp.22-23)

In contrast to Quirk, Kachru (1985) affirms the norms of both Inner Circle native
English-speaking communities and Outer Circle ones need to be recognized based on
the actual situation of English use in the world. He insists on poly-model approaches inEnglish language education since he believes recognizing the variety of norms does notlead to a lack of intelligibility.
Widdowson (1994) also suggests that when English “serves the communicativeand communal needs of different communities”, standard English “develops endonormatively, by a continuing process of self-regulation, as appropriate to different
conditions of use” (p.386) in the same way as other varieties. Thus, no nation can have“custody” over English, and standard English is independent from Inner Circle norms.
Considering the norms of standard English for EIL, more specific descriptions
regarding standard language, and standard English are necessary. Regarding the more
specific definition, McKay (2017), for instance, defines standard language as below:

83Standard language is the term generally used to refer to that variety of a languagethat is considered the norm. It is the variety regarded as the ideal for educational
purposes, and it is usually used as a yardstick by which to measure other varieties. It
largely reflects formal written English. (Italics in the original, p.35)

Stevens (1985) defines Standard English as follows:a particular dialect of English, being the only non-localized dialect, of global
currency without significant variation, universally accepted as the appropriate
educational target in teaching English, which may be spoken with an unrestrictedchoice of accent. (p.88)

Trudgill (1999) explains that Standard English is “a social dialect which is distinguishedfrom other dialects of the language by its grammatical forms” (p.125). According to him,
Standard English is “purely social” and “no longer a geographical dialect” (p.125).
Researchers like Trudgill regard Standard English as a dialect, that is a reason they use
the capital letter for standard. Sato (1989) summarizes the two points of consensus
regarding SE (Standard English). “(1) SE is not tied to a particular accent, and that (2)SE is generally associated with written language” (p.145).
Although researchers have discussed Standard English, there is not one definite
model shown, nor concrete ideas about it. However, researchers have agreed that formal
written language varies little among the varieties (e.g., Quirk,1989; McKay 2017).
McKay (2017) indicates that the similarity of written language “will help maintain a coreof English usage” (p.36).

4.3.3 Needs for Norms of Spoken Language of EIL
Whereas written language varies little among varieties, which leads to maintaining
common usage of English, spoken language varies a great deal according to varieties.
However, considering the communication patterns, oral communication is as importantas the written one. Graddol (2006) shows that three-fourth of global journeys occurred

84

between non-English speaking countries in 2004. According to Graddol, this factindicates “the scale for needs of face-to-face international communication and growingrole for global English” (p.29).
Fraser (2000) focuses on the importance of oral communication in the Inner Circle
for immigrants to Australia. She argues that the inability to converse easily in English
does not only isolate the immigrants and obstruct their settlement, but also becomes thebarrier to other learning “since so many forms of tuition, including the teaching ofliteracy, require spoken English as the medium of instruction” (p.7) .Fraser reports thatwhile the unemployment rate of those who speak English “well” was 8%, theunemployment rate of those who speak “poorly” was 41% in 1999.
Considering standards and norms of EIL in terms of spoken language, it isessential to be mutually intelligible. Crystal (2003) describes the situation of the spreadof English:

The pull imposed by the need for identity, which has been making New Englishes
increasingly dissimilar from British English, could be balanced by a pull imposed by
the need for intelligibility, on a world scale, which will make them increasingly
similar, through the continued use of Standard English. At the former level, there
may well be increasing mutual unintelligibility; but at the latter level, there would
not. (p.178)

In order to maintain mutual intelligibility, then, what is crucial for EIL? Fraser (2000)
indicates the importance of pronunciation as follows:

Being able to speak English of course includes a number of sub-skills, involving
vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, etc. However, by far the most important of theseskills is pronunciation- with good pronunciation, a speaker is intelligible despiteother errors; with poor pronunciation, a speaker can be very difficult to understand,despite accuracy in other areas. Pronunciation is the aspect that most affects how the
speaker is judged by others, and how they are formally assessed in other skills. (p.7)

85

Jenkins (2000) also reports that communication breakdown in oral communication
between NNSs obtained by her data were attributed to errors in pronunciation in mostcases. Walker (2010) also argues that pronunciation intelligibility is the most importantin EFL communication, and it should never be sacrificed to the speaker’s accent to show
his/ her identity.
As seen in chapter 3, MEXT stipulates “contemporary standard pronunciation” isto be taught at junior high schools as elements of English pronunciation in Japan. It has
not been clarified what “contemporary standard English” is like, but it perhaps can besaid that it is mutually intelligible pronunciation among speakers with various L1s,
including native speakers of English. In other words, it can be referred to as “standard
pronunciation” of EIL. In order to teach learners EIL, with the primary purpose ofinternational communication, intelligible pronunciation needs to be emphasized inteaching spoken English.
Consequently, the primary purpose of pronunciation instruction is to “makelearners intelligible to the greatest number of people possible, and not just to the native
speakers of the language” (Walker, 2010, p.19). Thus, it is essential to search for normsof spoken language, particularly in pronunciation in terms of EIL. The next chapter will
focus on what constitutes intelligible pronunciation in EIL.

4.4 Summary
This chapter has seen how English has become an international language based on
the history of its spread, and current status of English. English is used not only by a large
number of people, but also used beyond geographical and cultural boundaries worldwide.
Since English has been used by many NNSs with different L1s and cultural backgrounds,
many varieties have appeared to the extent it could be mutually unintelligible amongpeople who use it as a common language. Therefore, there has been an attempt tomaintain EIL core so that it can function as an international language, particularly inface-to-face international communication, or oral communication where intelligible
pronunciation is essential.

86

Chapter 5
English Pronunciation Instruction and Intelligibility

5.1 Conceptual Framework of Intelligibility
5.1.1 Intelligibility as a Goal of Pronunciation Instruction
From around 1950 up to the 1970s, a lot of attention was given to the idea that
ESL/EFL learners’ main focus for pronunciation should be intelligible pronunciation.
(e.g., Abercrombie, 1956). The discussion was put aside, however, when the AudioLingual Method became dominant in the1970s, when pronunciation was prioritized themost in language classrooms, and learners were encouraged to acquire as close tonative-like pronunciation as possible through practices, such as minimal-pair drills (Saito& Lyster, 2012).
In the case of Japanese learners, the Course of Study of English for junior highschools has stipulated that one objective of pronunciation for students is to speak English
with “current and standard” pronunciation since the 1977 revision. This can imply thatJapanese students are expected to speak with native-like pronunciation, even though it
does not specify any L1 English, as stated in the Chapter 2.
The idea that ESL/ EFL learners should aim for native-like pronunciation seems
to be deep rooted among educators and leaners everywhere. For example, in a piece of
research into 100 adult ESL learners in Canada, Derwing (2003) reported that the
majority thought speaking with perfectly native pronunciation to be a desirable goal.
Levis (2005) points out that pronunciation instruction has been influenced by twocontradictory principles; these are the nativeness principle and the intelligibility principle.
When considering the nativeness principle, it has been discussed by researchersthat it is almost impossible for adult learners who have passed a so called “critical period”(Lenneberg, 1967). Although some work has suggested that some learners with highmotivation and language aptitude occasionally attain native-like proficiency inpronunciation, it is restricted to a very small number. Even though learners’ motivation

87

which aims for native-like pronunciation should never be denied, at the same time it isimportant to accept the “logical conclusion that aiming for nativeness was an unrealistic
burden for both teacher and learner” (Levis, 2005, p.370). In a country like Japan where
English is not used in general and taught as a foreign language, such a goal is particularly
unrealistic. Therefore, both teachers and leaners should focus on other goals.
In terms of the intelligibility principle, as early as around 1950, Abercrombie(1956) insisted that learners need to have “comfortably intelligible pronunciation” (p.37).
Morley (1991) also suggests that the first goal of pronunciation that leaners should target
is “functional intelligibility,” that is, “the intent to help learners develop spoken Englishthat is (at least) reasonably easy to understand and not distracting to listeners” (p.500).
Given the current situation in Japan, the author considers the above-stated“comfortable” or “functional” intelligibility as a pronunciation goal for Japanese EFL
learners. When referring to learners’ intelligibility, this means both oral and written
intelligibility. However, this study restricts its scope to oral intelligibility.

5.1.2 Place of Intelligibility in Oral Communication
5.1.2.1 Intelligibility as the First Step in Message Understanding in Oral
Communication
Before discussing intelligibility, it is imperative to understand where phonologicalintelligibility is located in the process of oral communication. Researchers haveidentified the process of speech (production) and communication. Palmer (1924) showed
the process as in the Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1
The Six Primary Speech Habits (Palmer 1924, p.327)
A= the "transmitter"
C
Concept.

A.I.
Acoustic
Image.

B = the "receiver"P

A

Phonation.

Audition.

A.I.
Acoustic
Image.

C
Concept.

88

Shannon (1948) also indicated a communication system shown in Figure 5.2 below.
When discussing methods of modulation “which exchange bandwidth for signal -tonoise ratio” (p.2), Shannon provided a communication model which can be applied to a
general theory of communication. According to him, communication consists of fiveessential components as follows:

1. An information source which produces a message or sentence of messages to becommunicated to the receiving terminal.
2. A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal
suitable for transmission over the channel.
3. The channel is merely the medium used to transmit the signal from transmitter toreceiver.
4. The receiver ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by thetransmitter, reconstructing the message from the signal.
5. The destination is the person (or thing) for whom the message is intended. (p.2)

Figure 5.2
Schematic Diagram of a General Communication System (Shannon,1948, p.2)
Information
sourceTransmitter
Message

ChannelSignalReceiver
Received
SignalDestination
Message

Noise
SourceLevelt (1989) indicated a model of speech production consisting of “a number ofprocessing components, each of which receives a certain kind of input and produces acertain kind of output” (p.8).

89

Figure 5.3
A Blueprint for the Speaker. (Levelt,1989, p.9)

Oral intelligibility as the first stage of understanding a message is involved in the ovals
seen in the respective figures above (The ovals were added to the figures by the author).
This means that a speaker’s oral intelligibility is a basic condition for a listener in orderto establish communication as indicated by Munro and Derwing (2015) who stated that
“intelligibility has long been understood to be a fundamental requirement for effective
communication” (p.377).

5.1.2.2 Other Higher-level Factors Required for Oral Communication
As seen in the previous section, intelligibility of pronunciation is a fundamental
requirement in understanding messages of oral communication for a receiver.
Furthermore, other higher-level factors have been discussed in the pronunciation
research.
Catford (1950), for instance, states that utterances need to be not only intelligible
but also effective in order to function in successful communication. According to him,
when a listener understands what his/her interlocutor says, the speech is intelligible, but
it is not effective unless the listener responds according to the speaker’s intention.
Also, Smith and Nelson (1985) divided the general term of intelligibility into three90

tripartite definitions for establishing communication.

(1) intelligibility: word / utterance recognition,(2) comprehensibility: word / utterance meaning (locutionary force),(3) interpretability: meaning behind word / utterance (illocutionary force). (p.334)

Pickering (2006) describes these definitions of Smith and Nelson as:

intelligibility; the ability of the listener to recognize individual words or utterances;comprehensibility; the listener’s ability to understand the meaning of the word orutterance in its given context, and interpretability, the ability of the listener tounderstand the speaker’s intention behind the word or utterance. (p.2)

Although Pickering refutes the definition of interpretability since “divining a speaker’s
intension is understandably difficult to measure”, she acknowledges that there is a clear
distinction between “matters of form” which consists of “formal recognition or decodingof words and utterances” and “matters of meaning” which is “variously described as‘comprehensibility,’ ‘understanding,’ or ‘communicativity’”(p.2).
Munro and Derwing (1995) define three terminologies of perspectives to judge
non-native speakers’ (NNS) utterances. They are intelligibility, comprehensibility, andaccentedness. According to them, “Intelligibility refers to the extent to which anutterance is actually understood”, comprehensibility refers to “listeners’ perceptions ofdifficulty in understanding particular utterances” and accentedness refers to “how strong
the speaker’s foreign accent is perceived to be” (p.291). Their research shows that
acccentedness is independent from intelligibility and comprehensibility, which explains
why strongly accented utterances are not necessarily unintelligible.
As seen above, in order to establish successful oral communication, it is evident
that ESL/EFL leaners’ speech should have certain features, and not only intelligibility,
as a fundamental requirement. These should include higher factors such as,“effectiveness”, “comprehensibility”, “interpretability” and “matters of meaning”.

91

However, in this paper, the focus is solely on intelligibility as a fundamental requirementfor oral communication.

5.1.3 Intelligibility as Speakers’ Responsibility
When discussing intelligibility, the question arises as to who (what) is responsible
for generating intelligibility? Smith and Nelson (1985) state that “intelligibility is not
speaker or listener-centered but is interactional between speaker and hearer” (p.333).
Bomgbose (1998) also claims that in communication, both speaker and listener are
responsible for its interpretation and a listener contributes to a speech act in “making anallowance for the accent and peculiarities of the other person’s speech” (p.11). In
discussing aspects of intelligibility according to context, Levis (2005) claims that
“intelligibility assumes both a listener and a speaker, and both are essential elements forcommunication” (p.372).
Regarding the perspective of intelligibility research, Rajadurai (2007) points outthat “past attempts to define and measure intelligibility have not only failed to attach
sufficient importance to the role of the listener, but have also neglected the role of the
speaker to accommodate receptively and productively to interlocutors” (p.91).
It is evident that intelligibility is a complex phenomenon involving factors related
to the speaker and the listener, the linguistic and social context, and the environment.
However, this paper restricts the agent that is responsible for intelligibility to the speaker,
following the narrow definition of intelligibility by Smith and Nelson (1985), which isword/utterance recognition. In this paper, the author would like to define intelligibility
as the extent to which listener recognizes what a speaker intended to convey. For
example, the author would like to consider pronunciation intelligible when a listenerrecognizes the word “right” pronounced and intended by a speaker, not the word “light”.

5.1.4 From Intelligibility to Global Intelligibility
In the preceding sections, it has been stated that intelligibility is a fundamental
requirement of oral communication. The following section looks at patterns of oral
communication in English.

92

Oral communication patterns of English are changing due to the increasing
globalization of the English language, where there is more communication occurring
between non-native speakers (Graddol, 2006) as shown in Chapter 4. In Figure 5.4, Levis(2005) shows the “context sensitivity of intelligibility in terms of a native speakingnonnative speaking (NS-NNS) listener -speaker matrix for assessment”. The four
Quadrants respectively represent “different aspects of intelligibility and suggest different
priorities for language instruction” (p.372).

Figure 5.4
Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix (Levis, 2005, p.382, Figure1)
LISTENER
Native Speaker

Nonnative Speaker

NativeSpeaker

A. NS → NS

B. NS → NNS

Nonnative
SpeakerC. NNS → NS

D. NNS → NNS

SPEAKERAs seen in the Figure 5.4, Quadrant A has NS speakers and listeners who belong todifferent L1 communities. Research on oral communication between native speakers(NS) assumes that the speakers’ varieties are mutually intelligible, but it also shows that
NS communication is not as simple as one would expect (e.g., Voegelin & Harris, 1951).
As pointed out by Levis (2005), Quadrant B, which includes NS speakers and NNS
listeners, is a general configuration for language instruction in an ESL context. It is also“the norm for most language instruction beyond ESL contexts, in which print and audio
materials are based on NS models” (p.372).
Quadrant C reflects the scope of most current research on intelligibility, where NS
listeners judge NNS’s utterances. For instance, Nelson (1982) describes his study as
follows:

Being Intelligible means being understood by an interlocutor at a given time in agiven situation. We want to examine whether a speaker of a non-native variety of93

English is intelligible to a speaker of a native variety, and if not, why not. If the
speech is considered understandable but "marked" (as non-native), again we would
like to examine the parameters on which the native speaker's impressions are formed.
(p.59)

Quadrant D reflects communication between NNS speakers and NNS listeners, where
English serves as the lingua franca, or EIL (English as international language).
According to the more complex context of EIL, Levis (2005) introduces anothermatrix (Figure 5.5), adding a third type of English user shown in Kachru (1988)’s threecircles of Englishes.

Figure 5.5
World Englishes Speaker-Listener Intelligibility Matrix (Levis, 2005, p.383)
LISTENERSPEAKER

Inner-Circle(IC)

Outer-Circle(OC)

Expanding Circle(EC)

InnerCircle

IC-IC(NS-NS)

1. IC-OC

IC-EC(NS-NNS)

OuterCircle

2.OC-IC

3. OC-OC

4. OC-EC

Expanding
CircleIC[sic]-IC(NNS-NS)

5. EC-OC

EC-EC(NNS-NNS)

The four italicized corners of the matrix are the same communication patterns shown in
Figure 5.4, but Levis states that the five bolded sections of the matrix remain relatively
unexplored. Regarding Quadrants 1 and 2, Levis cites an instance of graduate teachingassistants from Outer Circle countries such as India is tested for spoken English
proficiency “even when their English proficiency is otherwise indistinguishable from
Inner Circle graduate students” (p.374). Thus, as pointed out by Levis, in these
Quadrants, the issue does not lie on Outer Circle speakers’ overall English proficiency,
but on their accents. Regarding Quadrant 3, Levis states that it possesses the same nature

94

of NS-NS communication where Outer Circle listeners have difficulties with theunfamiliar accents of their interlocutors. Regarding Quadrants 4 and 5, where there is no
Inner Circle speaker, their characteristics are similar to NNS-NNS communication
whose pronunciation issues may cause breakdowns in communication.
The two matrixes, in particular the second matrix (Figure 5.5), show thecomplicated nature of the current EIL communication context. However, there isrelatively little research on intelligibility in Quadrant D in Figure 5.4, and Quadrants 15 in Figure 5.5.
Regarding the focus of research in terms of measuring NNSs’ speech intelligibility,
Bomgbose (1998) argues that “It used to be thought that such intelligibility was a oneway process in which non-native speakers are striving to make themselves understoodby native speakers whose prerogative it was to decide what is intelligible and what isnot” (p.10).
In an increasingly globalized world, it is essential to pay more attention to
intelligibility occurring in the scopes of the Quadrants above where there are no Inner
Circle speakers or listeners. As Walker (2010) states, “what has not changed is the focus
on the native speaker as the interlocutor…it should be clear that this assumption does
not correspond to the principal use of English today” (p.26).
Jenkins (2000) stresses the importance of intelligibility research on oral
communication between NNSs, stating that “As far as EIL (English as an International
Language) is concerned, however, we are interested not in intelligibility for ‘nativespeaker’ receivers but for participants in interlanguage talk, i.e. NBESs (Non-BilingualEnglish Speakers)” (p.93).
With the situation of Japanese learners in mind, the reality is that there is a highprobability that they communicate with both NS and NNS. Therefore, this paper focuses
on “global intelligibility” proposed by Moedjito (2009). This is “intelligibility required
for the interaction between NSs and NNSs as well as the interaction among NNSs” (p.79)
in the context of Quadrants C and D in the Figure 5.4, and Quadrants 4 and 5 in Figure
5.5.

95

5.2 Proposed Factors Determining Global Intelligibility
When the pronunciation instruction goal is to set intelligible pronunciation, thenext issue to consider is to identify factor(s) determining intelligibility. In their review
of research on pronunciation instruction, Thomson and Derwing (2014) suggest that
82 % of the research reported that the learners’ pronunciation had improved significantly
through pronunciation instruction. Given that explicit pronunciation instruction benefits
learners in intelligible pronunciation, the priorities of pronunciation factors for
instruction need to be decided. In most ESL/EFL classrooms, time devoted topronunciation instruction is limited, thus identifying the priorities is crucial, as pointed
out by Munro and Derwing (2015):

To ensure the most effective use of time, it is best to direct the most attention to
pronunciation problems that are unlikely to resolve themselves in the long run
without explicit intervention and to devote class time to difficulties that are sharedby many or all students in the class. (p.392)

5.2.1 Previous Research on Factors Determining Intelligibility
As stated in the previous section, most of intelligibility research has focused oncommunication between NNS as a speaker and NS as a listener. In other words, NNS’sphonological intelligibility has been studied to determine if their pronunciation was
intelligible to NS listeners. Thus, priorities of pronunciation work for learners have been
influenced by beliefs about how NSs make themselves understood to other native
speakers. Based on this belief, until 1980s, pronunciation instruction had focused on
segmentals, that is attainment of specific phonemes (Walker, 2010).
Figure 5.6 shows the various features that compose English pronunciation. In thehistory of intelligibility research prior to 1980s, segmental features were prioritized. Atthat time, in ESL/ EFL classrooms, it was generally accepted that after mastering
segmental features, learners could proceed to the next stage, that is, suprasegmental
features. As Walker (2010) states, “Experts felt that stress, rhythm, intonation, andcertain characteristics of connected speech were only appropriate for advanced learners”

96(p.25).

Figure 5.6
The Various Features of English Pronunciation (Gilakjani,2012,p.120)

After the advent of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), the priority on
segmentals was questioned and conversely, researchers started to insist thatsuprasegmentals be prioritized in pronunciation instruction. Walker (2010) describes theshift of priority as follows:

Analysis of how native speakers used stress, rhythm, and intonation to construct theirspoken messages led to the conclusion that learners needed to focus their attention onthese features, rather than on individual sounds. (p.26)

Celce-Murcia et al.(1996) state that at that time many researchers focused on
foreign/second language learners’ acquiring the following features; 1) intonation, 2)
rhythm, 3) connected speech, 4) voice quality settings (p.26). They also insist that
pronunciation errors involving suprasegmentals and connected speech are more serious
than errors involving segmentals as follows:

Learners who use incorrect rhythm patterns or who do not connect words together
are at best frustrating to the native-speaking listener, more seriously, if these learners

97

use improper intonation contours, they can be perceived as abrupt, or even rude, andif the stress and rhythm patterns are too non-native-like, the speakers who produce
them may not be understood at all. (p.131)

Fraser (2001) states that the priority of pronunciation instruction should be basedon listeners’ needs in communicative teaching, and a pronunciation curriculum should
help leaners acquire factors making them understood. According to her, a lot of researchon psycholinguistics has shown NS listeners respond to stress patterns much more thanto individual phonemes. Based on the findings, she presents the instructional order asfollows:

1. word and sentence stress
2. syllable structure (final consonants, consonant clusters)
3. vowel length distinctions
4. major consonant distinctions (those with a high functional load, e.g. S/sh, f/p)
5. vowel quality distinctions
6. minor consonant distinctions (those with a low functional load, e.g. Th, v/w/)(p.33)

Whether the focus is on the segmental or suprasegmental, much research has been
undertaken in an attempt to identify the factors influencing intelligibility. In theirresearch examining how segmental accuracy and prosodic features influenced the overall
impression of NNS pronunciation, Anderson-Hsieh et al. (1992) report that prosodic
feature was the most strongly related to intelligibility and accentedness. On the other
hand, some studies report that segmental errors influence intelligibility more seriously.
(e.g., Fayer & Kransinski, 1987; Koster & Koet, 1993).
In an attempt to observe the impact of instructional interference, Derwing et al.
(1998) divided L2 learners into three groups; Group 1 received an explicit pronunciation
instruction which focused on segmental features. Group 2 received an explicit
pronunciation instruction which focused on global (suprasegmental) features. Group 3

98

received general pronunciation instruction. After 12 weeks of each pronunciation
instruction, they found that Group 1 showed the most improvement in accentedness in areading aloud task. Group 2 showed the most improvement in comprehensibility andfluency in an extemporaneous narrative task. From the results attained in the research,
they declare the importance of both segmental and suprasegmental features according tocase:attention to both global and segmental concerns benefits ESL students. In the case of
a communication breakdown caused by a mispronunciation, a student who hasreceived segmental training might be able to focus on the mispronounced form in aself-repetition. On the other hand, global instruction seems to provide the learnerwith skills that can be applied in extemporaneous speech production, despite the needto allocate attention to several speech components. (p.407)

In another piece of research examining the effect of instructional interference,
Saito and Lyster (2012) investigate whether Japanese ESL learners could improve /ɻ/after they received FFI (form-focused instruction) and CF (corrective feedback). They
report that the group that had received both FFI and CF using recast improved theirpronunciation of /ɻ/ significantly, while the group that had received only FFI did not
improve their pronunciation of /ɻ/. The research findings by Derwing et al. (1998), andSaito and Lyster (2012) have given valuable insights into the effect of instructional
interference, which can be applied to instruction in foreign/second language classrooms.
Regardless of priority on either segmentals or suprasegmentals, the researchfindings discussed above seem to imply that not all the pronunciation features influence
intelligibility equally. Also, as stated in the previous section, there is relatively little
research into communication with NNS as the listener. Therefore, more research
identifying contributing factors to intelligibility not only from NS’s perspective, but alsothat of NNS’s is needed.

99

5.2.2 Factors Determining Intelligibility in International Communication
In an increasingly globalized world with English establishing its position as a
global language, some researchers have started to focus on intelligibility from the pointof view of the NNS. Bansal (1990) for instance, points out the pronunciation errors
which damage oral intelligibility in communications between NNSs in India as follows:(i) Lack of clear articulation, with parts of the utterance slurred over and sometimes
even important words not coming out clearly(ii) Accent on the wrong syllable of a word, which sometimes distorts the phonetic
shape of the word completely.
(iii) Substitution of a different vowel or consonant for the one normally used in
English. (p.229)

The features include both segmentals and suprasegmentals. The list is referential in orderto realize the features when one focuses on his/her pronunciation in engaging in oral
communication, but they are rather phenomena and not details of pronunciation features.
After examining communication breakdowns between NNS students and findingout that pronunciation was found to be the most important cause of breakdowns in EIL(English as international language), Jenkins (2000) proposed lingua franca corecomposed of phonological features which are essential in EIL, with communication
between NNSs in mind. Table 5.1 shows the features
The lingua franca core (LFC) is innovative in terms of presenting the corephonological features which are crucial for intelligibility in EIL communication, and inparticular, the attempt to reduce functional load for both teachers and learners bysimplifying English phonology and to adopt more widely and simply used versions. For
example, Jenkins chose rhotic 13[ɻ] rather than other varieties of /r/, such as RP’s

13

Phonemes are enclosed between slanted lines / / and allophones are enclosed in square
brackets [ ].

100

14

(Received Pronunciation) post-alveolar approximant [ɹ]. Non-rhotic varieties do notpronounce ‘r’ when it comes after a vowel or before a consonant as in words like ‘car’and ‘card’. She states that the reason for choosing rhotic [ɻ] is that “the 15GA variant is
simpler for both production as there is only one version to acquire, and for reception as
it is always realized regardless of which sound follows” (p.141).

Table 5.1
The Lingua Franca Core proposed by Jenkins
segmental /suprasegmental

phonological area

specifications

example・ rhotic [ɻ] rather than other varieties of /r/

segmental

matter [mætə]instead of [mæɾəɻ]・most substitution of /θ/ /ð/, and [ɫ] are permissible

little[líṭl] instead of [liṭɫ]・close approximations to core consonatnt sounds generlly
individual consonant
permissible
sounds・certain approximations not permissible (i.e. where there
is a resk that they will be heard as a different consonant
sound from that intended)・aspiration following the fortis plosive /p//t/, and /k/kick[kʰík]group ofconsonatns(clusters)

vowelssuprasegmental

・intervocalic /t/rather than rather than [ɾ]nuclear stressplacement

・fortis/lenis differential effet on prededing vowel lenghseat[síːt] sieve[sív]・initial clusters not simplified

product not as[ˡpɒdʌk]・medial and final clusters simplified only accroding to L1
rules of elision・maintenance of vowel length contrasts

mate-made・L2 regional qualities pemissible if consistent, but /ɜ:/to be preserved

bird・nuclear stress production and placement and division of
speech stream into word group

1. I've rented a FLAT.
2. I've RENTED a flat.
3. I'VE rented a flat.

Conversely, Jenkins chose RP intervocalic /t/rather than GA [ɾ] for the same reason.
When the word “matter” is pronounced by GA, it is pronounced as [mæɾəɻ], whereintervocalically /t/ becomes the voiced flap [ɾ]. In RP, it is pronounced [mætə], and again
it “has a more reliable relationship with the orthography, and because one of the chief
principles underpinning the LFC is to simplify the learning task as far as it is realisticallypossible, the RP variant of /t/ is the one selected for the LFC” (p.140).
Received Pronunciation refers to the pronunciation system which have been used inSoutheast area of England, with London as the center. It is not restricted to one area, but it issaid to be spoken by well- educated people. With the change of time and people’s attitude
towards social classes, there have been more variety of pronunciation, such as Estuary
English, being accepted widely.
15
General American
14

101

According to Jenkins, regarding other phonemes, such as dental fricatives /θ/ /ð/,substitutions of these phonemes did not impair phonological intelligibility in her data of
examining ESL students’ interactions. Overall, she encourages learners to approximate
rather than “to imitate exactly the RP and GA consonant sounds” (p.143). Certain
approximations which generally derived from L1 transfer, however, were found to be
problematic in EIL intelligibility. For example, one example of approximation excluded
from LFC is the Japanese substitution of the bilabial fricative “[ɸ] for /h/ followed by/u:/ for example, in the word ‘who’ and for /f/ for example, in the word ‘football’ ”(p.143).
This substitution derives from Japanese interference. Jenkins explains that this kind of
approximation “might be considered phonetically close enough to the target sound to be
regarded as a L2 regional variant, and yet which were problematic for intelligibility inthe data upon which the LFC is based” (p.144).
Contrary to the thorough repertoire of core segmental features, Jenkins included
only two suprasegmental features as LFC. They are nuclear stress and division of speechstream into word groups. As I will discuss in the next section, in spoken English, one
syllable in each word group is stressed, which is pronounced louder, longer and higher
in pitch. In discussing Jenkin’s LFC, Walker (2010) states that “the most significant pitch
movement (tone) in the word group is called the nucleus (or tonic). The correct
placement of nuclear stress is important for intelligibility in ELF” (p.36). Jenkins(2000) divides nuclear stress into two patterns; “unmarked (on the last content word in
the word group)” and “contrastive” (p.153). In both cases, Jenkins claims that nuclear
stress is a crucial key to the speaker’s intended meaning.

It highlights the most salient part of the message, indicating where the listener should
pay particular attention. And contrastive stress is especially important in English, as
the language does not have morphological or syntactic resources that many otherlanguages have to highlights contrasts: English has few inflections, and its word
order is relatively inflexible. (p.153)

Regarding “unmarked” nuclear stress, in English sentences, every content word receives

102

stress, but major sentence stress is usually on the last content word in a sentence as seen
below:・・・ ・Susan bought a new sweater at Creeds.
・・ ・I walked home in the rainstorm.
・

・

・

・

Peter likes your suggestion.

(Avery and Ehrlich, 1992, p.75)

Walker showed the example of nuclear stress placement as seen in Table5.1. Sentence 1,“I’ve rented a FLAT,” is a ‘neutral’ or ‘unmarked’ way of saying this phrase with thenuclear stress falling on the last lexical item. It emphasizes the type of accommodation
the speaker has taken. In sentence 2, “I’ve RENTED a flat,” the nuclear stress is on theword ‘rented’ and it shows that the speaker has not bought a flat. In sentence 3. “I’VE
rented a flat,” emphasis is on the fact that it was the speaker who rented the flat, and notsome other person mentioned in the conversation.
Jenkins (2000) conducted an experiment to test her hypothesis that both NS andNNS rely on correct nuclear placement in order to interpret messages. In the experiment,
both L1 and L2 speakers of English were recorded reading sets of questions beginningin the same way but ending differently as follows:

Did you buy a tennis racket at the sports centre this morning, or-

was it a squash racket?

-

did you buy it yesterday?

-

did you only borrow one?

-was it your girlfriend who bought it?

-at the tennis club
(pp.153-154)

103

Jenkins then removed the second halves of the speech and asked the participants topredict the second half in each case. As a result, L1 speakers placed contrastive stressappropriately and predicted all of the L1 speakers’ second halves correctly. L2 speakers
predicted approximately two-thirds of the L1 speakers' second halves correctly.
Conversely, L2 speakers did not place appropriate contrastive stress in most of the first
halves, which led to the low scores of both L1 and L2 speakers’ predicting the second
halves. Based on the experiment and other NNSs’ interactional data, Jenkins claims that
nuclear stress is crucial in EIL intelligibility. Also, she points out that the rules of nuclear
placement, both marked and contrastive, are simple enough for teachers to teach andlearners to master in the classroom.
Other than nuclear stress and 16tone unit referred to by Jenkins, or “word group”
referred to by Walker (2010), Jenkins excluded other suprasegmental features that havebeen considered important in a speaker’s intelligibility in general. Walker (2010) listed
the non-core features, including both segmentals and suprasegmentals suggested by
Jenkins as follows:･ /θ/ /ð/, and dark /l/･ exact vowel quality･ pitch movement (tone)･ word stress･ stress-timing･ vowel reduction, schwa, and weak forms･ certain features of connected speech-linking, assimilation, coalescence(p. 38)When considering these non-core features, a question arises; Are they really of noimportance to intelligibility in EIL? Even in an increasingly global era, it is important totake reality into consideration, such as learners’ needs, actual chances of interacting with
16

Jenkins defines tone unit as “the way in which English speakers divide their utterances into
smaller meaningful units, or chunks, each containing one nuclear syllable” (p.155)

104both NS and NNS, and motivation. Although, lingua franca is defined as “a term focusedon the forms of English which emerge when English serves as the default language
communication between speakers of different first languages”(Murphy, 2014, p.259), it
does not mean that there is no chance of having NS interlocutors in lingua franca, or EIL
communication, nor that we can exclude NS from the situation.
AS a NNS, this author also has doubts about word stress as a non-ELF-core feature.
It seems to have an impact on intelligibility. In Field (2005)’s research examining both
NSs and NNS’s lexical recognition, it is reported that mis-assigned stress significantly
impeded intelligibility for both NSs and NNSs. As Jenkins (2000) herself admits “wordstress has a corresponding effect of the nuclear stress”, therefore, it “cannot be dismissed
lightly” (p.150), since word stress is related to nuclear stress, it seems to be necessary to
pay attention to both of them.
Moedjito (2009) argues that Jenkins does not discuss the features determining
intelligibility from both NS and NNS’S perspectives. Moedjito suggests that “unlike thefactors of comfortable intelligibility (e.g., Celce-Murcia et al.,1996; Morley, 1991;
Walker, 2010) or mutual intelligibility (e.g., Jenkins, 2000; 2002), very limited
information is available for EFL teachers about factors determining global intelligibility”(Moedjito, 2009, p.85) Based on his concept of “global intelligibility” that is,“intelligibility required for the interaction between NSs and NNSs as well as theinteraction among NNSs” (p.79), this research focus on global intelligibility from theview point of Japanese EFL teachers and learners.

5.3 Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility
5.3.1 Previous Studies on Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility
There is still relatively little research on Japanese learner’s phonologicalintelligibility. For example, in order to investigate how speakers’ intelligibility affectlisteners’ own language background and their experience with different speech varieties,
Munro et al. (2006) examined speech intelligibility of accented English utterances by
Cantonese, Japanese, Mandarin, Polish and Spanish speakers, with Cantonese, Japanese,
Mandarin and English speaker as evaluators of the utterances. The results show

105

intelligibility scores, comprehensibility and accentedness ratings by listener groups had
moderate to high correlations regardless of their background L1 language. Even though
the study did not intend to show and focus on Japanese ESL speakers’ intelligibility, it
was reported that the Japanese speakers of the study had relatively intelligible
pronunciation. However, they were students who had studied in Canada, as university or
graduate students, not general EFL learners, as pointed out by Kashiwagi and Snider(2013).
Regarding studies targeting Japanese EFL learners who lived in Japan, Bradlow etal. (1997) report that Japanese university students improved their distinctive productionof /r/-/l/ significantly after they had received /r/-/l/ perceptual identification training eventhough they had not received any production training. The study supports “the intuitive
practice of using perceptual training tasks such as discrimination and identification
exercise in the classroom (Gilbert, 1993)” (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p.388).
Regarding investigating pronunciation errors impairing intelligibility, Yamane(2006) extracted 52 words containing pronunciation errors from utterances of 80
Japanese EFL learners, and then presented them to 48 NSs. As a result, when the NSs
were asked to predict a single word the speakers intended to say, they had difficulty in
identifying the words. However, when the words were presented in sentences, they could
predict them more precisely. He also categorized the pronunciation errors into 1. misplaced stress on words, 2, vowel addition, 3. vowel substitution, 4. consonant
substitution, and 5. consonant deletion. As a result, consonant deletion was found to
impact on intelligibility the most. This result corresponds with Jenkins’ (2000) claim that
consonant deletion is more of a threat to intelligibility. She provides the example of acontrast of consonant deletion and vowel addition, when a Japanese learner produced theword ‘product’ as [pəˡrdʌkʊtɔ] whereas a Taiwanese leaner produced it as [ˡpɒdʌk]. The
former was intelligible to the learner’s NNS interlocutor, however, the latter was not(p.142).
In studies which had both NSs and NNSs as raters of Japanese learners’
intelligibility, Kashiwagi and Snyder (2008), Kashiwagi and Snyder (2010) examinedJapanese university students as subjects of the studies. In their two studies, quasi-

106

independency of intelligibility and accentedness in Japanese leaners’ speech was
confirmed. It was also reported that among the pronunciation errors, segmental features,in particular, vowel error, were found to affect overall intelligibility. Kashiwagi andSnider (2013) conducted other research with NSs and NNSs raters living in America
who were not familiar with Japanese learners’ English, since the rater in their two studies
above were American and Japanese teachers who had taught English in a university inJapan, and they were accustomed to Japanese learners’ English. In the study, they had
Japanese learners read aloud sentences and raters transcribe what they heard.
Intelligibility data was attained by the percentage of coincidence of words in the original
passages. The result was that Japanese university students tended to have problems withsegmentals, and, in particular, with NNSs as raters, it led to low intelligibility.
Moedjito (2009) investigated nine factors that were thought to affect the
intelligibility of Japanese high school students with NSs and NNSs as raters. He used thefive-point Likert scale to rate the learners’ overall intelligibility and the nine factors as
follows:(1) sound accuracy, (2) word stress, (3) lexical accuracy, (4) grammatical accuracy,(5) adjustments in connected speech, (6) sentence stress, (7) intonation, (8) rhythm,(9) fluency (p.87).

As a result, with NS raters, sound accuracy, word stress, lexical accuracy, adjustments inconnected speech, and sentence stress significantly correlated with overall intelligibility.
Among them, word stress was the most significant factor. On the other hand, with NNSs
as raters, sound accuracy was the most significant, and word stress, sentence stress,
intonation and rhythm were found to be significantly correlated with overall
intelligibility This result supports Jenkins’ claim that NNSs are more dependent on
segmentals, and with NNS interlocutors, segmentals are crucial in intelligibility.
As stated, some research including or focusing on Japanese learners has been
conducted in terms of the listener’s variables, such as L1 backgrounds, as in the researchof Munro et al. (2006), the effect of instructional interference, such as the research of

107

Bradlow et al. (1997) , and identifying contributing factors to intelligibility, such as theresearch of Yamane (2006), Kashiwagi and Snyder (2008; 2010; 2013), andMoedjito(2009)
These findings have presented valuable insights into understanding Japanese
EFL learner’s intelligibility and instructional direction in pronunciation. However,further research is necessary. Given that many factors impairing Japanese learners’
intelligibility derive from L1 transfer, it is important to list the phonological features ofJapanese language that are different from English, which lead to L1 transfer.

5.3.2 Theoretical Framework for Capturing Japanese Learners’ Intelligibility
It goes without saying that the Japanese language is radically different to English
in many ways, one of them being phonological features. They are so different thatJapanese learners have difficulty in mastering them. This section looks at thephonological differences which seem to have impacted on Japanese learners’
intelligibility between Japanese and English languages.

5.3.2.1 Suprasegmental Features
Syllable
The salient difference between the Japanese and English languages lies in syllable
structure. The Japanese language has syllables consisting of consonant (C) and verb (V),such as té (hand) and ki (tree). Languages with this syllable structure are called open
syllable languages. On the other hand, English is a closed syllable language. English
syllable structure is more complicated than most other world languages (Brown, 2015;
Jenkins, 2000). It frequently has syllables and words which end in consonants and havea lot of complex consonant clusters. English syllables consist of one vowel alone or avowel with up to three preceding and/or up to four following consonants, such as strengthand prompts.
Japanese learners tend to apply the CV structure when they pronounce English
syllables and words by inserting vowels after consonants as follows:108

EnglishJapanesestrength[streŋkθ] [sɯtoɾe̞nsɯ]
cccvcccc

cvcvcvccv

As seen in the example, since Japanese basically does not have consonant clusters,
Japanese learners tend to pronounce monosyllabic words as polysyllabic. This tendency
of Japanese learners also derives from the orthography. The kana (hiragana andkatakana) letters coincide with actual pronunciation. This means the writing system isbased on the syllable, rather than the individual vowel and consonant sounds. Brown(2015) calls this kind of writing system “syllabic writing systems” or syllabaries” (p.86).
For example, the letter representing the combination of the phonemes /ka/ is represented
by one letter (か). In other words, the name of the letter is same as the actual sound. On
the other hand, in the English spelling system, there is often no one-to-one
correspondence between the sounds and the letters.
Furthermore, phonics is not explicitly taught in English classes in the Japanese
school system. A lot of English pronunciation commercial textbooks sold in Japan forgeneral Japanese learners emphasize phonics, consonant clusters and syllable division(e.g., Shizuka, 2019; Uekawa & Jeana, 2007). However, these features are usually notemphasized in schools or designated textbook used in schools, as shown in Chapter 2.

Word Stress
When English words are pronounced, stress is always put on one syllable, whichleads to a strong-weak pattern (Kubozono, 1998). Richards et al. (2000) definephonological stress as:

the pronunciation of a syllable or word with more respiratory energy or muscularforce than other syllables or words in the same utterance. A listener often hears a
stressed word or syllable as being louder, higher in pitch, and longer than thesurrounding words or syllables. (p.560)

109

Pennington (1996) states that stress gives one syllable “an impression of perceptual
prominence” and the prominence is “duration, or length; intensity, or loudness; andpitch, or fundamental frequency” (p.129). As defined above, an English stressed syllable
has features that are louder, higher in pitch and longer than other syllables.
On the other hand, Japanese stress is prominent in heights in pitch. For example,
when Japanese words which have the same phoneme structure are differentiated inutterance, they are pronounced as follows:

amé

amé

(rain)(candy)

hashi

hashi

(chopstick)(bridge)Due to the L1 transfer of the stress pattern, Japanese learners tend to forget to pay
attention to length and loudness and, as a result, pronounce English words rather flatly.

Sentence Stress and Rhythm
The weak-strong stress pattern characterizes utterances in English. Celce-Murcia
et al. (1996) show the same stress patterns in words and utterances respectively (p.152).

motherDo it
Pay them

attend
You did?
It hurts.

abondonI saw you.
We found it・
guarantee
Have some cake.
Where's the beef?

Kubozono (1998) states that syllables contribute to characteristics of stress structure in
the weak-strong rhythm of English utterances. In other words, the rhythm of the English
language is characterized by stress where syllable functions as a unit (p.50). On this point,

110

the above stated suprasegmentals, that is syllable and word stress, are related to English
rhythm.
English is said to have so called “stress-timed” rhythm. In stress-timed languages,
stressed syllables occur at regular intervals. Thus, the amount of time one takes to say asentence depends on the number of stressed syllables. On the other hand, languages like
Japanese are called “syllable-timed” languages. With these kinds of languages, theamount of time one takes to say a sentence depends on the number of syllables. Avery
and Ehrlich (1992) show the difference as seen in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.7
The Rhythm of a Syllable-timed Language (Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.73)

Figure 5.8
The Rhythm of a Stress-timed Language (Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.73)

The stress-timed nature of English is often illustrated by the sentences seen in Figure 5.9
below as provided by Avery and Ehrlich (p.74).

111

Figure 5.9
The Stress-timed Nature of English (Avery and Ehrlich,1992, p.74)

The sentence at the top contains three syllables, and the one at bottom has eight syllables.
Although the sentences become longer in terms of the number of syllables, it takes
approximately the same amount of time to say the sentences with three syllables (words)
stressed. However, learners of syllable-timed languages as their L1 tend to “assign equal
weight to each syllable in English sentences, regardless of whether a syllable is stressedor unstressed. This may give their speech a staccato-like rhythm that can adversely affectthe comprehensibility of their English” (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, p.74).
As stated in this section, the suprasegmental characteristics of Japanese learners’
English tend to be as follows:

1. vowel insertion,
2. increased number of syllables
3. rather vague and flat stress on words and sentences in general.

These characteristics seem to lead to a failure to utter sentences with a stress-timed
rhythm. Regarding 1 and 2, Walker (2010) states that Japanese learners’ tendency to“give equal length to every syllable without reducing vowels in English unstressedsyllables” alone may not threaten intelligibility very seriously but “when it is combinedwith the addition of extra vowels”(p.114), the utterances become far longer than theoriginal, which makes them very hard to understand, even in EIL contexts.

112

5.3.2.2 Segmental Features
Compared to Japanese, English segmentals are more complicated with wider
varieties. Figure 5.10 shows the vowels of English and Japanese. Japanese vowels are
represented in Kana.

Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 show the consonant systems of English and Japanese respectively.

Table 5.2
Consonant Phonemes of English (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996, p.47)
Place of Articulation
Bilabial

Labiodentals

DentalAlveolarpalatal

Velar

GlottalStopvoicelessvoiced/p//b/

Fricative
voicelessvoiced

/t/
/d/
/f/
/v/

/θ/
/ð/

/s/
/z/

AffricatevoicelessvoicedNasal
voiced

/k/
/g/
/ʃ/
/ʒ/
/t͡ʃ/
/d͡ʒ/

/m/

Liquid/n//l/ (/r/)voiced

/ŋ/
/r/

Glide
voicelessvoiced/h/(/hw/)
/w/

/y/

[ɫ]

113

Table 5.3
Consonant Phonemes of Japanese (Adopted from Table 4 in Kubozono,
1998, p.42)
Manner of
Articulation

Bilabial

Place of Articulation
DentalPalatalAlveolarAlveolar

Velar

GlottalStopvoicelessvoicedpbkghFricative
voicelessvoiced
Nasal
flap
glide

t
d

m
w

s
z
n
r
j

(w)

According to Jenkins (2000), most of the world’s languages have approximately
twice as many consonants as vowels. On the contrary English has up to 20 vowel soundswith 24 consonants. Japanese has five vowels and 14 consonants. Kubozono (1998),
however, states that the number of vowels is ten, when long vowels are included. The
number increases even more when diphthong natured vowels found in borrowed words,
such as [ai] in ‘sutoraiku’ (strike), are included. According to Kubozono, there are
generally thought to be only five Japanese vowels since Japanese is a syllable-timed
language and both long vowels and diphthongs are analyzed as a series of two vowels,that are two syllables. Thus ‘sutoraiku’ is divided into ‘su-to-ra-i-ku’ and [ai] is notregarded as one independent vowel phoneme. Based on this difference, consequently,
Japanese learners tend to pronounce English long vowels and diphthongs in a much
longer way, usually twice as long as their counterparts.
Similarly, Japanese has fewer consonants than English. In particular, English has
remarkably more fricatives with dominantly localizing rather small area in labiodental(/f/, /v/), dental (/θ/, /ð/), and alveolar (/s/, /z/) (Kubozono, 1998, p.43). On the other hand,
Japanese has rather fewer consonants, but when allophones are included, the number
increases. Consonant sounds change particularly in front of /i/ and /u/. For example, /s/
in ‘sake’ is very similar to the English /s/, but it is realized as [ʃ] when it precedes /i/,

114

thus “sip” pronounced by a Japanese leaner often sounds as “ship” (Walker, 2010).
Walker describes the problematic areas of consonants for Japanese leaners of English
which are potential threats to intelligibility as follows:･ the lack of distinction between /l/ and /r/･ palatalization of consonants before /i/” with its effect especially notable with /s/,/z/, /t/, /d/, /n/, /h/･ The weakness of aspiration of /p/,/t/,/k/ (p.114)

Table 5.4
Problems of Segmental Features Found in Japanese Learners
features/s/ vs. /ʃ//t/ vs. /tʃ/Consonants
traitsWhen /s/ and /t/ occur before the high front vowels /ɪ/or / iy/, Japanese speakers may pronounce them as /ʃ/and /tʃ/ respectively.

examples'sip' sounds like 'ship''tip' sounds like 'chip'/b/ vs./v/

While Japanese has a /b/ sound, it has no /v/ andJapanes learners often substitute /b/ for /v/'very' sounds like'berry'/l/ vs. /r/Japanese has only one liquid sound which is between
the English /r/ and /l/.

'light' may sound'right' or vice versa

word-initial/w/ and /y/Japanese speakers may omit word-initial glides before
their high vowel counterparts.

'year' is pronunced
as /ir/'would' as /ʊd/Japanese has no consonant clusters in intial or final
consonant clusters position. Japanese learners will generally break up
consonant clusters through the insertion of a vowel.
word-final
consonants'sky' is pronunced as'suky'The only consonant permitted in word-final position isa nasal sound similar to (but not identical with) English 'match' is pronunced/ŋ/as in 'sing'. Japanese learners will often insert a vowel
as 'matchi'
after a word-final consonant.
vowelstense vs.lax vowels:
The distinction between tense and lax vowels does not/iy/ vs. /ɪ/,exist in Japanese.
/ey/ vs /ɛ/, /uw/

'beat' may sound'bit' or vise versa.

Japanese speakers may have difficulty with all four ofthese vowel sounds, the /æ/and /ʌ/ sounds being
particularly problematic.

'pan' [pæn] may
sound 'pen'[pɛn]/ɛ/ vs. /æ/ vs.
/ʌ/ vs. /a/115

Table 5.4 shows the problematic areas of both vowels and consonants found inJapanese learners’ utterances presented by Avery and Ehrlich (1992). For each difficulty,
they also highlight suggestions for improvement. For example, they recommend
showing Japanese learners the distinction between /l/ and /r/ by pointing out whether the
tongue is touching the tooth ridge or not at first, and then give learners practice in making
the distinction using minimal pairs such as these below:

/l/
long
lamb
lip
lime
play
fly
filingfeeling

/r/
wrong
ram
rip
rhyme
pray
fry
firingfearing( p.136)

With the idea of improving Japanese learners’ intelligibility in mind, it is crucial
to focus on the difficulties peculiar to these leaners in order to make the most of classtime. Thus, the lists presented by the researchers, such as Avery and Ehrlich (1992), andWalker (2010) will benefit both teachers who teach English to Japanese learners andJapanese learners by narrowing down the workload of acquiring a thorough inventory ofEnglish segmentals.

5.4 Summary and Unsolved Issues
This chapter has looked at the theoretical framework of intelligibility, proposed
factors determining intelligibility and Japanese leaners’ intelligibility. Although there is,as yet, no definite agreement on the definition of intelligibility among researchers, it iscertain that intelligibility is a fundamental requirement for establishing oral
communication. In this increasingly globalized era, it is crucial to be able to speak
English with intelligible pronunciation to audiences of both NSs and NNSs listeners,
which can be defined as “global intelligibility”.

116

In order to improve learners’ intelligibility, many researchers have studied thefactors determining intelligibility. Most of the studies have focused on intelligibility fromthe perspective of the NS, but some studies have been conducted from the NNS’s pointof view. Research findings have generally shown that for NSs listeners, suprasegmentals,
such as intonation and word stress, are more important than segmentals for learners’
phonological intelligibility. On the other hand, in oral communication between NNSs,
sound accuracy in segmentals are more important.
As discussed, there is rather little research on Japanese learners’ intelligibility, butsome research has been conducted from both NS and NNSs perspectives. The findings
vary, although there is some agreement that for NNSs’ interlocutors, segmentals are more
important.
It is still not certain if there are any kind of “core” features for Japanese learners’
global intelligibility, which is crucial when engaging in communication with both NSs
and NNSs. As stated in the previous section, Moedjito (2009) reports that sound accuracy,
word stress and sentence stress contribute to global intelligibility. Also, Kashiwagi andSnider (2013) show that the Japanese university students’ intelligibility scores wererather low in segmentals by NNSs raters. However, up to this point in time, there has
been very little research undertaken attempting to identify Japanese leaners’
intelligibility. It is therefore apparent that further research in this area is necessary.
It is clear that Jenkins (2000) proposes the lingua franca core in the hope that it
will reduce both teachers’ and learners’ workloads. However, from this author’s point ofview, as a teacher of English at a university in Japan and as a SL learner of English, it isuncertain as to whether even the “core” is taught and learned enough at every scholastic
level in Japan. Thus, it is also essential to understand the actual situation of English
pronunciation instruction, and attitudes towards pronunciation in order to have a better
understanding of research and instructional direction. The next chapter will examine
Japanese learners’ knowledge, experience in receiving pronunciation instruction andattitudes towards pronunciation.

117

Part3
Research

118

Chapter 6
Research 1: Research on Japanese University Students’ Knowledge,
Learning Experience and Attitude Towards English Pronunciation

6.1 Introduction
As discussed in the previous chapters, the advent of Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT), which has been a dominant method in second language teaching sincethe 1980s, encouraged English teachers to regard the intelligible pronunciation as one of
the essential components of communicative competence (Morley,1991). However, at thesame time, the focus has shifted from drills and exercises on pronunciation to“communicative activities based on meaningful interaction which, if successful, directs
learners’ attention away from language form and towards the message they want tocommunicate” (Nunan & Carter, 2001, p.57). Recently, this trend has also been
pervasive in English education in Japan (Saito, 2007), and the educational focus has
seemed to be placed on the function and content of the language, not on its form, suchas pronunciation.
Meanwhile English has become an international language, and the ability tooutput content in English has become regarded as one of the most important elements.
As a result, communicative competence, specifically oral communication competence,
has come to be considered crucial. Under these circumstances, fostering oral out-put
competence has been urged. This trend can be seen in changes in the English classroom
at schools in every level through an increase in communicative activities, task activities,
and the active learning teaching style utilizing an increasing amount of pair or group
work activities. The outcomes are visible in that there seem to be more and more students
who do not hesitate to use verbal output and are willing to communicate in English.
However, while general learners have an increasingly positive and active attitude
towards verbal output in English, many leaners including university students seem tohave difficulty with pronunciation in English and do not seem to pay attention to their

119

pronunciation nor try to improve them. When teaching pronunciation, the author
sometimes asks students what kind of pronunciation instruction they have previously
received, and many answers that they have not learned or studied it. From these situations,
it seems that a meaning-oriented approach, such as CLT, focusing on the transaction of
information, is accompanied by less attention to the students’ concentration of accurate
pronunciation.
When oral output competence is of importance, the pronunciation should be
stressed as much as fostering positive attitudes to oral output. In this global era, students
should be encouraged to speak intelligible English.
In an attempt to establish an effective pronunciation instruction method andimprove my students’ pronunciation, I came to think that it is essential to understand thecurrent situation of my students’ English pronunciation studies, in particular theirlearning experience and attitude towards English pronunciation. This led me to conduct
this research.
This author has three purposes of this research in the hope of enhancing deeper
understanding in desirable English pronunciation instruction in Japan. The first is toinvestigate how much instruction in pronunciation Japanese university students have hadat junior/senior high school and how much knowledge they have as a result of theirexperience. The second is to reveal the Japanese students’ attitude towards English
pronunciation. The third is to examine whether there is a relation between the learning
experiences, knowledge and attitude towards English pronunciation.

6.2 Method
6.2.1 Participants
The participants of this research were 92 Japanese students at a private university
in Kyoto, from freshmen to seniors, 61 males and 31 females, who took my compulsory(TOEIC) and elective (English conversation) classes. Regarding the age at which theparticipants started learning English, seven started before entering elementary school,
ten started at the age of seven or eight, 25 started at the age of nine and ten, and 50 started
at the age of 11 or 12 when they started to take lessons of “a foreign language activity”

120

at elementary school. In response to the question whether they like studying English
pronunciation, nine students answered “very much,” 38 students answered “yes,” 41
students answered “not very much,” four students answered “no.” That is, 47 students
out of 92, or 51 % of the participants like studying English pronunciation. This figure isslightly higher than that of those who do not like pronunciation studying. As for theirEnglish ability levels, looking at their TOEIC test scores, the students’ levels were as
follows:

Less than 300; 14%,
From 300 to 449; 56%,
From 450 to 599; 28 %,From 600 to 749; 1%.

6.2.2 Questionnaire
A questionnaire in Japanese, asking the students’ knowledge, learning experienceand attitude towards English pronunciation was given to the students. The questionnaire
was made up of the following four parts; First: five multiple choice questions concerning
the participants. Second: 12 multiple choice and seven descriptive questions regarding
the participants’ knowledge of English pronunciation. Third: 10 four-point Likert-scalequestions regarding the students’ learning experience of pronunciation. Fourth: 17 fourpoint Likert-scale and three descriptive questions regarding the students’ current
situation of studying pronunciation and their attitude towards it. The students were
informed that the research was anonymous, and it is of no relation to their grade, andconsent forms were collected. The research was conducted from January 10th to 23rd in2017.

6.2.3 Data Analysis
The results of the questionnaire collected from each participant were digitized into
an EXCEL format and analyzed. Regarding the third purpose of this research, therelation between the learning experiences, knowledge and attitude towards English

121

pronunciation was analyzed to find inter-group differences by using SPSS 24.0.

6.3 Results
This section first reports some general findings about the students’ knowledge ofEnglish pronunciation. Secondly, the students’ learning experience of English
pronunciation at junior/senior high school is explained. Thirdly, the students’ attitude
towards English pronunciation and the actual condition of their practicing English
pronunciation are reported. Finally, it is analyzed whether the students’ learning
experiences, knowledge of English pronunciation and attitude toward it relate to eachother.

6.3.1 Students’ Knowledge of Pronunciation
Table 6.1 shows the students’ knowledge of each phoneme of words. The questions
were drawn from the Center Test of 2016 issued by the National Center for University
Entrance Examination. The participants were required to circle the word whose
underlined sound is different from the other three for the six sets of words. In other words,
the students were asked to identify the difference in pronunciation among the underlined
parts.

Table 6.1
Students' Knowledge of Phonemes
No. Item1) glove

N
2

Item
onion

N
25

Item
oven

N
8

Item
prove

N
57

CA (%)
61.96

2)

casual19classic

8

habit

30

35

38.04

3)
4)

ease
cinema41
9loose
litter

19
12

pause
minor

10
62

label
praiseritual

22
9

20.65
67.39

5)

comb

33

go

24

lot

13

only

22

14.13

6)

although 19

sigh

43

tough

22

weigh

8
M

23.91
37.68

Notes . N =92. Words in bold are the correct answers.
CA represents the percentage of correct answers for each question.

As Table 6.1 indicates, the average percentage of the correct answers is 37.68%, which

122

indicates that the participants had difficulty in identifying differences in vowels andconsonants.
Table 6.2 shows the students’ knowledge of word stress. The questions were also
drawn from the National Center Test of 2016. The participants were instructed to circle
the word whose accent location is different from the other words for the six sets of words.

Table 6.2
Students' Knowledge of Word Stress
No.

Item

N

Item

N

Item

N

Item

1) novel

6

63

rescue102) audience3) atmosphere4) declare23
44

paradefuneraldomestic

8
10

48

ethnic5) appointment6) conference

22
7

delicate
estimate

N CA (%)

vital

12

69.23

origin13
equipment 22

survival
reluctant

47
15

51.65
48.35

21

logic

method

17

52.17

24
10

organic

suspicious
resident

12
8

26.37
72.53

M

53.38

5

33
proposal 66

Notes . N =92. CA represents the percentage of the correct answers for each question.
Words in bold are the correct answers.

Compared to the questions identifying each phoneme, shown in Table 6.1, the averageof the correct answer is higher, at 53.38%. However, almost half of the students haddifficulty in putting correct stress on words.
Table 6.3 shows whether the students were able to identify the phonetic alphabet.

Table 6.3
Students' Knowledge of Phonetic Alphabet
No.

Item

CA (N )(%)/ stéiʃən //impɔ'ːr tə nt // təgéðər /Wordstationimportant
together

1)
2)
3)

18
74
37

19.57
80.43
40.22

4)

/ dífikʌlt /

difficult

69

75.00

5)

/ θáʊznd /thousand

19

20.65

6)

/ kɑntrəbjú:ʃən /contribution

14

15.22
M

41.85

Note . N =92.CA represents the number of the correct answers
for each question.

123

The students were given six words written in the phonetic alphabet and asked to write
them in the alphabet. Looking at Table 6.3, although words such as “important” and“difficult,” were answered correctly at a high rate, the average percentage of correct
answers was 41.85%. Many of the students were unable to read them. It can be said thatstudents generally do not have sufficient knowledge of the phonetic alphabet.
Table 6.4 below shows the results of the students’ response to the question,“Explain briefly how to pronounce /f/ sound, such as in “funny.”

Table 6.4
The Students' Ability to Explain how to Pronounce a Phoneme /f/
Item
CA(n)
CA(%)
the place of articulation
19
20.65
the manner of articulation 8
8.70
8.70
both
8
Note . N =92. CA represents correct answers.

The phoneme /f/ is a labio-dental fricative. The sound is produced with the upper teeth
and inner lower lip (the place of articulation) and it is maintained as long as there is air
in the lungs (the manner of articulation). The answers which included the correct placeof articulation and the manner of articulation were regarded as the right answers.
According to the students’ answers, only 8.70 % of the students were able to explain
both the place and the manner of articulation correctly. One example of a correct answer
is “There is contact between the upper teeth and lower lip and while exhaling strongly.”
Regarding the manner of articulation, only 8.70 % of the students answered correctly.
Those students also included the place of articulation correctly.

6.3.2 Students’ Learning Experience of English Pronunciation
Table 6.5 indicates the students’ experiences of learning English pronunciation atjunior/senior high school. The students were given five questions seen in Table 6.5
regarding their learning experience of English pronunciation.
The first two questions were whether students had studied the phonetic alphabet
and phonics. In regard to the phonetic alphabet, approximately 68% of the students

124

answered they had not studied it. This corresponds to the result of the students’knowledge of the phonetic alphabet seen in Table 6.3.

Table 6.5
Students' Learning Experience of English Pronunciation

1. Have you ever studied the phonetic alphabet?
2. Have you ever studied phonics?

4
N
(%)
5
(5.43)
2(2.17)

3
2
1
N
N
N
M
(%)
(%)
(%)
( points)
24
43
20
2.20
(26.09) (46.74) (21.74)
3
10
77
1.30
(3.26) (10.87) (83.70)

8(8.70)
20(21.74)10(10.87)14(15.22)17(18.48)1(1.09)
144436
4(47.83) (39.13) (4.35)50
22
0(54.35) (23.91) (0.00)
38
38
6(41.30) (41.30) (6.52)47
292(51.09) (31.52) (2.17)
38
34
3(41.30) (36.96) (3.26)
22
49
20(23.91) (53.26) (21.74)
27
38
13

(15.22)(29.35) (41.30) (14.13)

29(31.52)2923
11(31.52) (25.00) (11.96)

3. Have you ever been taught the following phonetic
features during junior / senior hich school?
(1) pronunciation of each phoneme(2) word stress(3) rhythm(4) sentence intonation(5) sentence stress(6) breath control
4. Has your English pronunciation ever been correctedby an English teacher during junior /senior highschool?
5. Have you ever used Katakana letters in order tomemorize pronunciation of English?

2.60
3.00
2.60
2.80
2.80
2.00
2.50

2.80

Notes. N =92. The number 4-1 represent as follows: 4: certainly, yes 3: to some extent 2: seldom 1: never.

As for the second question, it was shown that more than 90% of the students have notstudied phonics. This is quite different from the currently on-going trend of introducing
phonics at an early age in English education.
The third question was to investigate how much learning experience the students
had had on specific phonetic features of English. In the question, the students were asked
whether they had studied six features at junior/senior high school. The features werepronunciation of each phoneme, word-stress, rhythm, sentence intonation, sentence

125

stress, and 17breath control. Then positive answers to the question, that is, three (to someextent) and four (yes) were combined in order to detect frequently-taught features. Word
stress was the most-frequently-taught feature at 76.09%. The other features came in thefollowing order; sentence intonation (66.31%), sentence stress (59.78%), pronunciationof each phoneme (56.53%), rhythm (52.17%), and breath control (25.0%). From thisresult, it can be said that the supra-segmental features, such as word stress and sentencestress are more frequently-taught than segmental features, such as pronunciation of eachphoneme, in current pronunciation instruction at junior/senior high school.
The fourth question was to inquire whether the students’ pronunciations have everbeen corrected by English teachers at junior / senior high school. Surprisingly, more thanhalf of the students do not have such experiences. The last question is whether the
students have utilized katakana letters in order to memorize pronunciation of English
words. Approximately 64% of the students answered they had used katakana letters
before.

6.3.3 Students’ Attitude Towards English Pronunciation
In order to see the students’ attitude towards English pronunciation, the following
questions were given.

Q1. Do you think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet leads to correct pronunciation?
Q2. How important do you think pronunciation is in communication in English?
Q3. From which country’s native speaker would you like to learn English
pronunciation?
Q4. Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible to native and nonnative speakers of English?
Q5. What features of English pronunciation do you think are important forinternationally intelligible English?
Q6. Nowadays, English has become a global language with a wide variety of
17

In the questionnaire in Japanese, “breath control is expressed as “iki no tsukai kata” or “howto use breath when speaking English.”126

accents. In these circumstances, do you think that Japanese learners still should
aim at producing “native” speakers’ accent, such as American and British?
Q7. Do you agree with the opinion that Japanese learners can speak “JapaneseEnglish” free from detailed rules of English pronunciation?
Q8. When do you think Japanese people should start learning English pronunciationin order to acquire accurate pronunciation?
Q9. Rate the degree of success of English pronunciation education you had in junior/senior high school.

For Question 1, “Do you think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet leads to correct
pronunciation?” the results were as follows: Strongly agree: 13.04%, Agree: 56.52%,
Disagree: 25.00 %, Strongly disagree: 5.43%. This shows that almost 70 % of thestudents think the knowledge of phonetic alphabet is necessary to pronounce words
correctly, although they in fact do not know them.
The results of Question 2 “How important do you think pronunciation is incommunication in English?” were as follows: Very important: 42.39 %, Important:
50.00 %, Not very important: 7.61 %, Not at all: 0.00 %. From the result, it is obviousthat the students realize the importance of pronunciation in English communication.
For Question 3 “From which country’s native speaker would you like to learn
English pronunciation?” the answers were as follows: The United States and Canada:
77.17 %, England: 17.39 %, Australia, New Zealand: 4.35%, Other: 1.09%. From thisresult, it is shown that students have a strong preference for the North American English
accent.
For Question 4 “Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible tonative and non-native speakers of English?”, only 2.17% of the students answered “yes”
to this question. 30.43 % of the students answered “often,” 39.13 % answered “notusually,” and 28.26 % answered “seldom.” More than 65 % of the students think that
their English pronunciation is unintelligible.
The result of Question 5 “What features of English pronunciation do you think areimportant for internationally intelligible English?” is seen in Table 6.6. Positive replies

127

to the question, that is, three (important) and four (very important), were combined inorder to detect which feature is regarded important by the students. As a result, thestudents chose sentence intonation (97.83%) as the most important feature. Other
features, that is, rhythm (93.48%), word stress (89.3%), sentence stress (89.13%),
pronunciation of each phoneme (86.95%), breath control (70.15%) were regarded
important at a high rate as well.

Table 6.6
The Phonetic Features Regarded Important by the Students
Item(1) pronunciation of each phoneme(2) word stress(3) rhythm(4) sentence intonation(5) sentence stress

4

3

2

1

N

N

N

N

M

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(points)

19

61

12

0

3.10

(20.65)(66.30)(13.04)(0.00)

26

58

8

0

(28.26)(63.04)(8.70)(0.00)

30

56

6

0

(32.61)(60.87)(6.52)(0.00)

33

57

2

0

(35.87)(61.96)(2.17)(0.00)

30

52

10

0

(32.61)(56.52)(10.87)(0.00)

3.20
3.30
3.30
3.20

13
52
27
0
2.80
(14.13)(56.52)(29.35)(0.00)
Notes . N =92. The numbers 4-1represent as follows: 4: very important 3: important 2: notvery important 1: not at all(6) breath control

As for the Question 6 “Nowadays, English has become a global language with awide variety. In these circumstances, do you think that Japanese learners still should aim
at producing “native” speakers’ accent, such as American and British?” the students’answers were as follows: Strongly agree: 22.83 %, Agree: 57.61%, Disagree: 18.48 %,Strongly disagree: 1.09 %. Approximately 80% of the students think Japanese learners
still should aim at producing “native” speakers’ pronunciation. The students were asked
to write the reasons for their answers. The below are some of their comments:

128

Reasons to agree･American and British accents are universally accepted.
･These accents are standard and seem to be used in international conferences.
･It is the safest way to pronounce in order to be understood by anybody.
･If there are more varieties of English, English as a global language might not be
understood by everybody.
･When you have mastered native speaker-like pronunciation which is standard
universally, you can deal with other varieties of English.
Reasons to disagree･You can show your identity with a Japanese accent as long as it is intelligible.
･ Since there are a wide variety of English pronunciations like Indian English,
Japanese English should be accepted internationally as well.
･I have been able to make myself understood in English although my pronunciation
was not good.

From the comments, it can be summarized that those who agree with the question
claimed that American and British accents are standard and internationally used andJapanese people should aim at acquiring those “standard” accents. Those who disagreewith the question asserted that as long as the accented English is intelligible, it should be
accepted in this global era.
Regarding the question 7 “Do you agree with the opinion that Japanese learners
can speak “Japanese English” free from detailed rules of English pronunciation?”, theresults were as follows: Strongly agree: 3.26 %, Agree: 23.91 %, Disagree: 55.43 %,Strongly disagree: 17.39 %. These correspond with the result from Question 6 above.
Approximately 72 % of the students think they should not speak “Japanese English.”
The students’ comments explaining the reason to their answers are as follows:

Reasons to agree
・The Japanese accent enables Japanese people to show their identity.
・The native speakers of English are expected to try to understand non-native

129

speakers’ utterances.
・No matter how hard we try, Japanese people are different from native speakers,
and we should not expect to be understood perfectly.
・As long as the rough content of the utterance is understood, the details are notnecessary.
・Even native speakers of English have varieties of English.
Reasons to disagree
・In communication, strong accent give the interlocutor stress.
・Japanese English is not cool, and the interlocutor is not pleased to hear it.
・Japanese English is not intelligible at all to foreign people
・It is rude to use Japanese English to native speakers and pronunciation researchers.

In Question 8, “When do you think Japanese people should start learning English
pronunciation in order to acquire correct pronunciation?” the results were asked tochoose a single answer from seven choices. The result were as follows: The earlier the
better: 47.48 %, Before entering a kindergarten (Before the age of three) : 7.78 %, After
entering a kindergarten (After the age of three) : 11.11 %, From the first or second grade:17.78 %, From the third or fourth grade: 6.67 %, From the fifth or sixth grade: 8.89%,
Any age: 0.00 %. These indicate that the students realize that it is essential starting earlier
in order to acquire correct pronunciation.
Concerning the Question 9 “Rate the degree of success of English pronunciation
education you had at junior /senior high school”, the results were as follows: Verysuccessful: 1.09 %, Successful: 21.74 %, Not very successful: 64.13 %, Not successful:
13.04 %. More than 75 % of the students feel that English pronunciation education they
had at junior/senior high school was not successful.

6.3.4 Relation Between Students’ Knowledge, Learning Experience and Attitude
Towards English Pronunciation
This section attempts to realize the third purpose of this research, which is to findwhether the students’ knowledge, learning experience of English pronunciation and130

attitude toward it relate to each other.
To conduct the analysis, the students were grouped into the three levels according
to their scores on pronunciation knowledge test reported in the previous section. In thetest, the students were asked the questions regarding knowledge of phonemes, wordstress, and the phonetic alphabet. There were 18 questions all together, and a correct
answer for respective question was counted as one point. The average of the students(N=92) was 8.33, with the highest score of 17 and the lowest of three. The “High” group
was those who got a score of 12 or more out of 20 questions. The “Middle” group wasthose who got a score of seven to 11. The “Low” group was those who got a score ofzero to six.

6.3.4.1 Relation Between Learning Experience and Knowledge of Pronunciation
Firstly, in order to examine a relation between learning experience and knowledge,
the answers to the four questions, also seen in Table 6.5 in the previous sections, aresummarized on the basis of these three pronunciation knowledge levels. The students
were asked to indicate how much learning experience of pronunciation they had had
before, through a four-point Likert scale. The scale presented to the students is composedof 4 (yes, certainly), 3 (to some extent), 2 (seldom) and 1 (never). The Four questions
are listed as follows:

Q1. Have you ever studied phonetic alphabet?
Q2. Have you ever studied phonics?
Q3. Have you ever been taught the following phonetic features at junior/senior highschool?
1. Pronunciation of each phoneme
2. Word stress
3. Rhythm
4. Sentence intonation
5. Sentence stress
6. Breath control

131

Q4. Has your English pronunciation ever been corrected by an English teacher atjunior/senior high school?

The figures in Table 6.7 indicate the number of the students for each of the respective
points in the scale regarding their experience of learning phonetic alphabet. Since the
midpoint value of the four-point Likert scale is 2.5 averages larger than 2.5 indicate theparticipants’ positive responses to the question while averages smaller than 2.5 indicate
their negative responses to the question. Furthermore, the degree of difference between
averages and 2.5 indicates the degree of either positiveness or negativeness respectively.

Table 6.7
Q1: Have You Ever Studied Phonetic Alphabet?
Experience
4
3
2
Certainly, To some
SeldomYesextentKnowledge
1
6High (N =12)42
11Middle (N =52)24
2
7
Low (N =28)
15

1
Never
1
15
4

M
3.17
2.00
2.25

Only the point-average of “High” group was above a midpoint value (=2.5) and both of“Middle” and “Low” groups’ point-average were below a midpoint value. When looking
at the positive answers, the total of four (certainly, yes) and three (to some extent)
combined, seven out of 12 students (58%) in the “High” group answered they hadlearned the phonetic alphabet. Conversely only 9 out of 28 (32%) in the “Low” group
had learned the phonetic alphabet. In the previous section, it was reported the average of
all the students were 2.20. The “High” group’s average is rather high, indicating theirpositive response to the question, that is, they are more experienced in learning thephonetic alphabet. It can be referred that their experience of learning the phonetic
alphabet led to good knowledge of pronunciation.
In Question 2, “Have you ever studied phonics?”, unlike Question1, the average
points of the each group were all rather low, with the points of 1.58 of the “High”, 1.15

132

for the “Middle” and 1.25 for the “Low” group. It was shown that the students did nothave experience of learning phonics regardless of their knowledge level.
Table 6.8 is the list of average attained from the Question 3, “Have you ever beentaught the following phonetic features at junior/ senior high school?”

Table 6.8
Q3: Have You Ever Been Taught the Following Phonetic Features at Junior/Senior HighSchool?
123456
pronunciation of
word
sentence sentence breath
rhythmeach phoneme
stres
intonationstresscontrol
Knowledge
M
M
M
M
M
M
High (N =12)
2.83
3.25
2.92
3.08
3.25
2.25
Middle (N =52)
2.56
2.98
2.50
2.71
2.63
2.04
Low (N =28)
2.61
2.86
2.54
2.79
2.75
1.96

In all the items except (6) (breath control), the average points were above the midpointvalue in all knowledge levels. It can be said that the students, regardless of theirpronunciation knowledge level, had learned the features. However, the averages in all
the features of the “High group were highest.
The figures in Table 6.9 indicate the number of the students who chose therespective points in the scale regarding Question4, “Has your English pronunciation everbeen corrected by an English teacher at junior/senior high school?” in the “High,”“Middle,” and “Low” group.

Table 6.9
Q4: Has Your English Pronunciation Ever Been Corrected by an English
Teacher at Junior/Senior High School?

Knowledge
High (N =12)
Middle (N =52)
Low (N =28)

4
Certainly,
Yes
2
8
4

Experience3
2
To some
Seldomextent
5
5
17
19
5
14

1
Never
0
8
5

M
2.75
2.48
2.29

133

Only the “High” group’s average is higher than the midpoint value. (=2.5). When looking
at the positive answers, the total of four (certainly, yes) and three (to some extent)
combined, seven out of 12 students (58%) in the “High” group answered they had had
the experience. Conversely only nine out of 28 (32%) in the “Low” group had not. Thereis a possibility that these experiences of having their pronunciation corrected led to agood knowledge of pronunciation.
Finally, in order to see the group differences on the total learning experience scores,a one-way ANOVA having three levels (High, Middle, Low) was performed. The result
did not detect significant differences between groups (F(2,89) =2.460, p=.091, p >.05).
However, it presented approximately medium sized effect η2=.05. The result does notindicate that the reported learning experience directly leads to the students’ knowledgeof pronunciation.

6.3.4.2 Relation Between Attitude Towards English and Knowledge ofPronunciation
Secondly, in order to detect inter-group differences in attitude towards English
pronunciation in terms of the students’ knowledge of pronunciation, the answers to thequestion below were analyzed:

Q1. Do you think knowledge of the phonetic alphabet leads to correct pronunciation?
Q2. How important do you think pronunciation is in communication in English?
Q3. Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible to native and nonnative speakers of English?

In Question 1, “Do you think knowledge of the phonetic alphabet leads to correct
pronunciation?”, the students were asked to indicate the degree of agreement to thequestion through a four-point Likert scale. The scale presented to the students wascomposed of 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree) and 1 (strongly disagree). As seenin the Table 6.10, the average point of the “High” group was 3.17, “Middle” was 2.73
and “Low” was 2.68. It turned out that all the groups’ average points were above the134

midpoint value and “High” group’s average points was particularly higher than other twogroups.

Table 6.10
Q1: Do You Think Knowledge of the Phonetic Alphabet Leads toCorrect Pronunciation?
Attitude4
3
2
1
stronglystrongly
agree disagree
Knowledge
agree
disagree
M
High (N =12)
3
8
1
0
3.17
Middle (N =52)
5
30
15
2
2.73
Low (N =28)
4
14
7
3
2.68

When looking at the positive answers, the total of four (strongly agree) and three (agree)
combined, 11 out of 12 students (92%) in the “High” group answered they agreed to thequestion. This indicates that the students with good knowledge of pronunciation weremore aware of the importance of phonetic alphabet.
In Question 2, “How important do you think pronunciation is in communication
in English?”, the scales were composed of 4 (very important), 3(important), 2 (not very
important), 1 (not at all). All the groups average points were not very different with the“High” group, 3.42, “Middle” group, 3.33, “Low” group, 3.36. It can be said that thestudents were aware of important role of pronunciation regardless of their level.
In Question 3, “Do you think that your English pronunciation is intelligible tonative and non-native speakers of English?” the students indicated the number of thescale from 4 (yes), 3(often), 2 (not usually), and 1 (seldom). As seen in the Table 6.11,
only the “High” group’s average point was above the midpoint value. The positive
answers, the total of four (yes) and three (often) combined, seven out of 12 students(58%) in the “High” group thought their English pronunciation is intelligible. On theother hand, only six out of 28 students (21%) in the “Low” group thought their English
pronunciation is intelligible.

135

Table 6.11
Q3: Do You Think That Your English Pronunciation is Intelligible to Nativeand Non-native Speakers of English?
Attitude

Knowledge
High (N =12)
Middle (N =52)
Low (N =28)

4

3

2

1

yes

often

not usually

seldom

1
1
0

6
16
6

4
22
10

1
13
12

M
2.58
2.10
1.79

Also, regarding Question 3, the students were divided into two groups. Those who chosefour (yes) and 3 (often) were categorized as the “Confident” in pronunciation group, andthose who chose two (not usually) and one (seldom) were categorized as the“Unconfident” group. In order to detect the two-group-difference of the average inpronunciation knowledge scores, t test was performed. As stated in the section 6.3.4,
there were 18 questions on pronunciation knowledge, and a correct answer for eachquestion was counted as one point, thus a full score for knowledge was 18. On average,
the “Confident” group’s scores were significantly greater (M=9.07, SD=3.216) than the“Unconfident” group (M=7.31, SD=2.621, t (90) =2.800, p =.006 (p < .01)). It also didpresent approximately medium sized effect r=.28. The result implies that the students
who were confident in their pronunciation had more pronunciation knowledge than those
who were not confident.
From the analyses of these questions, it was shown that although all the students
were well aware of the importance of the pronunciation, it can be summarized thatstudents who had good knowledge of pronunciation were particularly aware ofimportance of phonetic alphabet. Furthermore, the students with good knowledge ofpronunciation also were more confident in their pronunciation. It can be inferred thatstudents who have strong attitude towards the pronunciation have good knowledge ofpronunciation, or vice versa.

6.4 Discussion
Though this research is limited, particularly in its method to capture students’136

knowledge of pronunciation, the results attained in this research have brought mainly
three points. The first is that Japanese university students generally do not have sufficientlearning experience of English pronunciation at junior/senior high school. As a result,
their knowledge of English pronunciation is rather limited. The second is that students
are aware of the importance of English pronunciation, notwithstanding the fact most ofthem are not confident in pronunciation. University students also have a traditional viewof learning English pronunciation, aiming at native speaker-like pronunciation, andconsider the American and British English as a norm. The third is that their learning
experience, knowledge and attitude towards English pronunciation are related to eachother in some respects, particularly in relation between students’ attitude toward
pronunciation and learning experiences at junior/senior high school.
In regard to Japanese university students’ pronunciation proficiency in English,
Otsuka and Ueda (2011) examined Japanese university students’ achievements ofpronunciation based on items taught at junior/senior high school by giving the students
a test on phonetic items containing the phonetic alphabet, word-stress, intonation andpause, or word groups. Their study showed that approximately more than 60 % of thestudents answered correctly for word-stress, intonation and pause while less than 20 %of the students answered correctly for the phonetic alphabet. The results suggest that
university students have achieved a certain level of pronunciation in terms of suprasegmental features. Kashiwagi and Snider (2013) investigated Japanese university
students’ pronunciation in terms of intelligibility by having native speakers and nonnative speakers of English check the Japanese university students reading aloud short
sentences. It was indicated that the pronunciation of many Japanese university students
was problematic, particularly in segmental features, and their pronunciation was
generally rather unintelligible, when the judges were non-native speakers.
Regarding students’ attitude towards English pronunciation, the importance ofpronunciation in communication is well-recognized by Japanese university students. It
also turned out that many students have a tendency to aim at native-like pronunciation.
This kind of attitude has generally been seen in so-called Expanding Circle countries, as
pointed out by McKay (2002). For example, Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997) investigated137

Austrian university students’ attitude toward native and non-native speakers’ English
pronunciation. In general, preference for native speakers’ accent over a non-native
speakers’ was demonstrated. Also, Timmis (2002) conducted research examining
learners’ attitude towards native-speaker norms and international English by analyzing
400 responses to a questionnaire, from 14 different countries. The respondents included
both teachers and learners. The results of their responses regarding pronunciation
showed that learners prefer achieving native-speaker-like accent to intelligible L2
accented English, more than teachers do.
However, as pointed out by Szpyra (2015), pronunciation is “the most problematicarea, particularly when native-like speech is seen as the goal of teaching and learning”(p.5). Globally speaking, such a pedagogical goal has come to be regarded as nonfeasible and not practical. For instance, Pandey (1994) describes the phonology of what
he terms General Indian English (GIE) which was to replace British Received
Pronunciation (BRP) in hope of establishing a viable model of English pronunciation.
He hoped that GIE is acceptable from both the pedagogic and the communicative pointof view. According to Pandey, BRP has slowly declined as a socially acceptable spoken
variety since BRP is “too ideal a model for Indian learners of English to acquire” (p.11).
These studies show the importance of setting a realistic goal for pronunciation learning/teaching for Japanese learners
As for the relation between students’ learning experience, knowledge and attitude
towards English pronunciation, as shown in the previous section, students who havestrong attitude towards English pronunciation tend to have more learning experiences atjunior/senior high school. Toyama (2015) also investigated factors affecting Japanese
university students’ pronunciation skills. She first categorized four factors, “emphasis on
memorizing pronunciation rules, self-efficacy, a wish to communicate and practice, andoptimism about pronunciation learning” (p.107), based on questionnaire answers fromuniversity students. Then the students’ pronunciation skills were graded by recording
them reading dialogues aloud. As a result, it was indicated “a wish to communicate andpractice” had a positive correlation with pronunciation skills. Further studies which
enhance our understanding of L2 learners’ attitude towards pronunciation learning are

138

necessary.

6.5 Summary
The analysis of the Japanese university students’ circumstances regarding English
pronunciation suggests that more raising awareness and emphasis on English
pronunciation instruction are necessary both in English classroom and pedagogy. In
order to put more focus on pronunciation instruction, further work needs to be done toinvestigate features affecting students’ pronunciation including their learning experience,
knowledge or skills of English pronunciation and attitude toward pronunciation, taking
into the account of current global circumstances. Also, from a wider perspective ofeducational system, from elementary school to university, university English teachers
should be encouraged to have deeper understanding of students’ experience of learning
English pronunciation in order to give students optimal pronunciation instruction.

139

Chapter 7
Research 2: A Study on Pronunciation Factors Affecting
Japanese Learners’ Global Intelligibility

7.1 Introduction
In the recent history of second/ foreign language teaching, pronunciation was
highly prioritized in teaching as discussed in Chapter 2. It was emphasized and taught
explicitly from the start of teaching in the 1950s and 1960s, when Audio-Lingualism waspervasive. However, with the advent of CLT (Communicative Language Teaching),
which has been the dominant method in second language teaching since the 1980s, formof language, such as pronunciation became to receive less attention than content, ortransaction of information. As a result, interest in teaching pronunciation waned,according to Thomson (2013). Additionally, Brinton (2017) points out that this decreasein emphasis in classroom teaching was accompanied by a similar decrease inpronunciation training for prospective teachers. Accordingly, “combined, these twotrends led to a generation of teachers who had little or no idea how to address the skillof pronunciation and to a generation of foreign/second language learners who weredeprived of emphasis on this skill” (Brinton, 2017, p.257). However, the importance ofform of language in teaching has become to be re-realized based on the fact that themeaning-oriented approach is accompanied by less attention to the ESL learners’
concentration of accurate use of the language, and interest among teachers andresearchers in pronunciation has been on rise after the 2000s.
In shedding new light on pronunciation teaching, an inevitable question related topronunciation teaching arises; what level of pronunciation should ESL/ EFL learners aim
for? This question, in fact, has been discussed for a long time. When the Audio-Lingual
method was dominantly used, it was encouraged to aim for native-like pronunciation,such as RP (Received Pronunciation) and GA (General American). In Japan, theeducational guideline for English issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

140

Science and Technology stipulates the “modern and standard” English pronunciation is
to be taught at high school. In a study of 100 adult ESL learners in Canada, Derwing(2003) reported that the vast majority regarded speaking with perfectly native
pronunciation to be a desirable goal.
However, studies suggest that native-like pronunciation among those who acquirean L2 after early childhood, in fact, is exceedingly rare (e.g., Scovel, 2000). Furthermore,
under the current situation of English as an international language, approximately aquarter of the world’s population has the capacity to communicate in English to a usefullevel as of 2000, according to Crystal (2003, p.69). Gladdol (2006) also indicates that astatistic shows that 74% of oral English communications between tourists around theworld do not involve an English native speaker.
Given this current situation of English, “comfortably intelligible” pronunciationsuggested by Abercrombie (1956) has now become a goal for learners in the L2
pronunciation classroom, which is the general consensus among pronunciation
practitioners as pointed out by Brinton (2017).
Before discussing the intelligibility of pronunciation, clarifying how the author
interprets the term “intelligibility” in pronunciation is necessary. Researchers havepreviously defined phonological intelligibility. Nelson (1982), for instance defined
intelligibility as follows:

Being intelligible means being understood by an interlocutor at a given time in agiven situation. We want to examine whether a speaker of a non-native variety ofEnglish is intelligible to a speaker of a native variety, and if not, why not. (p.59)

Munro and Derwing (1995) state that “intelligibility refers to the extent to which anutterance is actually understood” (p.291). These definitions include semanticinterpretation as well as recognition of utterances. According to Jenkins (2000), there is
yet to be a broad agreement on the term “intelligibility.”
Smith and Nelson (1985) clarified the term by suggesting the separate and more
specific meanings as follows:141(1) intelligibility: word/ utterance recognition,(2) comprehensibility: word/ utterance meaning (locutionary force),(3) interpretability: meaning behind word/ utterance (illocutionary force). (p.334)

As described above, researchers have defined the term intelligibility from various
perspectives. In this paper, as described in Chapter 5, the author defines intelligibility as
the extent to which a listener recognizes an utterance a speaker intends to convey,
excluding semantic interpretation following the separate definition suggested by Smith
and Nelson.
Many studies on intelligibility of pronunciation have been conducted in terms ofnative speakers’ (NS) judgement of non-native speakers’ (NNS) utterance. In contrast,
there have still a relatively small number of studies from NNS’s perspectives. There arealso few studies on Japanese learners’ intelligibility, although some research has focusedon both NS and NNS’s perspectives, such as Kashiwagi and Snider (2013)’s research.
However, as previously stated, globalization is rapidly expanding and English has
become the common language of the world we live in. Given the current situation, more
research focusing on NNS’s perspectives is necessary. Jenkins (2000) speaks of thenecessity for research on intelligibility, not for a NS receiver, but for “participants ininterlanguage talk, i.e. NBESs (Non-Bilingual English Speakers” (p.93). Additionally,
Moedjito (2009) suggests “global intelligibility”, that is, “intelligibility required for theinteraction between NSs and NNSs as well as the interaction among NNSs” (p.79).
Based on Moedjito’s “global intelligibility” theory, in this paper, the author
conducts a research on Japanese learner’s phonological intelligibility in terms of both
NS and NNS’s points of view.

7.2 Objective
As factors determining learners’ intelligibility, Moedjito (2009) indicates thefollowing nine factors; “1. sound accuracy, 2. word stress, 3. lexical accuracy, 4.
grammatical accuracy, 5. adjustments in connected speech, 6. sentence stress, 7.
intonation, 8. rhythm, 9. fluency” (p.87). Brinton (2017) overviews research on

142

intelligibility and provides six factors affecting learners’ intelligibility:

1. misplacement of or missing prominence in a thought group;
2. incorrect word stress;
3. rate of speech (either too slow or too fast);
4. overabundance of / overly lengthy pauses in the stream of speech;
5. lack of clearly articulated consonants in stressed syllables or in syllable final
position; and6. lack of differentiation in pitch or vowel duration (p.259)

Based on the research above, in this research, the following seven factors are set as ones
affecting learners’ intelligibility:

1. individual sound (consonants and vowels),
2. word stress,
3. sentence stress,
4. tone unit,
5. intonation,
6. rhythm,
7. fluency

Tone unit refers to “the way in which English speakers divide their utterances into
smaller meaningful units, or chunks, each containing one nuclear syllable” (Jenkins,
2000, p.155).
Figure 7.1 shows the six factors by categorizing into segmental feature andsuprasegmental features, as well as accuracy and fluency respectively. In this research,fluency is not examined.

143

Figure7.1
Assessment Criteria of Intelligibility of the Speech

Two research questions as objectives of this paper are set as follows:

1. Which factor(s) contribute(s) to Japanese learners’ phonological intelligibility?
2. Is there any difference between NS and NNS regarding perception of
intelligibility? If so, which factor(s) differ(s)?

7.3 Method
7.3.1 Participants
The participants of this research were six Japanese students at a private university
in Kyoto, as the providers of English as foreign language (EFL) utterances, and four NSs
and four NNSs as the raters of the EFL speakers’ utterances. All of the EFL learners were
freshmen, three males and three females, who took the author’s English class. The
students’ majors varied, but there were no students whose major was English. All thestudents started learning English formally from the seventh grade and none of them had
experiences staying abroad for a long period of time, except one student who went to
Canada on a school study tour for three weeks in high school. Among the four NSs (allmale), two are British, the others are American and Canadian respectively. They had all
lived in Japan over a year. The NNS raters consist of a Spanish (a female), a Mexican (a144female), a Chinese (a male) and a Korean (a male). They studied at a private university
in Osaka as exchange students. They were required to be able to understand lectures
given in English, make a presentation and write a paper in English at the university.

7.3.2 Procedure
First, the Japanese EFL speakers were asked to give a self -introduction speech.
They were instructed to provide their name, major, things they liked to do in their freetime, and plans for the summer. Although they had to improvise the speech, they were
given a paper indicating what to say, written in Japanese, and a minute to prepare silently.
Secondly, they were asked to read aloud a short passage in English. They were given one
minute to read silently. They made a speech and read aloud privately in front of the author
outside class, and the utterances were recorded.
The raters were given an assessment sheet for each speaker and asked to rate the
EFL speakers’ utterances. The utterances were provided through an online storage site,
and the raters were asked to listen to the recording file by accessing them online. The
assessment has seven components for rating. In order to avoid confusion in an attempt
to rate all of the components at the same time, the ratings were divided into three rounds.
In the first round, the raters were asked to assess (1) overall intelligibility. In the second
round, the raters were asked to assess (2) individual sound, (3) word stress, and (4)sentence stress. In the third round, the raters were asked to assess (5) tone unit, (6)intonation, and (7) rhythm. For each term, such as tone unit, a brief explanation wasgiven on the assessment sheet. The raters assessed the overall intelligibility through a
six-point Likert scale, and for other components, through a five-point Likert scale. In
order to avoid a neutral score for intelligibility, which is the main focus of this research,six-point scale was adopted for intelligibility. The author required the raters not to change
their previous rating after the first round.

7.3.3 Data Analysis
The data, scores for each student provided by the raters were digitized into an
EXCEL format and analyzed for descriptive statistics. Multiple regression analysis was

145then performed in order to show the relationship between overall intelligibility as adependent variable, and its affecting factors consisting of six factors, as independent
variables. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and AMOS for Windows
version 25.

7.4 Results and Discussion
Table 7.1 shows the mean scores (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the scoresof Japanese EFL speakers’ utterances rated by NS and NNS raters.

Table 7.1
Descriptive Statistics of Assessment of Intelligibility andContributing Factors by NS and NNS Raters
Item

NS

M

SD

NNS

M

SD

All Speakers

MSD

intelligibility

4.75 0.66

5.17 0.94

4.96

0.84

individual
sound3.08 0.70

3.50 0.65

3.29

0.71

word stress3.42 0.64

3.08 0.86

3.25

0.78

sentence
stress3.29 0.98

3.04 0.73

3.17

0.87

tone unit

3.08 0.81

3.25 0.88

3.17

0.85

intonation

3.17 0.80

3.13 0.88

3.15

0.84

rhythm3.04 0.68

3.21 1.12

3.15

0.89

Notes . Maximum score for intelligibility = 6.00. Maximum
score for other items = 5.00. N (NS)=24, N (NNS)=24,
N (Total)=48

Figure 7. 2 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis of the factors affecting
intelligibility rated by NS raters. The multiple coefficient of determination (R2), seen on
the top right corner of the intelligibility square, was R2=.35. This explains the factors, or
independent variables might account for 35 % of them in intelligibility of EFL speakers’
utterances and 65% can be explained by other than the investigated factors. Looking at
the standardized coefficient (β) of the factors, seen on each arrow pointing tointelligibility, sentence stress (β =.42) and intonation (β =.40) were statisticallysignificant (p <.05). This implies that sentence stress and intonation might have a146

positive effect on intelligibility when having a native speaker interlocutor.

Figure 7.2
Path Diagram of Affecting Factors for Intelligibility Ratedby the Native Speakers of English
individual sound.05

word stresssentence stress

−.05

.35

intelligibility

.42*

e

−.02

tone unit
intonation

.40*
.06

*p < .05

rhythmLikewise, Figure 7.3 indicates the results of the multiple regression analysis of thefactors affecting the intelligibility rated by NNS raters. The multiple coefficient ofdetermination (R2) was R2=.54, which was higher than that of NS raters. That is,predictors of intelligibility explain 54 % of its variables of intelligibility.

Figure 7.3

Path Diagram of Affecting Factors for Intelligibiltiy Ratedby the Non- Native Speakers of English

individual soundword stresssentence stress.50***
−.09

.34*
−.07

tone unit
intonation.54

intelligibility

.19
−.36*

rhythm***p <.001 *p <.05

e

147

This seems to support Jenkin (2002)’s claim that NNS interlocutors are more likely torely on “acoustic signal” and “direct his or her efforts to decoding what has been heard”(p.89) than NS, who have a wider range of phonetic and phonological tolerance and arecapable of utilizing contextual information to negotiate meaning. When investigating
standardized coefficient (β), individual sound (β =.50) (p <.001), sentence stress (β =.34)
and rhythm (β = −.36) (p <.05) revealed statistical significance. This implies that for
NNSs, individual sound and sentence stress are important in judging their interlocutor’sutterance. Unexpectedly, rhythm was found to be negatively significant, which needs to
be investigated more in the future.
Though this research is limited, particularly in its number of participants andmethod in capturing Japanese EFL leaners’ phonological intelligibility, the results
attained in this research present two points in response to the research questions
discussed in the previous section
The first question is; Which factor(s) contribute(s) to Japanese learners’
phonological intelligibility? The results show that there is a significant difference in theassessment by NS raters in sentence stress and intonation. Regarding the assessment by
NNS raters, it was found that there are significant differences in individual sound,sentence stress and rhythm, although rhythm was found to be negatively significant. Thismay mean that NNS raters found that proficiency in rhythm weaken overall intelligibility.
However, this needs to be examined closely in the future. Individual sound was found tobe particularly high in statistical significance (p < .001) in the NNSs’ assessments. There
was also a positively significant difference in sentence stress in NNS raters’ assessments.
The second question is; Is there any difference between NS and NNS regarding
perception of intelligibility? If so, which factor(s) differ(s)? As described above, in NSs’assessment, two suprasegmental factors, sentence stress and intonation, were found tobe significantly different. This supports the evidence some research has shown thatsuprasegmentals played a more important role than segmentals from the NSs’
perspectives. In NNSs’ assessment, there were significant differences in the segmental
factor of individual sound, and the suprasegmental factor of sentence stress. This
supports Jenkins’ (2000) claim that NNSs, even those of a relatively high level of148

competence, process speech using a predominance of bottom-up strategies. This means,according to Walker (2010), that “they are heavily dependent on the acoustic signal-the
actual sounds that they hear. This dependence can be so great that they becomecompletely thrown by deviations in individual sounds” (p.27). These findings indicate
as shown in previous research, that NS prioritize suprasegmental factors in determining
EFL speaker’s intelligibility whereas, NNS prioritize segmental factors. However, thesuprasegmental factor of sentence stress seems to have a positive effect on intelligibility
in terms of both of NS and NNS’s perspectives. These findings might offer an
instructional direction of pronunciation for Japanese learners hereafter.
At a time when intelligible pronunciation is thought to be a goal for ESL /EFL
learners, and it is, in fact, achievable, much research has searched for priorities inteaching pronunciation. As briefly discussed, some researchers have claimed that priority
should be put on suprasegmentals, rather than segmentals. In their study examining theeffect of segmental and suprasegmental instruction, Derwing et al. (1998), for instance,
claimed that learners who received suprasegmental (mainly prosodic) instruction
showed considerable improvement in comprehensibility and fluency in extemporaneous
narrative speech, although they propose the importance of both segmentals andsuprasegmentals:

Attention to both global and segmental concerns benefits ESL students. In the caseof a communication breakdown caused by a mispronunciation, a student who hasreceived segmental training might be able to focus on the mispronounced form in aself-repetition. On the other hand, global instruction seems to provide the learnerwith skills that can be applied in extemporaneous speech production, despite theneed to allocate attention to several speech components. (p.407)

Hahn (2004) used three versions of a mini-lecture to undergraduate students in which a
surpasegmental feature, nuclear stress was manipulated. She reported that those who
listened to the lecture with misplaced or missing nuclear stress understood the lecture
significantly less. Field (2005) found that misplaced lexical stress resulted in decrement

149

of intelligibility. However, as described in the previous section, there are still a relatively
small number of studies from NNS’s perspectives, according to Jenkins (2000), who
proposes the lingua franca core, the components which are crucial in communication
with NNS. Those components included in the lingua franca core are mostly segmentals,
except for nuclear stress.

7.5 Summary
This research reveals that sentence stress seems to have a positive effect on
Japanese EFL learners from both NS and NNS’s perspectives, whereas, intonation fromNS’s perspective and individual sound from NNS’s seem to be important respectively.
Although there is yet to be a consensus among researchers of factors determining
intelligibility, particularly “global intelligibility” proposed by Moedjito. (2009), in their
overview, Thomson and Derwing (2014) suggest that 82 % of the studies examining
effectiveness in improving the target form(s) have reported significant improvement.
When considering the current situation of the English classroom in Japan, at every level,
more focus on pronunciation instruction is crucial.
Given that intelligible pronunciation is the primary goal for most Japanese EFL
learners, more research is necessary to identify factors affecting global intelligibility.
When thinking of engaging in international communication with both NS and NNS, thisresearch implies the possibility that individual sound, intonation and sentence stress are
particularly to be emphasized in pronunciation instruction in the Japanese classroom.
Further research is necessary on other factors affecting global intelligibility and methods
to capture them.

150

Chapter 8
Research 3: Research on Sentence-level Strategies for Improving
Japanese Learners’ Global Intelligibility

8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 BackgroundResearch on learner’s phonological intelligibility has been conducted based on theidea that “Research can help teachers and learners set realistic goals” (Derwing & Munro,
2005, p386) and intelligible pronunciation has been regarded as the realistic goal, as seenin Chapter 5. Field (2005) points out that, up to now, much research on phonologicalintelligibility has attempted to identify the factors that contribute to the intelligibility ofthe speaker, and the factors are often discussed in terms of the conflict ofsegmental/suprasegmental factors.
For example, Field (2005) shows that mis-assigned stress on words impedes
intelligibility in lexical recognition of both NS and NNS listeners. The study indicatesthe importance of stress at the word-level. Regarding sentence-stress, Hahn (2004)
investigated the effect of primary stress on the intelligibility of speech of ESL teachingassistants. In the study, three types of mini-lectures were presented to NS university
students. The lectures were given: 1. with accurate primary stress, 2. with mis-assigned
primary stress, 3. with no primary stress. In the comprehension and evaluation tasks, thefirst lecture with accurate primary stress had significantly better results.
As seen in Chapter 5, Jenkins (2000), who researched EIL intelligibility incommunication among NNSs, claims that segmentals are more important for EIL
intelligibility. Most of the items included in the lingua franca core proposed by Jenkins
are segmentals. Jenkins explains the reason for this is that NNSs tend to depend on theactual sounds they hear as acoustic signals, and they use bottom-up processing.
The research conducted in Chapter 7 shows that sentence-stress and intonation
have positive correlations with intelligibility from the NS’s perspective, and individual

151

sound and sentence-stress have positive correlations with intelligibility from NNS’s
perspective. The results seemed to support Jenkins’s claim and other research findingsthat NSs emphasize suprasegmentals whereas NNSs emphasize segmentals.
Furthermore, sentence-stress has found to be a shared factor contributing to intelligibility
by both NSs and NNSs.
Even though Jenkins (2000) claims that segmentals are more important in EIL
intelligibility, she includes sentence-level items, that is, nuclear stress and tone units inthe lingua franca core. According to Jenkins, nuclear stress “highlights the most salientpart of the message, indicating where the listeners should pay particular attention”(p.153) and tone unit is “the way in which English speakers divide their utterances into
smaller meaningful units, or chunks, each containing one nuclear syllable (p.155).
Based on the findings from Chapter 7 and previous research, this chapter assumes
that sentence-stress contributes to global intelligibility, and attempts to search foreffective instruction focusing on sentence-stress.

8.1.2 Theoretical Framework for the Research
8.1.2.1 Sentence Stress
It has already been discussed in Chapter 5, but it is imperative to re-emphasize thedifference in stress between English and Japanese for the current research. In English,
stress is always placed on the vowels of one syllable when pronouncing a word, which
creates a strong-weak stress pattern of English. The prominence of English stress isdefined as “duration, or length; intensity, or loudness; and pitch, or fundamental
frequency” (Pennington, 1996, p.129, bold as the original). In other words, the stressedsyllable is pronounced louder, higher and longer.
On the other hand, in the Japanese language, two words having the same phonemic
structure arrangement are distinguished by the high and low pitch contrast as below as
seen in Chapter 5:

152

amé

amé

(rain)(candy)

hashi

hashi

(chopstick)(bridge)

Accordingly, Japanese EFL learners as their L1 whose stress distinction is between highand low pitch, often do not pay attention to the strong and long stress of English words.
As a result, they tend to pronounce English words rather flatly. The same is true forsentence stress.
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) present some examples illustrating “physicalsimilarities in stress patterns that exist in both multisyllabic words and simple sentences”(p.152) as follows:

motherDo it
Pay them

attend
You did?
It hurts.

abondonI saw you.
We found it・
guarantee
Have some cake.
Where's the beef?

Japanese EFL learners tend to pronounce English words and sentences, assigning equal
weight regardless of whether a syllable is stressed or unstressed. As a result, their speechtends to have “staccato-like rhythm” (Avery & Ehrlich. 1992, p.74). This characteristicof the Japanese EFL learner is thought to be one factor in impeding intelligibility in theirspeech. Thus, measures are needed in order to overcome these difficulties.
When teaching sentence-stress, it is important to show Japanese learners that stressshould be placed on content words, and major sentence stress, which has more salientstress is usually placed on the last content word in the sentence. Also, as has been alreadystated, a stressed syllable of words and sentences in English is pronounced louder, higher

153

and longer. However, Japanese is a so-called syllable-timed language, in which theamount of time required to say a sentence depends on the number of syllables. Due tothis syllable-timed rhythm restriction, the difference in stress does not appear in length
as different as in English (Kubozono,1998). Consequently, as seen in Chapter 3, it isoften taught that a stressed syllable is pronounced louder, or more strongly, in English
classes. However, its length is not emphasized. Therefore, sentence stress needs to betaught to pronounce not only louder and higher, but also longer.
Since sentence-stress is closely related to the stress-timed rhythm of English,
focusing on sentence-stress in pronunciation instruction is thought to improve Japanese
EFL learners’ intelligibility.

8.1.2.2 Role of Explicit Instruction
Ellis (2008) shows the role of explicit knowledge in second language acquisition,
particularly in instructed language acquisition, seen in Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1
The Role of Explicit Knowledge in L2 Acquisition. (Ellis, 2008, p.423)

According to Ellis, explicit knowledge is a “facilitator of implicit knowledge” (p.423)
and it “contributed indirectly to the development of implicit knowledge by helping

154

learners to notice linguistic forms in the input and to carry out a comparison between
what they have noticed and their own current interlanguage” (p.423). Thus, explicit
knowledge and “code-oriented instruction,” or explicit instruction which affects explicit
knowledge are to be focused on.
Regarding the effect of explicit knowledge, Venkatagiri and Levis (2007), forexample, examined whether phonological awareness has a correlation with L2 learner’s
speech comprehensibility. They had L2 learners take a phonological awareness test
which measured L2 leaners’ explicit knowledge of English phonological items. They
reported that there was a strong correlation between the phonological awareness testscores and rated comprehensibility of the L2 learners’ speech. The result implies that
explicit knowledge in phonology contribute to ESL/EFL speakers’ comprehensibility.
Regarding the effect of form-focused instruction, Saito (2011) gave Japanese ESL
learners a specific instruction focusing on English segmentals /æ, f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɻ /. Afterthe instruction period, NS listeners rated the ESL learners’ speech in terms ofaccentedness and comprehensibility. There was a significant improvement in thecomprehensibility of a sentence-reading task.
Furthermore, Akatsuka et al. (2018)’s research showed that explicit instruction in
intonation on Japanese university students led to an accurate perception and production
in distinguishing differences in intonation. Research has shown the role of explicit
knowledge and instruction on the phonological features of English.

8.1.3 Objectives
This research assumes that explicit instruction on sentence-stress is effective andleads to an improvement in EFL learners’ intelligibility.
Ito (2014) calls the weak-strong rhythm of English words and sentences as “soundpattern” and emphasizes the importance of not only exposure to pronunciation, but alsoof presenting the pattern with a visual image as below:

155

breakfast

See you.

Thank you.

Come here.

ChineseTake care

Watch out

Sounds great.

computer

I like it.

You made it.

I’ll miss you.

engineer

I like apples.

See you later.

Thanks a lot.

Current research examines whether Japanese EFL learner’s intelligibility improves whena visualized image of the “sound pattern” of sentence-stress is presented to the learners
along with explicit instruction.
There are other ways to show stress, such as presented by Celce-Murcia et al. (1996).
The followings are examples (p.144):

CAPitals
boldface・
bubblesáccents
underlining
As a preliminary survey, I chose bubbles and capitals, however, the reading aloud task
showed the decline of learners’ intelligibility in general. Some learners claimed that thevisualized letters made the words and sentences look different and it took them longer toprocess the information. Consequently, the following method which makes stressedsyllables bigger and written in bold letters is adopted in this research as below:

sentence stress
As already discussed, sentence stress has been found to be a shared factor contributing
to intelligibility for both NS and NNS listeners. Therefore, with the aim of improving
the global intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners, the author would like to verify the

156following research question: Do the explicit instruction on sentence stress and visuallysalient image of sentence stress lead to overall intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners?

8.2 Method
8.2.1 Participants, Time and Place
As providers of Japanese EFL learners’ speech, the author asked 20 students who
took the author’s beginner English class at a private university in Kyoto to participate in
the study. All the students were freshmen, and none of them had any certificate showing
their level of English. However, the class level was beginner and the targeted level wasapproximately below a 400 on the TOEIC test. There were 12 males and 8 females. Theirmajors varied, but no students majored in English or any other foreign language. Noneof them had experienced studying or staying abroad except on short trips. It was
explained to the students that participation would have no effect on their grades for theclass, and that their personal information would not be revealed.
As raters, two native speakers of English were asked to rate the speech. Both ofthem were male. One was American with a master’s degree in linguistics. He had lived
in Japan for approximately three years. He considered his Japanese language proficiency
to be at the intermediate level with an N3 level of Japanese Language Proficiency testscore. As he self-reported, the N3 level refers to intermediate. With the 18N3 level, thelearners are able to understand basic daily conversation to a certain extent. The other wasan English man who had lived in Japan for 13 years. He self-reported his Japanese
language level as “false” beginner. He had a master’s degree in sports psychology. Bothof individuals had taught English to Japanese students, thus it was expected that they
were accustomed to the English of Japanese EFL learners.
The instruction and recordings were conducted during the period from June 16 toJune 19, 2020. Under the circumstances of the Covid-19 calamity, the instructions wereconducted online.

18

Referred to the website of Japanese Language Proficiency Test:
https://www.jlpt.jp/about/levelsummary.html

157

8.2.2 Procedure
The 20 students were divided into two groups (experimental group, control group).
The experimental group received a roughly ten-minute explanation of sentence stressand practice of reading aloud the sound-patten visualized sentences. After that, the group
was asked to read aloud a passage consisting of four sentences, record and submit therecorded file. The mean number of words of the sentences was eleven. The passage wasadapted from the interview test of the pre-second grade of English Proficiency test. The
pre-second grade level is the equivalent to A2 level of the CEFR (Common European
Framework for Reference). Since this research focuses exclusively on pronunciation,
only the reading-aloud task was adopted. Also, in order to avoid the possibility that thestudents would have difficulty in reading aloud because of difficult spelling, the passage
consisting of rather simple and easy words was chosen from the pre-second grade level.
Regarding the explanation and practice of roughly ten minutes, first, the following
slide (Figure 8.2) was shown to the experimental group with a brief explanation online.
The first slide contains the “sound pattern” identified by Ito (2014), and an explanationof the similarities in stress pattern that exist between words and simple sentences wasgiven.

Figure 8.2
Explanation of Sound Pattern158

Next, five slides as seen in Figure 8.3 were presented in order that the students got used
to reading aloud sound-pattern visualized sentences.

Figure 8.3
Practice of Sentence Stress

As stated above, the instruction and the slides were given to the students of theexperimental group online. The above stated slides taken from the pre-second grade
English proficiency test were then distributed to the students through the university’s elearning platform named “Moodle.” The students were asked to read aloud the slides andrecord themselves using the smartphone recording function.

Figure 8.4
A Slide Shown to the Experimental Group159

Then the recorded files were submitted in MP3 or MP4 format through Moodle to theauthor. Figure 8.4 was the one slide given to the experimental group.
Regarding the control group, slides of the same passage, but without the soundpattern visualized sentences were distributed as seen in Figure 8.5. The students in thecontrol group were also asked to record themselves reading aloud and to submit therecorded file via Moodle.

Figure 8.5
A Slide Given to the Control GroupThe submitted files recorded by the students were converted to MP3 after eliminatingexternal noise, using the free audio editing application, Audacity. The recorded files were
uploaded on an online storage site for the two NS raters to rate. The NS raters were asked
to rate all the students’ overall intelligibility using the five-point Likert scale (1=notintelligible at all, 2=slightly intelligible, 3=partly intelligible, 4= reasonably intelligible,
5= intelligible).

8.2.3 Data Analysis
First, the inter-rater reliability coefficients for listener judgement were calculated
in order to judge the validity of the ratings. Then, descriptive statistics were conductedin order to see the overall tendency shown in the two groups. Furthermore, in order tolook at the difference between the groups, a t-test was performed. SPSS for Windows

160

version 25 was used for all the statistical analysis.

8.3 Results and Discussion
First, inter-rater reliability coefficients were calculated for the two raters’
intelligibility scores. The result was Cronbach’α=0.749. Therefore, the two raters’
judgement was thought to be reliable. Then, a descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted. Table 8.1 shows the descriptive statistics of the intelligibility scores of thetwo groups, with average scores, SD, minimum and maximum scores.

Table 8.1
Rated Scores for Intelligibility
intelligibility
Control groupM
3.65(N =10)SD
0.58714Minimum
3
Maximum
5
Experimental group M
4.1(N =10)SD
0.55251
Minimum
3
Maximum
5
Note . The Likert scale represents as follows: 1=notintelligible at all, 2=slightly intelligible, 3=partly
intelligible, 4= reasonably intelligible,
5= intelligible

Next, the Levene test demonstrated the homogeneity of variance of the two groups(F=2.236, p=.143 (p >.05)). Finally, t test was performed. On average, the experimentalgroup showed significantly higher intelligibility score than the control group(t(38)=2.496, p=.017 (p <.05)). Also, it did present a medium sized effect r= .38.
In response to the research question, which asks whether an explicit instruction
focusing on sentence stress and visually salient image of sentence stress lead to overall
intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners, the result of the t test showed a significant
difference on average of intelligibility score between the experimental group and thecontrol group. This result implies the effect of explicit instruction and visualized imageof sentence stress on learners’ intelligibility, and the necessity of form-focused

161

instruction (FFI) on pronunciation. However, Saito and Lyster (2012) point out most of
the research on FFI has been on morphosyntactic items, and there has been rather lessamount of research on phonological items.
When discussing FFI, two types of form-focused instruction, that is, focus-onformS and focus-on-form need to be considered. Focus-on-formS is a type of instructionthat “seeks to isolate linguistic forms in order to teach them one at a time as when
language teaching is based on a structural syllabus” (Ellis, 2008, p.870). On the other
hand, focus-on-form instruction alternates “some principled way between a focus on
meaning and a focus-on-form, and it “involves the use of tasks as opposed to exercises.
(Ellis, 2008, p.870). Ellis states the definitions of two types of FFI as follows:

I chose to define these in terms of whether learners attend to form while they are
primarily oriented towards message-comprehension/production in order to achieve
the outcome of some ‘task’ as opposed to whether they attend to form in activities
whose principal goal is accurate language use (i.e. in ‘exercise’ of one kind ofanother). (p.870)

The target of research on focus-on-form has often been in the field of the acquisition ofgrammar and vocabulary. However, Doughty and Williams (1998) assume that the
principle of the focus-on-form can be applied to the phonology.
In opposition to focus-on-form, focus-on-formS, which isolates a linguistic formin teaching, has been a standard instruction and practice in pronunciation teaching.
However, Venkatagiri and Levis (2007) argue that its effect on the pronunciation has notbeen verified yet. Saito and Lyster (2012) suggest that one reason for the dominance ofthe focus-on-formS approach in pronunciation instruction is that “pronunciation requires
not only metalinguistic knowledge (i.e., pronunciation rules) but also physical action (i.e.,
motor activities); that is, L2 learners need to develop abilities to manipulate articulatoryorgans properly to produce correct L2 sounds” (p.599). Further attempts might be needed
to incorporate pronunciation instruction in focus-on-form type instruction as well as infocus-on-formS instruction.

162

Venkatagiri and Levis (2007) state that an important concept of focus-on-form
research is noticing. What an ESL/EFL learner notices in the input becomes intake forlearning. In this study, the author considers this learner’s “noticing” important inpronunciation instruction regardless of focus-on-form or focus-on-formS instruction.
Spada (1997) states that learners who received FFI (form-focused instruction)outperformed learners who received meaning-only instruction. Ellis (2008) summarized
methodological options in FFI as below:

1. Input-based options (i.e. instruction that involves the manipulation of the input thatlearners are exposed to or are required to process).
2. Explicit options (i.e. instruction directed at helping learners develop explicit
knowledge of the target structure).
3. Production options (i.e. instruction directed at enabling /inducing learners to
produce utterances containing the target structure).
4. Corrective feedback options. (pp.869-870)

The options adopted in this study are the above-stated 1 and 2. According to Ellis, 1.
input-based option contains “input flooding (i.e. input that contains many examples of
the target structure), enhanced input (i.e. input with the target feature made salient to thelearners, for example, by means of emphatic stress or bolding), and structured input (i.e.
input that has been contrived to induce processing of the target feature)” (p.869).
Ellis also states that explicit options contain “both direct explicit instruction (i.e.
learners are provided with metalinguistic descriptions of the target feature) and indirect
explicit instruction (i.e. learners are provided with data illustrating the target feature andare required to ‘discover’ the rule for themselves)” (p.869).
In this study, regarding input-based options, enhanced-input which showed slides
of sentences with sentence-stress visualized with bold and bigger letters was used.
Regarding explicit options, a brief explanation of sentence-stress was adopted. As
suggested by Ellis, there are other options for FFI, and they can be applied topronunciation instruction.

163

Saito and Lyster (2012), for example, examined whether FFI and CF (corrective
feedback) improved Japanese learner’s pronunciation of /ɻ/. They used the following
types of FFI in their study:(a) structured input (i.e., learners process linguistic form in the input for meaning
without being pressured to produce output),(b) typographically enhanced input (i.e., target structures are highlighted by meansof intonational stress or visual changes such as italics or boldface to induce
learners to notice the forms in oral and written second language [L2] input), and(c) focused tasks (i.e, communicative activities designed to create obligatory
contexts that elicit learners’ use of a specific linguistic feature in production)(p.594)

As a result, it was shown that an experimental group which received not only FFI but
also CF, using recast improved their pronunciation. However, a group which received
only FFI did not show significant improvement. The research showed that only explicit
instruction is inadequate, and further interference of instruction, such as CF, leads toimprovement of ESL learners’ pronunciation.
Current research might indicate the possibility of explicit instruction, or FFI, on
sentence-stress. However, the effectiveness needs to be investigated further from otherperspectives, such as the type of FFI (focus-on-formS, or focus-on-form) and otheroptions (production, corrective feedback options). At the same time, further research into
the effect of sentence-stress instruction on intelligibility is necessary.

8.4 Summary

As stated by Derwing and Munro (2005), “students learning L2 pronunciation
benefit from being explicitly taught phonological forms to help them notice thedifference between their own production and those of proficient speakers in the L2
community” (p.388). In this research sentence-stress is assumed to contribute to global
intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners, and FFI and enhanced input of sentence stress164

were presented to an experimental group. The results imply the possibility that explicit
instruction and enhanced input focusing on sentence stress leads to an improvement inJapanese EFL learner’s overall intelligibility.
However, this research has limitations, in the method of capturing the learners’
intelligibility, and research scale, in terms of the number of participants, and the lengthof instruction. Also, the durability of FFI was not examined. Thus, it is possible that thebeneficial effects are only temporary.
First, the methods of capturing learners’ intelligibility need to be discussed.
However, before discussing the method, it is necessary to review the two terms whichhave often been used in measuring learner’s phonological proficiency. Again, they are,intelligibility and comprehensibility. As discussed in Chapter 5, this research defines
intelligibility as the extent to which listener recognizes what a speaker intended toconvey, not extending to the interpretation of the utterances.
Derwing et al. (1998) define intelligibility as referring to “how much of anutterance the listener processes successfully”, and comprehensibility as referring to the“listener’s judgement of how difficult it is to understand an L2 speech production”(p.396). According to these authors, intelligibility measurement can be “quantified
through comprehension questions or an orthographic transcription task” (p.396), where
they had the listeners transcribe what they had heard in the L2 speech, and calculated theratio of the accurately transcribed words to all the words in the speech. Thus,
intelligibility is a more objective method for them than comprehensibility ratings inwhich they had the evaluators judge by their “subjective” impression of the L2 speechusing the Likert scale.
Schiavetti (1992) suggests two measurement methods for speech intelligibility of
impaired speakers of English. They are:(1) word identification tests in which the listener is required to write down what the
talker says and(2) scaling procedures in which the listener makes judgements about the talker’s
intelligibility using a technique such as an equal appearing interval scaling

165

procedure or direct magnitude estimation. (p.15)

This research adopts the above-stated scaling procedure, asking the raters to give an
impressionistic scale of intelligibility on the five-point Likert scale. As discussed by
Derwing et al. (1998), the procedure of impressionistically rating is not without problems.
That is, the rating can be subjective. However, Derwing and Munro (1997) also showed
there was a high-degree of reliability among NS raters’ rating-judgement in the speech
intelligibility of NNSs. They explained that NS listener are sensitive to NNSs’ speechand share a sense of what constitutes being “intelligible versus unintelligible” (p.381).
The above-stated Schiavetti (1992) also points out that an advantage of scaling procedurelies in its “relative simplicity of use” (p.17).
Aside from the scaling procedure, there are other ways to measure intelligibility,
such as the above-stated word-identification test, suggested by Schiavetti (1992). As
already stated, Derwing et al. (1998) used the method. They had NS listeners “write out
in standard orthography exactly what they had heard” as a transcription task. Then, theycounted “the number of words exactly matching the original” and they are “counted foreach utterance and converted to a percentage score for each listener.” They state that thetranscription method is “simple and objective, and yields nearly identical results” (p.223).
Furthermore, in the study which showed that accurate primary stress contributed
to the intelligibility of the speech of ESL teaching assistants, Hahn (2004) had NS
listeners write as much as they remembered from a mini-lecture they were given., andhad the NS listeners take a short-answer-comprehension quiz based on the lecture. The
attained score was then calculated to show the intelligibility of the speech.
According to the summary of the pronunciation instruction research by Thomson
and Derwing (2014), of 75 L2 pronunciation studies, 79% of the studies have adopted“human listener” assessments such as transcription tasks, comprehension tasks andlistener judgement using the Likert scale, whereas the remaining 21 % have used“acoustic measures.” A detailed description was not given. However, the acoustic
measures adopts speech analysis using some software, such as praat and speech analyzer

166

and examines “discrete features of the speech signal, such as 19VOT for stops (e.g.,
Suarez, 2008), formants for vowel dipthongization (e.g., Counselman, 2010), and pitch(e.g., Hincks & Edlund, 2009)” ( Thomson & Derwing, 2014, p.7).
Because of the difficulty in measuring ESL/EFL learners’ speech, some researchusing both human listener assessment and acoustic measures (e.g., Saito and Lyster,2012). Current research uses a single method, however, other methods to measure theeffectiveness of the instruction need to be adopted for more accurate results.
As the second main limitation of this research, the scale of the research,
particularly in the length of instruction is enumerated. Derwing et al. (1998) state thatsome research has looked at “the short-term effectiveness of very limited training on
various aspects of oral production” (p.394). They point out the limitation of these studies
in the fact that assessment of a speech production was conducted immediately after the
instruction. The same thing is true for the current research, therefore, the effectivenessof continuous instruction for a longer period of time needs to be assessed in the future.
However, at the same time, the current study has shown the prospect of FFI of sentencestress in order to improve Japanese EFL learners’ phonological intelligibility. Further
continuous research is necessary in order to search for methods to improve Japanese EFL
learners’ intelligibility as well as to make the effect of instruction last into the future.

19

VOT: Voice onset time

167

Chapter 9Conclusion

This final chapter first summarizes each chapter of the dissertation. Secondly,
based on the previous research and current research findings, a desirable direction ofpronunciation instruction in Japan is discussed. Finally, the limitations of the current
study and further problems to be solved are stated.

9.1 Summary of the Study
This study started by discussing the topic from the point where the importance ofpronunciation in international face-to-face communication had been recognized. As has
been discussed up to this point, intelligibility of pronunciation is imperative in oral
communication. Therefore, this dissertation has had a focus that is based on threeobjectives:(1) To build the theoretical construct regarding factors determining global
intelligibility.
(2) To investigate the factors determining the global intelligibility of English
pronunciation through analysis of Japanese university students’ speech from both
native and non-native speakers’ points of view.
(3) To suggest pedagogical guidelines which guarantee global intelligibility forJapanese learners based on results retrieved from previous articles and texts and theresearch conducted here.

Along with these objectives, the dissertation is divided into three parts. Part 1 (Chapters
2 and 3) was written in order to understand the current situation of pronunciation
instruction. In Part 2 (Chapters 4 and 5), a theoretical framework of phonologicalintelligibility based on EIL (English as an international language) was presented. In Part

168

3 (Chapters 6, 7 and 8), three pieces of research were conducted in order to search for a
direction that will lead to an improvement in Japanese learners’ global intelligibility. The
overall summary starting from Chapter 2 is laid out from this point onwards.
Chapter 2 described the position of pronunciation instruction in the history of
foreign language education. Until the beginning of the 19th century, written language
had been prioritized over spoken language, thus, pronunciation was not valued. However,in the 1850s, spoken language began to be prioritized over written language, andpronunciation was taught predominantly from the initial stage of instruction in the Direct
Method, which appeared around this time. Furthermore, The Reform Movement, where
pronunciation was analyzed scientifically created more interest in accurate pronunciationand pronunciation instruction. After the end of the prosperity of the Audio-Lingual
Method, pronunciation experienced some decline, however, interest in pronunciation
instruction and research has been growing since the end of the 1990s. Along with that,
there has been more research on second/foreign language pronunciation and instruction.
However, the field is rather new. The consensus of the researchers regarding the goal ofpronunciation instruction now is intelligible pronunciation, and one of the themes ofpronunciation research is what constitutes pronunciation intelligibility and what to teachfor intelligible pronunciation.
Chapter 3 described the current situation of pronunciation instruction in Japan. In
the Junior High School Course of Study, the contents of pronunciation have become
more specified over the last sixty years. Also, the pronunciation to be taught was“contemporary British or American standard English” up until the 1969 version.
However, it was changed to “contemporary standard pronunciation” in the 1977 version.
It represented an extrication from the nativeness principle (Levis, 2005). Furthermore,from an analysis of the authorized junior high school English textbooks and thestandardized English entrance examination, it can be concluded that pronunciation
instruction is rather inadequate in English education in Japan.
Chapter 4 stated the place of English as an international language (EIL). English
was mainly spoken by native speakers who lived predominantly in British Isles at theend of the 16th century with the number of speakers being approximately five to seven

169

million people. Now there are approximately 620 million to 880 million speakers ofEnglish worldwide, including the people who speak English as their L2 in Outer Circle
countries. The use of English has been expanding beyond national borders, ethnic andcultural boundaries, and nowadays it is estimated that the ratio of native speakers (NS)and non-native speakers (NNS) is 1:3 (Crystal, 2003). Given that English as aninternational language (EIL) is defined as a common language used for communication
between speakers with different L1 and cultural backgrounds, it is clear that this English
needs to be mutually intelligible in order to function as an international language. Even
though there are many varieties of English, written versions of English do not vary thatmuch. However, versions of spoken English vary to the extent that they become mutually
unintelligible. In international face-to-face communication including NS, intelligible
pronunciation is crucial. Thus, more research on pronunciation intelligibility for EIL isneeded.
Chapter 5 described the framework of intelligibility research based on the previous
literature. There has, as yet, been no general consensus regarding the definition of
intelligibility. However, it has been clarified that phonological intelligibility is afundamental requirement for oral communication. This dissertation defines intelligibility
as the extent to which the listener recognizes what a speaker intended to convey, notextending the meaning or interpretation.
Most of the studies have focused on intelligibility from the perspective of the NS,
but some studies have been conducted from the NNS’s point of view. Research findings
have generally shown that for NS listeners, suprasegmentals, such as intonation andword stress, are more important than segmentals for learners’ phonological intelligibility.
On the other hand, in oral communication between NNSs, sound accuracy in segmentals
are more important.
There has also been rather little research on Japanese learners’ intelligibility, butsome research has been conducted from both NS and NNSs perspectives. The findings
vary, although there is some agreement that for NNSs’ interlocutors, segmentals are more
important. It is still not certain if there are any kind of “core” features for Japaneselearners’ global intelligibility which is crucial when engaging in communication with

170

both NSs and NNSs, AS proposed by Moedjito (2009).
In Part 3, from Chapters 6 to 8, there were three pieces of research conducted. Asa first piece of research, Chapter 6 investigated Japanese university students’ knowledge,
learning experience and attitude toward English pronunciation through a questionnairein the hope that the results of the questionnaire research would lead to a better
understanding of the current situation surrounding Japanese university students. From
the findings obtained in the research, three points were identified. The first is thatJapanese university students generally had little learning experience in English
pronunciation at junior/senior high school. As a result, they do not have sufficientknowledge of English pronunciation. The third is that their learning experience,
knowledge and attitude towards English pronunciation are related to each other in somerespects.
In Chapter 7, with global intelligibility in mind, the author conducted a study on
Japanese learner’s phonological intelligibility from both NS and NNS’s points of view.
As factors affecting intelligibility, seven factors are set, i.e., 1. individual sound(consonants and vowels), 2. word stress, 3. sentence stress, 4. tone unit, 5. intonation,
6. rhythm, 7. fluency. Japanese learners’ utterances were rated based on these sevenfactors by both NS and NNS raters. As a result, there is a significant difference insentence stress in both NS and NNS’s ratings. The result implies the possibility that
sentence stress is to be particularly emphasized in pronunciation instruction with
globally intelligible pronunciation as the primary goal.
Chapter 8 examined whether an explicit instruction focusing on sentence stress anda visually salient image of sentence stress lead to overall intelligibility of Japanese EFL
learners. 20 Japanese learners were divided into two groups; an experimental group anda control group. The experimental group received explicit instruction on sentence stressand was given slides which highlighted sentence stress. The learners of the group wereasked to read aloud the sentences on the slides and record them. The control group wereasked to read aloud the slides which contained the same sentences, but without
instructions or pointers highlighting the sentences. The recorded files were rated by two
NS raters using the five-point Likert scale in terms of intelligibility. The calculation of t

171

test showed that on average, the experimental group’s learners got significantly better
intelligible scores than those of the control group. The results seem to indicate theeffectiveness of pronunciation instruction focusing on sentence stress on overall
intelligibility.

9.2 Pedagogical Implications, Unsolved Issues and Suggestion for Further Research
In this dissertation, first, Part 2 implies the necessity for further research on
pronunciation and pronunciation instruction. It was also revealed that pronunciation
instruction is inadequate in English education in Japan, and the pedagogical direction forpronunciation instruction has not been set because phonological intelligibility has notbeen recognized as a pronunciation teaching/learning goal in Japan. Part 2 summarizes
the theoretical framework for English as an international language (EIL) and theprevious literature on intelligibility. In Part 3, three pieces of research were conducted.
The first was a questionnaire on Japanese university students which revealed thatJapanese university students had relatively little knowledge and learning experience ofEnglish pronunciation. On the other hand, many students showed interested inpronunciation and realized its importance. The findings from the second piece of
research suggest that a factor contributing to global intelligibility in terms of EIL wassentence stress. In the third piece of research, pronunciation instruction focusing on
sentence stress turned out to be effective.
Based on the findings and discussion in the current study, mainly two pedagogicalimplications are suggested, particularly for pronunciation instruction in English
education in Japan. First, more focus needs to be put on pronunciation instruction. In
order to emphasize pronunciation, framework for English teaching, such as curricula,textbooks and standardized entrance examination tests need to be considered further,along with raising awareness of those who are involved in English education in terms ofrealizing the goal of pronunciation instruction as intelligible pronunciation. Secondly,
based on the findings that focusing on sentence stress is expected to lead to an
improvement in Japanese EFL learners’ global intelligibility, it can be implied that more
focus needs to be placed on suprasegmental items, such as sentence stress in English

172

class in Japan at every level. Among many items of English pronunciation, sentencestress is an item which is rather teachable, and at the same time, a key factor to maintainJapanese EFL learners’ global intelligibility. It is crucial to continue further to search forsome that are teachable and learnable, such as sentence stress. As stated in Chapter 5,
English is phonologically more complicated than the Japanese language, thus, there area lot of difficult items for EFL learners with Japanese as their L1. Based on the findings,
conducting research on methods of pronunciation instruction which have a lasting effectis also necessary.
This dissertation has several limitations, particularly in research methods and scale
as stated in Chapter 8. First, the method capturing the factors contributing intelligibility
was limited. In order to attain more accurate results, it is necessary to use not only one
method, such as a scaling procedure in which the listener judges about the EFL learner’s
speech intelligibility using Likert scale, as in the current research, but also other methods
using tasks such as transcription and comprehension tasks. Also, acoustic measures using
speech analyzing software can be beneficial. Secondly, scale of the research was limited,particularly in the number of participants and the length of instruction for research 3. Inorder to verify the effectiveness of instructional method, instruction for a longer periodof time and measuring learner’s speech intelligibility after a certain period of time willproduce more accurate results. Multilateral approaches which make use of various
methods and further research is needed in the future in order to capture factors
contributing to global intelligibility and to search for effective pronunciation instruction
methods.

173

References

Abercrombie, D. (1956). Problems and principles in language study. Longmans.
Akatsuka, M., Hori, T., & Toyama, M. (2018). nihongo eigo gakushusha ni okeru eigo
intonation no hatsuon shidou no kouka [Effects of instructing English intonation
pornuniation to Japanese learners]. Language Education& Technology,55, 151170.
Anderson‐Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between
native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals,
prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529-555.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.x
Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete
teacher's guidebook. Sky Oaks Productions.
Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford
University Press.
Baker, A., & Murphy, J. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking
out the territory. TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 29-29.
http://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/download/1071/890
Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World
Englishes, 17(1), 1-14.
Bansal, R. K. (1990). The pronunciation of English in India. In S.Ramsaran (Ed.),
Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of
A.C.Gimson (pp.219-230). Routledge.
Bradlow, A.R., Pisoni, D.B., Akahane-Yamada,R., &Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training
Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/:Ⅵ. Some effects on perceptual
learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101,
2299-2310. doi: 10.1121/1.418276
Brinton, D.M. (2003). Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English
language teaching (pp.199-224). McGraw-Hill.

174

Brinton, D.M. (2017) Pronunciation. In E.Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research insecond language teaching and learning (Vol.3, pp.257-269). Routledge.
Brown, A. (2015). Syllable structure. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook
of English pronunciation (pp.85-105). John Wiley &Sons, Inc.
Brown, A. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching English Pronunciation: A book of readings.
Routledge.
Catford, J. C. (1950). Intelligibility. ELT Journal, 5(1), 7-15.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/V.1.7
Celce-Murcia, M. (2013). Language Teaching Methods from the Greeks to Gattegno.
Mextesol Journal, 37(2),1-9.
http://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/e2cdb79f70351cf393ff519f38bc0611.pdf
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation:
A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge
University Press.
Council of Europe. (2014). Language for democracy and social cohesion: Diversity,
equity and quality. Sixty years of European co-operation.
https://rm.coe.int/languages-for-democracy-and-social-cohesion-diversity-equityand-quali/168069e7bd
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice toprinciples? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. doi:
10.1017/S0267190511000092
Dalton-Puffer, C., Kaltenboeck, G., & Smit, U. (1997). Learner attitude and L2
pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes,16 (1), 115-128.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00052
Derwing, T. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern
Language Review,59 (4), 547-567. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.4.547

175

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19(1), 1-16.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44488664
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciationteaching: A research‐based approach. TESOL Quarterly,39(3), 379-397.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad
framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00047
Doughty, C. &Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp.197-262). Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Fayer, J. M., & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility
and irritation. Language Learning,37(3), 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1987.tb00573.x
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener. The role of lexical stress. TESOL
Quarterly,39(3), 399-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588487
Fraser, H. (2000). Coordinating improvements in pronunciation teaching for adultlearners of English as a second language. DETYA (Australia National Training
Authority Adult Literacy Project). https://helenfraser.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/ANTA-REPORT-FINAL.pdf
Fraser, H., & Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2001).
Teaching pronunciation: A handbook for teachers and trainers. Threeframeworks for an integrated approach. DETYA. https://helenfraser.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/HF-Handbook.pdf

176

Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. University ofMichigan Press.
Gallego, J. C. (1990). The intelligibility of three nonnative English-speaking teachingassistants: An analysis of student-reported communication breakdowns. Issues inApplied Linguistics,1(2), 219-237.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). A study of factors affecting EFL learners' English
pronunciation learning and the strategies for instruction. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 2(3), 119-128.
Gimson, A.C. (1978). Towards an international pronunciation of English. In P.
Strevens (Ed.), In honour of A.S. Hornby (pp.45-53). Oxford University Press.
Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2012). Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects
of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. Proceedings of the 4th
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference .194-206.
Graddol, D. (1998). The future of English. The British Council.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English
as a Foreign Language’. The British Council.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_english_next.pdf
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate theteaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378
Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S. (2010). Language teachers’ preferences ofpronunciation teaching techniques: traditional or modern? Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 983-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.138
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley and
E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. (pp.3-28).
Academic Press.
Imai, K. (1980). Onseigakuteki hikaku [Contrastive analysis of phonology] In T.
Kunihiro (Ed), Nichi-ei hikaku kouza volume 1 onsei to keitai [Contrastive
analysis of English and Japanese volume 1, phonology and morphology] (pp.69105). Taishukan shoten.

177

Ito, H. (2014). Shougattukou eigo kyouiku ron [Theory of elementary school English
instruction]. In Gaikokugo katsudou shidou ron 1 [Theory of foreign language
teaching] (pp.39-48). Tokushima. Naruto University of Education.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation
syllabus for English as an international language. Applied linguistics,23(1), 83103. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University
Press.
Jenner, B. (1989). Teaching pronunciation: The common core. Speak Out, 4, 2-4.
Jones, R. H. (1997). Beyond “listen and repeat”: Pronunciation teaching materials andtheories of second language acquisition. System,25(1), 103-112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00064-4
Kachru, B.B. (1982). Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The othertongue: English across cultures (pp.31-57). University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the Outer Circle’s. In R. Qurik & H.G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in
the world: Teaching and learning the language and literature (pp.11-30).
Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B.B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of
non-native Englishes. Pergamon Press.
Kachru,B. B.(1988). The sacred cows of English. English Today 16, 3-8.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000973
Kaneko, T., & Matsuura, N. (2017). Shin gakushu shidou youryo no tenkai[Development of the new course of study]. Meiji Tosho.
Kashiwagi, A., & Snyder, M. (2008). American and Japanese listener assessment ofJapanese EFL speech: Pronunciation features affecting intelligibility. The Journalof Asia TEFL, 5(4), 27-47.

178

Kashiwagi, A., & Snyder, M. (2010). Speech characteristics of Japanese speakers
affecting American and Japanese listener evaluations. Studies in Applied
Linguistics and TESOL, 10(1).
Kashiwagi, A., & Snider, M. (2013). Nihonjin gakushusha no eigo hatsuon no
intelligibility (rikaido): native-speaker oyobi non-native speaker wo kikite to shitachosa [Intelligibility of Japanese learners’ English pronunciation: An investigation
judged by native and non-native speakers]. Gakuen Departmental Bulletin Paperof Showa Women’s University,869, 50-56.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Newbury House.
Koreto Y. (2017). Gakushu shidou youryou kaitei ni miru sengo nihon no eigo
kyouikushi [The history of English language education in postwar Japan:
Focusing on the revision of the course of study]. Kobe University Departmental
Bulletin Paper 20, 1-10.
Koster, C. J., & Koet, T. (1993). The evaluation of accent in the English of Dutchmen.
Language Learning, 43(1), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1993.tb00173.x
Krashen, S. D., &Terrell, T. D. (1996). The natural approach: language acquisition in
the classroom, revised edition. Pearson Japan.
Kubozono, H. (1998). Nichieigo taisho ni yoru eigogaku enshu series 1 onseigaku,
oninron [Phonetics and phonology]. Kuroshio Shuppan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
http://103.5.132.213:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/213/1/techniques-inlanguage-teaching.pdf
Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Wiley.
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation (Vol. 1). MIT press.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciationteaching. TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 369-377. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588485

179

Levis, J. M. (2015). The Journal of Second Language Pronunciation: An essential step
toward a disciplinary identity. The Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.1.1.001edi
Levis, J. M., Sonsaat, S., Link, S., & Barriuso, T. A. (2016). Native and nonnative
teachers of L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. TESOL Quarterly,
50(4), 894-931. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.272
Lick, H.C., & Alsagoff, L. (1998). Is Singlish grammatical? Two notions ofgrammaticality. In S.A. Pakir, H.W. Kam, & V. Saravanan (Eds.), Language,
society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends (pp. 281-290). Singapore
Times Academic Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge University
Press.
Lobachev, S. (2008). Top languages in global information production. Partnership:
The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 1(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v3i2.826

McKay, L, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford
University Press.
McKay, L, S. (2017). English as a global language. In E.Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.3, pp.29-41). Routledge.
MEXT. (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2020).
Gakushu shido youryou, kaisetsu tou [Course of study and its description]
https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/1384661.htm
Moedjito. (2009). A study on factors determining global intelligibility of EFL learners’
speech. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Joint Graduate School in the Scienceof School Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education.
Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers ofother languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586981
Morley, J. (1994). Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new directions.
TESOL Inc.

180

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, andcomprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech.
Language and speech,38(3), 289-306.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002383099503800305
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). The foundations of accent and intelligibility inpronunciation research. Language Teaching 44(3), 316-327.
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000103
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). Intelligibility in research and practice:
Teaching priorities. In M. Reed & J.M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English
pronunciation (pp.377-96). Wiley Blackwell.
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.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44487040
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL
pronunciation teaching. System, 42, 258-269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.007
Murphy, J., & Baker, A. (2015). History of ESL pronunciation teaching. In M. Reed &J. M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp.36-65). John
Wiley &Sons, Inc.
Nelson, C. (1982). Intelligibility and non-native varieties of English. In B.B. Kachru(Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp.58-73). University of Illinois
Press.
Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ogawa,Y. (Ed.). (1982). Dictionary of English language teaching. Sanseido.
Orii, M. (2015). Eigo onsei kyouin kenshu no hitsuyousei- hatsuon shidou ni kansuru
chuugaku kyouin no ishiki chousa kara [The need for English pronunciation
training for teachers: Based on the questionnaire of junior high school English
teacher regarding their attitude toward pronunciation instruction]. Waseda
University Departmental Bulletin Paper Gakujitsu Kenkyu Jinbun 63, 203-222.

181

Otsuka, A., & Ueda, Y. (2011). Chugaku koko deno hatsuon gakushu rireki toteichakudo : daigaku 1 nensei e no check sheet to sitsumonshi ga shisa suru mono
[Pronunciation instruction and its achievements in Japanese junior and senior highschools: An analysis of results from check sheets and a questionnaire]. Journal of
Osaka Jogakuin University,8, 1-27.
Palmer, H.E. (1924). The problem of English teaching in the light of a new theory. A
memorandum. In the Institute for Research in English Teaching (Ed.), Eigo
kyoujyuhou jiten. [Encyclopedia of English teaching methods] (pp.321-370).
Kaitakusha.
Pandey, P. K. (1994). On a description of the phonology of Indian English. In R. K.
Agnihotri & A. L. Khanna (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Socio-culturaland linguistic aspects of English in India (pp.198-207). Sage.
Pennington, M. C. (1996). Phonology in English language instruction: An
international approach. Longman.
Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 219-233.
Quirk, R. (1981). International communication and the concept of nuclear English. In
C.J. Brumfit (Ed.), English for international communication (pp.151-165).
Pergamon Press.
Quirk,R. (1989). Language varieties and standard language. JALT Journal, 11(1).1425.
Rajadurai, J. (2007). Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical andideological issues. World Englishes,26(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467971X.2007.00490.x
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. T., & Platt, H. (2000). Longman dictionary of language
instruction & applied linguistics. Routledge.
Richards, J.C., & Rogers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching(3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W.M. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. The University of Chicago
Press.

182

Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like andcomprehensible pronunciation development: An instructed SLA approach to L2
phonology. Language awareness,20(1), 45-59.
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective
feedback on L2 pronunciation development of/ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English.
Language Learning, 62(2), 595-633.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.540326
Saito, Y. (2007). Nihonjin to eigo – mouhitotsu no eigo hyakunenshi [Japanese people
and English: A history of English language education past hundred years].
Kenkyusha.
Sato, C. J. (1989). A nonstandard approach to standard English. TESOL Quarterly,23(2), 259-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587336
Schiavetti, N. (1992). Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility.
In R.D. Kent (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement andmanagement (pp.12-32). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance 1.
Language learning, 19(3‐4), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14671770.1969.tb00466.x
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 20, 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200135
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Pronunciation. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge
guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp.56-65). Cambridge
University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT journal, 59(4), 339-341.
Setter, J., & Jenkins, J. (2005). State-of-the-art review article. Language Teaching,38(1), 1-17.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System
Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.15387305.1948.tb01338.x

183

Shibata, Y., Yokoyama, S., & Tara, S. (2006). Onsei sidou ni kansuru kyouin no
jittutai chosa [A survey on pronunciation instruction reported by English
teachers]. English Language Education Society Kiyou, 28, p.47-58.
Shirahata, T. (1992). Hittuki shiken ni yoru hatsuon mondai no datousei: Daigaku
nyuushi center shiken wo rei ni totte [Validity of paper test problems on stress:
Taking example from Monbusho’s “Daigaku nyuushi center shiken”].
Departmental Bulleting Paper of Shizuoka University, 23, 161-172.
Shizuka,T. (2019). Nihongo native ga nigate na oto to rhythm no tsukurikata ga
ichiban yoku wakaru hatsuon no kyoukasho [Pronunciation textbook focusing on
Japanese native speakers’ difficulties in English sound and rhythm]. Teies
Kikaku.
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7(2).
38-43. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003368827600700205
Smith, L. E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B.B.Kachru(Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed., pp.75-90). University
of Illinois Press.
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions
and resources. World Englishes,4 (3), 333-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467971X.1985.tb00423.x
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review
of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73-87.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012799
Stevens, P. (1985). What is standard English? In L. Smith (Ed.), Readings in English
as an international language (pp.87-93). Pergamon Press.
Suzuki, T. (2000). Eigo ha iranai?[We don’t need English?]. PHP kenkyusyo.
Szpyra, J. (2014). Pronunciation in EFL instruction: A research-based approach.
Multilingual Matters.
Tazaki, K. (Ed.). (1995). Gendai Eigo kyoujyu-hou ichiran [Modern English teaching
methods]. Taishukan Shoten.

184

Tay, M. (1982). The use, users, and features of English in Singapore. In J.B. Pride(Ed.), New Englishes (pp.51-72). Newbury House.
Thomson, R. I. (2013). ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices in pronunciation teaching:
Confidently right or confidently wrong? In J.M. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.).
Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning andTeaching Conference, Aug. 2012 (pp. 224-233). Iowa State University.
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2014). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation
instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326-344.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076
Timmis, I. (2002). Native speaker norms and international English: A classroom view.
ELTJournal,56 (3), 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.240
Torikai, K. (2016a). Honmono no eigo ryoku [True English proficiency]. Koudansha.
Torikai, K. (2016b). Kokusai kyotsu go to shiteno eigo [English as an international
language]. Koudansha.
Toyama, M. (2015). Japanese EFL learners’ beliefs about pronunciation learning andtheir pronunciation skills. Bunkyo University Journal of Language and Culture,27(3).92-114.
Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn’t. In T. Bex & R. J. Watts (Eds.),
Standard English: The widening debate (pp.117-128). Routledge.
Uekawa, K., & Jeana, G. (2007). Eigo nodo. [English throat]. Sanshunsha.
Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M. (2007). Phonological awareness and speechcomprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness,16(4), 263-277.
https://doi.org/10.2167/la417.0
Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among
dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,95(3), 322-329.
Wakabayashi,S., & Negishi, M. (1991). Eigo test mondaisakusei no tebiki, 12 hatsuon
test [A manual for making English test,12. Pronunciation test]. Eigo kyouiku.[TheEnglish Teacher’s Magazine].February issue. 38-39.

185

Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford
University Press.
Walters, N. (2009). An investigation into different theories and methodologies related
to the teaching of English as a foreign/second language. International Human
Studies 15, 51-73. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/WALTERS-KO15.pdf
Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,28(2). 377389. doi: 10.2307/3587438
Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford University Press.
Yamane, S. (2006). Some characteristics of Japanese EFL learners’ utterances andtheir phonetic features: Observations from a psycholinguistic perspective.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kansai University.

186

Appendix A
Sheet Used for Research 1:
Questionnaire Distributed to University Students for Research 1

187

188

189

190

Appendix B
Sheet Used for Research 2:
Narrative and Reading Aloud Tasks Given to the Students for Research 2:

1. 英語で口頭で自己紹介をしてください。その際、次の情報は必ず入れるようにしてください。1 分後に講師が合図したら始めてください。

1. 名前
2. 学部、専門
3. 出身地4. 好きなこと、よくすること（趣味）5. 夏休みにしてみたいこと、夏休みの予定

2. 次の文をまず黙読してください。30 秒後に講師が合図したら音読してください。

Morning Activities
Recently, more people have started to make use of the early morning hours. These people
study or do some exercise before going to school or work. Such morning activities
refresh people and help them to keep early hours, so they are becoming popular. Thereare even special clubs or communities for morning activities now.

191

Appendix C
Sheet Used for Research 2:
Assessment Sheet for Factors Contributing to Global Intelligibility Rated by NS andNNS raters

Assessment sheet

Speaker No.1
Your name ()

First Round
1. Please rate the speaker's overall intelligibility.
12
3
Not intelligible
Slightly
Partlyat allintelligible
intelligible

4
Moderately
intelligible

5
Reasonably
intelligible

6
Mostlyintelligible

2. Please rate if the speaker delivers information smoothly and effortlessly.
14
Moderately
fluent5
Reasonably
fluent6
Mostlyfluent

3. Please rate if the speaker pronunced each sound with accuracy.
1
2
3
individual soundNot at all
Slghtly
Moderately
accurate
accurate
accurate4
Veryaccurate

5
Extremely
accurate

Not fluent at all

2
Slightly
fluent3
PartlyflunetSecond Round

4. Please rate if the speaker placed the accurate stress on each word.
12
3
4
word stress
Not at all
Slghtly
Moderately
Veryaccurate
accurate
accurate
accurate
5. Please rate if the speaker uttered sentences with accurate sentence stress, namely putting
stress on words with inportant imformation.
12
3
4
sentence stress
Not at all
Slghtly
Moderately
Veryaccurate
accurate
accurate
accurate

5
Extremely
accurate

5
Extremely
accurate

Third Round
6. Please rate if the speaker divides his/her utterances into smaller meaningful units, or chunks.
1
2
3
4
5
tone unit
Not at all
Slghtly
Moderately
Very
Extremely
accurate
accurate
accurate
accurate
accurate
7. Please rate the speaker's intonation. Intonation refers to the way the speaker varies their
voices intone, reflecting the meaning of the speech.
1
2
3
4
5
intonation
Not at all
Slghtly
Moderately
Very
Extremely
accurate
accurate
accurate
accurate
accurate
8. Please rate if the speaker uses the accurate rhythm of English, or patterned appearance ofstressed words in sentences.
1
2
3
4
5
rhythmNot at all
Slghtly
Moderately
Very
Flawless~
accurate
accurate
accurate
accuratenearly flawless

192

Appendix D
Slides Used for Research 3:
Slides Distributed to the Experimental Group

193

194

Appendix E
Assessment Sheet Used for Research 3:
Assessment Sheet for Rating the Students’ Phonological Intelligibility

Assessment sheet
Please rate the speaker's overall phonological intelligibility.
Speaker No.1
intelligibility

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

1
Not intelligible
at all (0%)

2345Slightly
PartlyModerately
intelligible (100%)
intelligible (25%) intelligible (50%) intelligible (75%)

Speaker No.2
intelligibility
Speaker No.3
intelligibility
Speaker No.4
intelligibility
Speaker No.5
intelligibility
Speaker No.6
intelligibility
Speaker No.7
intelligibility
Speaker No.8
intelligibility
Speaker No.9
intelligibility
Speaker No.10
intelligibility