1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION & GENERAL OVERVIEW This research explores phonetic and phonological variation between a native speaker English accent and a non-native speaker English accent. With special emphasis on how language convergence and divergence impinge on a speaker‟s intelligibility to a listener, the study focuses on geographical/regional variation, a sub-field of sociolinguistics; while its main thrust is variation as a determinant of accent intelligibility. The study measures the level of understanding between native speakers and non-native speakers of English. More specifically, it measures the level of understanding between speakers of the Standard British English accent and the speakers of the Nigerian English Accent. Both accents – the Standard British English accent (also known as Received Pronunciation or simply RP) and the Nigerian English Accent – have certain distinctive speech patterns which demonstrate marked accent variation. Correlation of RP distinctive speech features and intelligibility to Nigerian listeners is the main aim of the research. As no accent is homogeneous or without variation, proper contextualization of the accents which constitute the focus of the study is necessary. Several types of the RP accent have been identified but the RP accent of interest in this study is the RP accent variety which constitutes a clustering of features identified by Wells as well as Cruttenden as mainstream RP (279) and General RP (78) respectively. Other varieties of RP identified by Wells are U-RP or upper-crust RP, adoptive RP and Near RP. These accents – including
302
Embed
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION & GENERAL …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION & GENERAL OVERVIEW
This research explores phonetic and phonological variation between a native speaker
English accent and a non-native speaker English accent. With special emphasis on how
language convergence and divergence impinge on a speaker‟s intelligibility to a listener,
the study focuses on geographical/regional variation, a sub-field of sociolinguistics; while
its main thrust is variation as a determinant of accent intelligibility.
The study measures the level of understanding between native speakers and non-native
speakers of English. More specifically, it measures the level of understanding between
speakers of the Standard British English accent and the speakers of the Nigerian English
Accent. Both accents – the Standard British English accent (also known as Received
Pronunciation or simply RP) and the Nigerian English Accent – have certain distinctive
speech patterns which demonstrate marked accent variation. Correlation of RP distinctive
speech features and intelligibility to Nigerian listeners is the main aim of the research.
As no accent is homogeneous or without variation, proper contextualization of the accents
which constitute the focus of the study is necessary. Several types of the RP accent have
been identified but the RP accent of interest in this study is the RP accent variety which
constitutes a clustering of features identified by Wells as well as Cruttenden as
mainstream RP (279) and General RP (78) respectively. Other varieties of RP identified
by Wells are U-RP or upper-crust RP, adoptive RP and Near RP. These accents – including
2
mainstream RP – share one important social characteristic which is that they are usually
spoken by members of the upper class socio-economic group. However, they differ in
terms of phonetic characteristics, with each accent representing an area within an accent
continuum. In the same way, the Nigerian accent of English is also not homogeneous as
several varieties of it have been identified. Attempts at describing the Nigerian accent of
English include those made by Adetugbo, Brosnahan, Bamgbose, Jibril, Udofot and Banjo.
Of these attempts, Banjo‟s classification is the most often cited and perhaps represents the
most realistic description of the Nigerian accent of English. This is because it is close to
present-day realities of language use in the country. Banjo‟s description identifies Variety
One, Variety Two, Variety Three and Variety Four respectively. However, Variety Three is
the variety on which this study focuses because this is the accent variety used by the group
of Nigerians in which we are interested. These are educated Nigerians at the undergraduate
level who speak a brand of English which Banjo refers to as “the variety of Spoken
Nigerian English which is internationally intelligible and acceptable….the most appropriate
endonormative model” (26).
Generally, intelligibility may be studied across the linguistic levels of grammar, semantics,
lexis and phonetics/phonology. However, speech intelligibility is studied at the linguistic
level of phonetics/phonology where intelligibility is seen as a construct of speech and “the
hearers‟ response is perceived as appropriate only if the linguistic forms which constitute
the speakers‟ utterances are selected appropriately” (Catford 2). The utterances of the RP
speakers represent the linguistic forms, while the hearers‟ perceptions of RP speech forms
constitute the listener‟s response in this study. In line with the intelligibility testing
3
framework, both the RP speakers‟ utterances and the Nigerian listeners‟ written responses
are subjected to critical phonological analysis in order to determine instances of
intelligibility failure, identify the RP speech features responsible for instances of
intelligibility failure and most importantly, offer phonological explanations as to why
intelligibility failure occurs. The phonological analysis also enables us calculate the
intelligibility index of the RP speakers‟ accent to Nigerian listeners with the percentage
value being an indication of the number of items in the RP speakers‟ utterances which were
correctly received by the Nigerian listeners. This percentage value therefore represents the
level of intelligibility of RP to Nigerians.
Phonological considerations generally involve segmental and suprasegmental sounds.
Consonants and vowels constitute the segmentals while the suprasegmental sounds include
the features of stress, rhythm and intonation. This research explores the realizational
qualities of the segmental sounds of RP through the examination of RP monophthongs,
diphthongs, triphthongs and consonants. Beyond the segments, the impact of the
superimposed features of stress, rhythm and intonation are also investigated. These aspects
of RP accent phonology are examined in the study with a view to determining their effect
on intelligibility. They are similar to dependent variables, manipulated to discover their
influence, if any, on the independent variable which in this case is intelligibility. Some
other features of RP speech such as excessive reduction of unstressed syllables and certain
phonological processes which are known to affect intelligibility are also tested for their
effect on the Nigerian listeners‟ level of understanding. Speaker‟s gender and listener
4
familiarity with accent are two extra-linguistic factors known to affect intelligibility. These
variables are also explored in order to determine their influence on speech intelligibility.
The instrument designed for the study comprises four tests representing aspects of RP
segmental and suprasegmental phonology. The administration of these tests produces both
quantitative and qualitative data which are subsequently analyzed using suitable statistical
procedures. Qualitative analyses are done through correlations of the RP speakers‟
recordings and the Nigerian listeners‟ responses. On the basis of the analysis,
interpretations are made and general conclusions drawn on the intelligibility level of the RP
accent to Nigerians. Specific statements are also made on peculiar characteristics of RP
which constitute intelligibility problems for Nigerians.
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2.1 Language Variation
Nearly everyone who uses and listens to other people use language has experienced
variability in language across several dimensions. However, the consciousness of this
experience seems to be most noticeable among phoneticians and linguists generally who
have identified that language variation occurs across the dimensions of time, style, social
space and geographical space, while variations in language are studied across the structural
levels of grammar, lexis/vocabulary and phonology. The dimensions and structural levels
of language variation are considered in the section below.
5
Linguists have generally acknowledged that the dimension of time is an ideal platform for
the observation of language variation. Studies based on this dimension involve the adoption
of time as an independent variable whose effects on linguistic and extra-linguistic variables
are then investigated. Two main approaches of language variation in time are the
diachronic (real time) and the synchronic (apparent time) dimensions (Fasold 56). While
diachronic studies make observations of language use among similar populations over
intervals of many years, synchronic studies observe language use by different age groups at
the same time. Examples of language varieties on the basis of the time dimension include
Old English, Middle English and Shakespearean English.
Another level of the observation of language variation is the dimension of style.
Considerable discrimination is usually exhibited in language use depending on the degree
of familiarity between the participants in a conversation. Observations of stylistic variation
are usually dependent on the manipulation of style as an independent variable in which
linguistic variants correlate with a range of speech styles spanning formal to casual style.
Established stylistic varieties that are routinely employed are word list style (the most
formal), reading passage style, interview style and casual style which is the most informal
(SP 80).However, the formal and informal stylistic varieties are the observable forms in
natural human interactions. An illustration is the use of man rather than guy where the
former is indicative of formal speech and the latter of informal speech. High fluency and
proper articulation also characterize formal speech situations while utterances are more
rapid and filled with more phonological assimilations and coalescences in informal
situations such as those involving interacting with family and close friends. Another
6
linguistic cue of highly formal speech is the pronunciation of the indefinite article „a‟ as
with being more common in casual speech.
Two types of space may be identified in linguistics: social space and geographical space.
The two form an important element of spatiality and cannot exist independently of one
another (Britain 620). This is because geographic space is the environment occupied by the
human settlements that appropriate the space. The natural consequences of this
appropriation are observable on the occupied geographical space in the form of language
and other characteristics of human interaction. Inequalities in the distribution of wealth,
priviledge and opportunity is a feature of human communities which results in the creation
of social classes. Although social class structure is not always clearly delineated in all
societies, the most common social class divisions are upper class, middle class and working
class, with the divisions usually based on the indices of occupation, income, education and
education. Apart from social class structure, other social attributes of human communities
include sex, age and ethnicity. Thus, in any linguistic analysis which employs any of these
socially significant factors as the independent variable, varieties or sociolects may be
identified. Some sociolects relate to sex/gender while others relate to the age of the
speaker. An example of a class-related speech feature is the use of rather than for
-ing words among native speakers of English. For instance also, a creaky or tremulous
voice quality and lower voice pitch are usually indicative of an aged man or woman.
Differences in vowel patterns among different generations of speakers of the same accent
can also be observed.
7
The inter-relatedness of the dimensions of social and geographical space can be observed
through the differentiation of language occasioned by social and physical factors. Other
social processes including migration, urbanization, labour indentation, colonization
etcetera, also influence the innovation and spread of linguistic features across Euclidean or
geometric space (Britain 615).
One contingent effect of the aforementioned social factors and physical processes on
human communities is variation in language. Thus, politically-motivated boundary
constructions pervade all modern human communities and explaining the linguistic
significance behind such reformations of the geographical landscape is the goal of geo-
linguists. The identification and description of spatial or geographical varieties constitute
the main findings of this sub-discipline of linguistics. Examples of spatial or geographical
varieties which may be equated to national and regional associations include British
English, American English, Caribbean English, and Nigerian English. Each of these
national varieties has features which differentiate them, one from the other. For example,
the use of the voiced inter-vocalic /t/ (in better, pity, bottom) usually identifies a speaker as
an American while syllable-timed speech rhythm may be associated with African speech.
In order to make adequate statements about language, the linguist often makes reference to
a set of approaches referred to as levels of analysis. Based on different types of features of
language, the approaches are phonology and grammar, following the main activities of
language which are speaking and writing. Grammar is concerned with the formal patterning
and arrangement of the written form of language while phonology examines the patterning
8
and arrangement of the phonetic features of language. However, the study of language
variation includes other fields as it also considers the levels of lexis/vocabulary and
semantics. These levels correspond to the lexical aspect of language and meaning
respectively.
Variation in language across the dimensions of time, style, social space and geographical
space as well as across the linguistic levels of grammar, lexis/vocabulary, semantics and
phonology gives rise to dialects. Dialect comprises the patterns of grammar, vocabulary,
semantics and sounds of a language while the sounds alone constitute the accent. Based on
a geographical classification, dialects of English include Scottish dialect, Irish dialect,
Northern England dialect, Indian dialect, Malaysian dialect etcetera. These in turn have
sub-dialects that are representative of particular speech communities which have common
speech features. While on one hand, dialect comprises the patterns of grammar, vocabulary
and semantics of a language, on the other hand, accent is the totality of the sound system of
a language or language variety, comprising the phonemic contrasts and the tone group. In
other words, while dialect refers to varieties distinguished from each other by differences
of grammar and vocabulary etcetera, accent refers to variations in pronunciation alone.
Examples of accents of English include Indian accent, West African accent, French accent
and Black American accent. In a similar vein, these accents also have sub-accents that are
representative of particular speech communities with common norms of pronunciation.
Therefore, the phonemic contrasts and tone group features of an accent which constitute the
pronunciation serve as the platform on which one may observe the phenomenon of accent
9
variation. This may lead one to ask the question: why does accent variation occur? In an
attempt at providing an explanation for accent variation within English, Wells argued that:
[T]he phenomenon of language change is the fundamental reason
responsible for accent variation. English pronunciation changes as
time passes; and the developments which have arisen and become
established in different places and among different social groups have
not been identical (94).
Wells‟ argument may be said to provide an adequate explanation of the nature of accent
variation within English as it not only identifies the relationship between the major
dimensions of time, place and accent variation but it also highlights how the interplay of all
these factors leads to differences in accents. The awareness of the fact that English
pronunciation has changed over the years as earlier pronunciation patterns have been
modified and new ones adopted, provides evidence that the factors of time, social and
geographical factors do lead to changes in pronunciation. The causal effect of language
change and accent variation is further established by two postulations which explain how
innovations in pronunciation not only arise but also spread. They are the theory of least
effort and the naturalness of segments. Lindblom (367) establishes this link through the
theory of least effort or the H&H theory. The theory provides an explanation for “new
pronunciation patterns which occur as a result of the tendency to pronounce words and
sentences in a way which involves the minimum of articulatory effort consistent with the
need to maintain adequate communication” (415). This results in what is known as hypo or
10
under articulation which is the deletion of consonants and vowels & reduced articulatory
gestures (co-articulation of consonants and vowels). An example of this tendency is
consonant deletion resulting in the loss of historical /r/ in certain environments in some
accents: e.g. to pronounce start as without /r/ is simpler than to pronounce it as
.
The nature of the segments in an accent also affects the extent of variation which the
accent may have. Wells points out that differences occur in accents as languages constantly
work towards naturalness (95). This implies that less natural segments have a tendency to
be modified towards more natural pronunciation. Segment types which are more natural
than others include those learnt earlier by children and those found more widely in the
languages of the world. For example, a pronunciation change involving modification
towards a more natural segment is the dark /l/ which occurs in certain positions. In many
areas, this variant of /l/ is now pronounced with lip rounding which results in a more
natural segment type. In this way, the interplay of several factors contributes to the
development of changes in pronunciation and hence accent variation.
1.2.2 Varieties of English in the British Isles
The heterogeneous nature of accent variation may be illustrated using the array of spoken
English varieties that exist in the United Kingdom of Great Britain/British Isles. A first-
time visitor to this group of islands is immediately aware that the varieties of English there
are as widely varied as the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish inhabitants of the islands.
Linguistic reconstruction has helped to identify the language family from which these
11
accents of English are derived as the Indo-European family and Germanic sub-family of
languages. Thus, this dialect of English has its original home on the group of islands known
as the British Isles. Located off the North West coast of Europe, the islands include Great
Britain, (the largest), Ireland and over one thousand smaller islands. The island of Great
Britain is divided into Scotland in the North, England to the South and Wales to the West.
The island of Ireland is divided into the Republic of Ireland in the south and the six
counties of Northern Ireland in the north. England, with a population of about 51.2 million
has the lion share of an estimated 61.7 million for the entire United Kingdom comprising
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Crystal 68). With a highly industrialized
economy, it is the largest economy of the four countries of the United Kingdom. London as
the political, legal, administrative and commercial centre of the UK also occupies a crucial
position in the linguistic landscape of England because it is home to a major spoken
English variety.
Based on a linguistic rather than geographical classification, two major language varieties
have been identified in England namely: North of England and South of England varieties.
This classification serves to further emphasize the North-South dichotomy which has
pervaded the consciousness of Britons from the eighteenth century till present and which
also formed the discourse of a number of nineteenth-century novels which are regarded as
social commentaries regarding this period. Described by Mugglestone as “prime signifier
of the social divide” (96), these novels include Gaskell‟s North and South, Dickens‟ Hard
Times and Benjamin Disraeli‟s Sybil. Commenting on the latter for instance, Disraeli
12
describes: “two nations… who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different
food, and are ordered by different manners” (Mugglestone 84)
Besides the two major North/South classifications, minor varieties which are a sub-set of
the North and South varieties have been identified in Hughes, Trudgill and Watt as follows:
North-east, Central north, Central Lancashire, Merseyside, Humberside, North-west
Midlands, East Midlands, West Midlands, South Midlands, East south-west, West south-
west, South-east and East Anglia (70). From these areas arise regional varieties such as
London English, Norwich English, Bristol English, Liverpool English etcetera. However,
in line with the characteristic nature of language variation in general, the varieties listed
above are not distinct spoken varieties as such but exist on a continuum with each accent
consisting of inter-related pronunciation features.
Aside from a regional classification such as that presented above, socially stratified
varieties of English originating from the social class divisions of the 17th century can also
be identified within England as follows: Upper class, Upper middle class, Middle class,
Lower middle class, Upper working class, working class, Lower working class and
Underclass (Hughes, Trudgill and Watt op cit.). Factors such as home, attitudes, clothing,
mannerisms, occupation, position, education and speech determined this assessment. In
England, at the uppermost rung of the social ladder are the title holders of nobility and their
relatives, some with substantial inherited wealth, while individuals reliant on state benefits
for income are those at the lowest rung, forming the underclass. The characteristic fluidity
within the regional varieties is also present in the social class varieties as it can be observed
13
that many individuals do not stay within particular social classes throughout their lives.
Movements in and out of social classes occur due to changes in occupation, financial
circumstances and social standing and these also tend to affect speech characteristics. The
aspirations of members of the lower classes for upward mobility in terms of economic
circumstance also occurs in language use as the stigmatized features of the speech of the
lower classes is often abandoned in favour of the prestige speech of the members of the
upper classes. However, despite these aspirations, it is not always possible to erase lower
class speech features from the speech of upper-class speakers. To the discerning therefore,
when an Englishman speaks, it is usually possible to identify his/her geographical origin
and social status.
However, at the apex of these regional and social class varieties of English within England
is a regionless spoken English variety with origins in the south-west of England named
Received Pronunciation (RP).Thus, the earlier reference to the Standard British English
accent, refers to the totality of the phonemic contrasts and tone group associated with this
accent (Received Pronunciation). This accent is spoken in England and is also variously
referred to as BBC English (British Broadcasting Corporation English), Standard English,
Southern British Standard, and Public School Pronunciation (PSP). It is more commonly
referred to “talking proper or “talking posh” (Mugglestone 209).
Received Pronunciation (abbreviated RP) is the name with which linguists generally refer
to this accent. Received in this name refers to the nineteenth-century sense of the accent as
“accepted in the most polite circles of society” (Ramsaran 47) . RP is said to be regionless
14
because even though it is historically linked with the speech of London and surrounding
areas, it is not the accent of any particular region. This is due to its propagation by the UK
public schools which are in practically every region of England. Thus, RP is linked with
public school education, being the accent of those educated at these elite private schools
which are beyond the means of many parents. The elitist nature of RP is probably why it is
the model taught to foreign learners of British English. It is also the most widely used
accent among the British Broadcasting Network (BBC) newsreaders, the most widely
understood accent within England, the most thoroughly described English accent and the
accent of the British colonial officers of the sixteenth century.
1.2.2 The Development of the Nigerian English Accent (NEA)
The phenomenon of language variation which explains the existence of varieties such as
RP mentioned above is a linguistic situation which is sometimes further complicated by
language spread. Language varieties which have been created by such complex interplay of
factors include national and regional varieties of English such as American English,
Caribbean English, Singaporean English, South African English and Nigerian English. Of
particular interest in this study is Nigerian English whose origins can be traced to the
British colonial explorations of the sixteenth century.
The spread of English beyond its native shores to Nigeria and other former colonies of
Britain has been well documented by several scholars (cf. in South Asia by Kachru; in
Africa by Spencer; and in the West Indies by Craig). The spread of the language in these
regions has led to the development of dialects of the English language referred to as non-
15
native dialects. These are dialects of English which are used by non-native speakers of
English. The English language is not just spreading fast in former colonies of Britain but it
is also spreading fast in China, the former Soviet Republic and even the Arab world where
it is used for specific purposes such as education and international communication. Kachru
represents the global profile and overwhelming presence of English across the world in a
model referred to as the Concentric circles of English (47). The model comprises three
concentric circles which reflect the nature and roles of the English language in countries
around the world. The model provides examples of Inner Circle countries where English
is the mother tongue ( i.e. USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand); Outer Circle
countries are those where English has been transplanted as a result of colonialism and the
language functions as a second and official language (i.e. Nigeria, Ghana, Malaysia,
Zimbabwe, Singapore, Bangladesh) and the Expanding Circle countries where English is
strictly learnt as a foreign language ( i.e. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Caribbean
countries). „Expanding‟ refers to the increasing number of countries adopting the language
for the purpose of international communication.
In a detailed description of the nature of English in these countries, Kachru refers to the
pluricentricity of these Englishes to reflect the gradual development of new local centres
for authentication of the models and norms of acquisition, teaching, and creativity of non-
native Englishes (31). Further analysis classifies the users of English into two distinct types
– the norm providing and the norm depending. Two levels of norm-providers are
recognized as L1 and L2 norm-providers for Inner Circle and Outer Circle norms
respectively while the Expanding Circle countries are the norm dependents. In the Outer
16
and Expanding Circle countries where there was already a language or even several in
existence before the introduction of the English language, accent variation is even more
complex due to bilingualism and multilingualism. The sociolinguistic implications of such
contact between languages include the nativization and acculturation of the English
language in the new environments and this has led to the emergence of distinct varieties of
the language with different national and regional names such as Indian English,
Singaporean English, Ghanaian English, Chinese English, and Nigerian English.
The process of the emergence of the Nigerian variety of English is not unlike what takes
place in other language contact situations where numerous indigenous languages co-exist
with the English language. In Nigeria, interference is another consequence of language
contact which plays a crucial role in shaping the characteristics of this second language
variety of English. These interference features occur at every level of language description,
but are perhaps most noticeable at the phonological level where these peculiar features
characterize the accent. Mother tongue interference features are further complicated by the
improper teaching methods adopted by a majority of second language teachers which
either: (a) assume that there is no need to teach listening comprehension to students, or (b)
teach the four basic principles for acquisition of language proficiency in reverse order. The
second method involves the teaching of writing skills or spelling of words first, followed
by reading passages/poems and then the student is encouraged to speak. In this way, the
typical order of listening, speaking, reading and writing (LSRW), which is the order
unconsciously adopted when learning the mother tongue, is reversed. This technique has
17
also often produced individuals who are very proficient in the writing of English but lack
similar levels of oracy.
This peculiar ordering and interference features are some of the factors responsible for the
evolution of this accent leading to characteristics which make it unique and different from
its British counterpart. However, similar to RP, the totality of the phonemic contrasts and
tone group associated with the educated variety of English spoken in Nigeria constitutes the
Nigerian English Accent (NEA). It is against this backdrop of language variation that we
intend to investigate the topic: Intelligibility of the Standard British English accent to
Nigerians.
1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM
In recorded history, the present global spread and use of English is unparalled. An estimate
provided by Crystal of the number of English speakers is about two billion (8). Year 2001
estimates provided by Crystal puts Inner Circle/native speaker population at 380 million
while the Outer circle and Expanding circle populations are put at 500 million and 1,000
million respectively (61).
This global spread of the English language in terms of use and characteristics has resulted
in concerns over the issue of maintaining mutual intelligibility between diverse speakers of
the language (Christophersen, Kachru, Munro, van der Walt, and Rajadurai). The most
recent of these concerns have made calls for rigorous comparisons and contrasting of native
and non-native accents with a view to assisting interlocutors achieve communication goals.
18
These concerns have been voiced in relation to all the dimensions of language study but the
achievement of intelligibility is perhaps most crucial at the level of phonetics/phonology
where variation is most noticeable.
The imperative of achieving speech intelligibility in communication can only be grasped in
light of the current critical situation among speakers of different accents of English.
Sometimes, variation between accents is so marked that speakers of different accents of
English have even imagined their interlocutor to be speaking another language entirely and
not merely another accent of English. Numerous instances of misunderstanding have been
observed and while some of the incidents are hilarious (Smith and Christopher 92-3,
Shockey 119); others are serious, sometimes leading to disastrous consequences (Brown 1,
Atechi 60, Rocha 98). An example of a funny incident arising out of intelligibility failure is
that narrated by Smith and Christopher (op cit.) in which Salmon Rushdie‟s wife, an
English woman met an Indian intellectual on the train. They were both conversing in
English but each thought the other was speaking another language. The traumatic
experience of a 19-year-old Dutch undergraduate has also been narrated. After studying
English for 6 years at a grammar school and 1 year at a Dutch university, this student went
to England for the first time and had to ask for directions to the bus station from a porter.
However, he could not understand a single word the porter said to him. Brown also
reported that in England, “many overseas students are unable to understand English as
spoken by university and college lecturers, sometimes to such an extent that they give up
their course of studies” (1). One tragic consequence of lack of intelligibility and what is
possibly the most deadly accident in aviation history occurred in the year 1977. In this
19
incident which occurred on the Spanish island of Tenerife, 583 people lost their lives in an
air crash because the airport traffic controller and a German pilot did not understand each
other even though they were both speaking English. This incident led to major
communication and language training reforms in the airline industry.
Other scholars have even gone beyond merely expressing concerns over the issue of
maintaining mutual intelligibility between speakers of different varieties to suggesting that
English is undergoing a process of radical change which will eventually “lead to
fragmentation of the language into a family of languages” (McAuthur 39). This is
suggestive of the devolvement of the Romance languages (i.e. French, Italian, Spanish,
Portuguese and Romanian) from popular Latin.
While the same process of radical diversification may not yet have occurred between RP
and the Nigerian accent of English (NEA), there are variations between the two accents
which may affect intelligibility. These differences have been highlighted in relation to the
unique features of the NEA. Areas of divergence of the NEA from RP have also been well
documented. These areas of variation are well documented by scholars such as Adetugbo,
Awonusi, Udofot, Jowitt, Banjo and Bamgbose. Unique features of NEA which
differentiate it from RP have been identified by these scholars and are listed as follows: a
reduced vowel system, a reduced intonation system, non-differentiation in some aspects of
length, absence of glottalization in some contexts, the voicing of non-voiced consonant
endings, the insertion of vowels in syllabic consonants, the insertion of epenthetic vowels
in some consonant clusters, substitution of alveolar fricatives for interdental fricatives
20
etcetera. These are features which characterize the Nigerian accent of English and lead to
intelligibility problems between speakers of the NEA and their interlocutors who may not
be familiar with the accent. Tiffen‟s 1974 study of the intelligibility of Nigerian English
identified some of these features as constituting intelligibility problems between Nigerian
speakers and British listeners. In other countries, intelligibility studies have measured the
level of intelligibility of non-native speakers to native speakers of the English language.
Bansal on Indian English, Elalani on Jordanian English, and van der Walt on South African
English are a few examples. The main aim of these studies is usually to make
recommendations for the second language learner in order to improve the level of
intelligibility to the native speaker. The outcome of such studies is usually a description of
second language speech as “annoying and burdensome” to the native speaker, thereby
focusing on the native speaker as the listener-judge and ascribing to him a higher rank in a
subtle hierarchical ordering of the communication process (Elalani 84). Another example
of condemnation of non-native English speech is a commentary on the English
pronunciation of a black Namibian newsreader that: “[H]e mispronounced almost every
word, messed up almost every sentence, and sent my blood pressure roaring with every un-
understandable news item” (Harlech-Jones 276).
As true as the positions above are that lack of proficiency often hampers the speech of the
second language speaker, anecdotal evidence does suggest that non-native speakers have as
many difficulties understanding native speakers as the native speakers have being
understood by the non-native speakers. However, many studies on intelligibility have not
considered a reversal of the communication process in which the native speaker is the
21
speaker and the educated non-native speaker, the listener and judge of intelligibility. Even
more specifically, none that we know of has considered the level of intelligibility of any
native speaker accent to Nigerians. There is often no consideration of the difficulties which
the Nigerian L2 speaker faces in understanding native speaker RP speech. This study
attempts to examine intelligibility from a different (non-native speaker/Nigerian)
perspective based on the following assumptions:
a. That variation exists between the Standard British English accent and the Nigerian
English accent.
b. That as accent variation leads to problems of intelligibility in face to face
communication involving Nigerian speakers and British listeners, it will also lead to
intelligibility problems in face to face communication involving British speakers
and Nigerian listeners.
c. Empirical research has revealed that non-native speakers (not Nigerians) do not
always find native speakers highly intelligible showing that native speaker
phonology is not inherently intelligible. (Smith and Rafiqzad, Bent and Bradlow,
Munro, Deterding & Kirkpatrick, Gupta ). This may also be true with Nigerians.
There is a need for this study in view of the crucial role of the RP accent as the
pronunciation model in Nigeria. It is hoped that this study will explore this area as there is
presently a dearth of research in this field.
22
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
In exploring how speakers of the Standard British English accent and Nigerians negotiate
intelligibility in the face of accent variation, this study is guided by the following
objectives:
1. To measure the general intelligibility of the Received Pronunciation accent to
Nigerians and identify the features which determine intelligibility.
2. To establish the extent to which intelligibility of RP to Nigerians is affected by the
segmental features of the Standard British English accent (RP).
3. To ascertain the influence of the nuclear/emphatic stress features employed by RP
speakers on intelligibility of the accent to Nigerians.
4. To investigate how intelligibility is influenced by the intonation contours employed
by the speakers of RP at the suprasegmental level of phonological analysis.
5. To explore the impact of accent familiarity on intelligibility negotiation between
speakers of the Standard British English accent (RP) and Nigerians.
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following questions have been formulated to guide the exploration of the
sociolinguistic and intelligibility issues central to this study.
1. What is the intelligibility level of the Standard British English accent (RP) to
Nigerians and what features determine it?
2. To what extent do the segmental features of the Standard British English accent
(RP) determine its speakers‟ degree of intelligibility to Nigerians?
23
3. Do the nuclear stress patterns of the Standard British English accent (RP) affect the
degree of its speakers‟ intelligibility to Nigerians?
4. To what degree do the intonation features employed by the speakers of the Standard
British English accent (RP) affect its speakers‟ intelligibility to Nigerians? (at the
suprasegmental level of phonological analysis).
5. What is the impact of the Nigerian listeners‟ extent of familiarity with the Standard
British English accent (RP) on the degree of intelligibility?
1.6 SCOPE & LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The range of disciplines covered by this study includes intelligibility, sociolinguistics and
phonetics/phonology. Catford provides a broad view of intelligibility as “level of
understanding” (3). However, as understanding may take place at various levels, further
delimitation is necessary to enable us specify the precise issues covered by the study.
Three categories of understanding which may take place in communication are identified
by Smith and Nelson (429) as follows:
(a) word/utterance recognition;
(b) word/utterance meaning; and
(c) meaning behind word/utterance.
This study is concerned with the first category of word/utterance recognition which on the
continuum of intelligibility corresponds to phonological intelligibility. The other categories
involve other levels of language study which roughly correspond to semantics and
pragmatics.
24
Phonological intelligibility is the area of intelligibility testing which involves the use of
particular vowel or consonant sounds and particular rhythmic, intonational and other
prosodic features. It also includes the structural and systemic interrelationships between
them and the phonological representations of the rules governing the relations between all
these features of an individual or a group‟s pronunciation. These pronunciation features
constitute accent which in this study involves two accents of English: the Standard British
English accent (RP) and the accent of English used by educated Nigerians (NEA).
Extra-linguistic variables such as age, sex, socio-economic class, educational background
and educational attainment are some of the factors which are relevant to the study and
therefore necessitated the introduction of certain themes in the realm of sociolinguistic
theory for adequate explication. These themes are explored by focusing on a specific social
and linguistic group in a university in England and another in Nigeria, the two locations of
the research study. The undergraduate level of education was selected as the educational
level of interest in order to achieve a parallel comparison of both societies. Besides the
appeal to qualitative sociolinguistics, the quantitative nature of intelligibility studies is also
explored as the objective framework of intelligibility testing rather than the subjective is
used for data generation, analysis and interpretation. The objective framework involves
assigning numerical values to various test materials on the segmental and suprasegmental
features of RP speech which were designed for the study. The combination of both the
quantitative and qualitative modes of analysis and interpretation not only emphasizes the
25
interdisciplinary nature of the study, it also reveals previously unexplored areas on
intelligibility of this native speaker accent of English to Nigerians.
The findings of this study may have certain limitations with regards to the veracity of
claims of the subjects concerning their parents‟ educational level as there was no way of
verifying the truthfulness or falsity of the information supplied in the questionnaires.
However, it is assumed that the rigorous pre-selection tests which successful informants
were required to undergo is adequate enough to overcome such limitations. Another
measure that was taken to overcome this observer‟s paradox is that the subjects were
reassured of their anonymity as they were instructed not to supply their individual
identities.
1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study differentiates itself from most studies in the field of intelligibility research
because it represents a change in perspective from the previous view of intelligibility as a
concept which may be examined only from a native speaker viewpoint. The traditional
view of intelligibility has a subtle suggestion of the linguistic superiority of native speaker
English accents over non-native English accents in the hierarchical order of the
communication process. By attempting to judge the level of intelligibility of a native
speaker English accent such as RP through the examination of the responses of Nigerians, a
unique attempt is made to examine the process of communication from a Nigerian
perspective. This study is necessary in view of the insights offered by this substitution of
roles which serves to reveal the nature of intelligibility negotiation between speakers of RP
26
and speakers of the Nigerian English accent, with the educated Nigerian non-native speaker
of English playing the role of listener and hence judge of intelligibility.
The study further distinguishes itself from other studies due to its establishment of gender
as a viable variable in native/non-native speaker communication. The study goes beyond
the correlation of socio-economic, linguistic, educational background and educational
attainment alone with intelligibility. It attempts to establish the link between gender and
intelligibility in relation to the peculiarities of RP and the Nigerian English accent.
In addition to this, the study gives due cognizance to the present unprecedented migration
of Nigerians to the United Kingdom and seeks to examine the effect this may have on
intelligibility. Therefore, several Nigerians living in the United Kingdom were selected to
represent Nigerian Diasporic dwellers in the UK who form a significant population. This
enables us examine the effect of accent familiarity on intelligibility. This correlation of
listener factors with intelligibility from a Nigerian perspective reveals the effects of listener
factors (which are external to the speaker) on intelligibility.
27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Having established the basis for this study in the introductory chapter, a review of relevant
literature and authourities on intelligibility will now be attempted. Relevant works relating
to the concept as well as aspects of previous studies on the intelligibility are examined in
this chapter. Factors affecting intelligibility are also discussed while the chapter is
concluded with a consideration of descriptions of the Nigerian accent of English.
2.1 SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY
Intelligibility, like any other concept in language is controversial in nature. This seems to
be due to a lack of consensus among scholars on appropriate terminologies for the
explication of the concept. Jenkins for example, acknowledges that: “there is as yet no
broad agreement on a definition of the term intelligibility: it can mean different things to
different people” (149).
However, the ambiguity involved in the use of the terminologies may be simplified by
reconciling the various definitions with different levels of linguistic analysis. On that basis,
it becomes obvious that the different terminologies such as „effectiveness‟,
„comprehension‟, „word/utterance recognition‟, „interpretability‟ etcetera, seem to have
been employed to refer to basically the same notion. In the following section, major works
that employ various terminologies and definitions are reviewed in relation to the
28
dimensions of linguistic analysis to enable us determine the specific level to which they
belong.
Catford identifies the steps towards the achievement of intelligibility between a native
speaker of a language and a non-native speaker as follows:
Step 1: Selection of appropriate words, morphological and syntactic systems and the
appropriate sounds by a speaker.
Step 2: Execution of the selected forms through the production of an utterance.
Step 3: The transmission of sound through the physical medium.
Step 4: Discrimination between perceived sounds and the sounds of the listener‟s
own language. A failure in identification occurs if the hearer fails to
distinguish between two sounds that are auditorily similar but affect
meaning.
Step 5: Correct interpretation of the message by the association of the linguistic
forms with the appropriate elements in the situation. Correct interpretation is
demonstrated by making a correct response. If the listener‟s response to the
utterance is not in accordance with the expected response, then a failure in
interpretation has occurred.
Catford also argues for the crucial role of linguistic and situational context in the
attainment of intelligibility. Linguistic context is described as: „…the given form of a word
which consists of the words or other linguistic forms with which it is associated or
surrounded‟ while situational context is “everything else in the situation which is relevant
29
to the speech act…includes, therefore, not only the speaker and the hearer themselves, and
their relative positions and actions at the moment of utterance… but, the hearer‟s linguistic
background and experience, his educational and cultural background, etc”.(13)
Furthermore, Catford distinguishes between a „lower threshold‟, „a medium threshold‟ and
a „higher threshold‟ of intelligibility. A hearer‟s threshold of intelligibility is defined as the
point on a scale at which a speaker‟s utterance in a given context becomes completely
intelligible for that hearer.
Regarding the use of terminology, Catford uses the terms „intelligibility‟ and
„effectiveness‟ to describe the process of communication. However, „intelligibility‟ is
involved from the first stage up to the fourth stage out of the five stages discussed above,
i.e. the stages of selection of linguistic forms, execution of linguistic forms, transmission
from speaker to hearer and hearer‟s identification of linguistic forms. The utterance is said
to be „effective‟ only if the last stage of the process which involves the hearer‟s
interpretation of the linguistic forms is achieved.
Although Catford distinguished between intelligibility and effectiveness: „the effectiveness
of an utterance …is not identical with what is usually meant by the term intelligibility‟, it is
not clear why it is included in the process of communication given the following reasons.
First, the speaker may be quite intelligible to the hearer, but the hearer may be unable to
make the appropriate response due to certain limitations. Secondly, the hearer may
willfully make inappropriate responses even though the speaker was perfectly intelligible.
30
That „intelligibility‟ may occur without effectiveness being achieved shows that
effectiveness is outside the realm of intelligibility. It belongs, perhaps in pragmatics
because it was stated that it depends on extra-linguistic factors for its attainment.
A more practical viewpoint of intelligibility is provided by Smith and Rafiqzad which is
rather different from Catford‟s perspective. In what is possibly the largest empirical study
of intelligibility, Smith and Rafiqzad investigated the validity of the proposition that the
educated native speaker of English is more likely to be more intelligible than the educated
non-native speaker. The research spanned eleven countries and involved 1,386 people from
Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, The Phillipines, Sri Lanka, USA,
Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Thailand. Collaborators were employed
from these countries to choose educated speakers of English between the ages of 20 and 40.
Other criteria used for the selection is that none of the participants had: (1) spent more than
four consecutive months in any English speaking country; (2) been formally educated in
schools directed by native speakers of English; or (3) ever lived with English speaking
families or groups.
Each speaker was taped while giving a ten minute speech to a group of 10 educated fellow
countrymen. A cloze procedure test of the speech was then prepared and every sixth word
in the passage was deleted. This passage was then presented to the listeners along with a
questionnaire to test listening comprehension. The conclusion was that the native speaker
was not always the most easily understood person.
31
Due to the empirical nature of this work, the notion of intelligibility which is proposed
seems to be practical in orientation. It is closely related to the research design of the study.
It is stated that “the operational definition for intelligibility is capacity for understanding a
word or words when spoken/read in the context of a sentence being spoken/read at natural
speed” (371). Therefore, the more words the listeners were accurately able to fill in on the
cloze test, the higher the speaker‟s intelligibility.
The three concepts of „intelligibility‟ and „comprehension‟ and „understanding‟ are used
interchangeably in the study as it is initially argued that “we realise that the greater the
comprehension of the context material, the more likely intelligibility will occur” and also
that “…the difficulty rank ordering correlated highly with the rank ordering of both
intelligibility and understanding” (375). Also, the questionnaire presented to the listeners
along with the cloze test was to test how the results from this questionnaire would compare
with the intelligibility results of the cloze procedure test. This further shows that to them,
intelligibility and comprehension are closely related. However, a somewhat contrary
opinion is expressed thus: “we feel comprehension involves a great deal more than
intelligibility” (367). This statement appears to be contradictory as no definition or
description of comprehension is offered anywhere in the study. The lack of adequate
description makes it difficult to ascertain the level of linguistic analysis each of the notions
refers to. But it seems that it may be safely assumed that both „intelligibility‟ and
„understanding‟ correspond to phonological and grammatical intelligibility while
„comprehension‟ belongs with semantics which involves another level of analysis.
32
Another empirical study which provides a definition of intelligibility which is related to the
methodology is that conducted by Munro and Derwing. They employed three terms,
„accentedness‟, „comprehensibility‟ and „intelligibility‟ and attempted to measure the
interrelationships among them through an examination of second language speech. The
study involved 18 native speakers of English and 10 Mandarin speakers of English. The
Mandarin speakers were presented with a page of cartoon and asked to describe the events
depicted within a sound-treated room. Short excerpts of their speech was then extracted and
presented to the 18 native speakers. All the speakers had some linguistic or phonetics
training. This was done deliberately. The listeners performed two different tasks. The first
was an intelligibility assessment task which involved writing down what they heard in
standard English orthography. The second task was to measure comprehensibility on a
scale of 1 to 9 where „1‟ is equal to extremely easy to understand and „9‟ is equal to
impossible to understand. A third test was done a few days later to test the degree of
foreign (non-English) accent of the Mandarin speakers. This was done to avoid skewing of
the results due to exposure to the accent. Again, a 9-point scale was used, where 1 is equal
to no foreign accent and 9 equal to very strong foreign accent. Three sets of scores were
generated based on the assessments of intelligibilility, comprehensibility and accentedness
of the speech samples.
The three notions were measured using different tests and they were also defined separately
as follows: intelligibility as „the extent to which a speaker‟s message is actually understood
by a listener‟ (76); accentedness as „variables that caused the speech samples to sound
deviant‟ (91); while comprehensibility was simply „ease of interpretation‟. Munro and
33
Derwing assert that while there is a relationship between the three concepts, they
„correspond to related but partially related dimensions‟ (90). However, the correspondence
between the notions and the dimensions is never provided as no correlation was found
between the scores obtained in the three tests: “the distributions of perceived
comprehensibility and accent scores were noticeably different…the strength of the
correlation among any of the three possible pairings of dimensions tended to be in the
moderate range for most listeners; there was not one perfect correlation” (90). Another
finding that supports the assertion that there is no correlation between the tests is the
evidence that “foreign accent scores did not predict intelligibility very well” (91).
These findings seem to provide credence to the view that the three notions belong to
different dimensions though they are never implicitly or explicitly linked to any dimension.
However, it may be concluded that because the intelligibility scores were based on
speakers‟ phonemic and phonetic errors, intelligibility relates to the dimension of
phonological recognition. Comprehensibility was measured through listeners‟
impressionistic judgements on how easy or difficult it was to understand the accent and this
also relates it to understanding of phonetic and phonological content of the utterances. It is
generally acknowledged that accent involves prosodic elements of language varieties and
so accentedness may be said to also belong to the phonetic/phonological dimension.
The next propositions of intelligibility provide brief theoretical viewpoints. They are
similar to Catford‟s essay in terms of being theoretical in nature. The first consideration is
Kenworthy‟s proposal. Two terms “intelligibility” and “understandability” are employed
34
interchangeably to refer to the dimension of understanding of the speaker‟s words which is
defined as „the more words a listener is able to identify accurately when said by a particular
speaker, the more intelligible that speaker is‟ (13). However, the third term seems to be
unequivocal as it is identified as: „communication‟ and described as, „involves reading the
other‟s intention‟ (13). Communication clearly refers to the more complex level of
understanding of the speaker‟s intention. It is also asserted that:
[C]ommunication is much more complex than intelligibility and
understandability, as intentions only exist in the other person‟s mind, and
listeners need to make use of all the information available to them in order
to guess the speakers‟ intentions. The information comprises the knowledge
listeners have about the situation, the knowledge speakers and listeners
share, and so on (16).
Kenworthy‟s definitions of intelligibility, understanding, and communication seem to refer
to two dimensions. The first two refer to the phonological level while the third notion is
related to pragmatics.
Dalton and Seidlhofer propose the terms “accessibility” and “acceptability”. They argue
that a speaker makes his/her utterance accessible if “he/she succeeds in making an
interlocutor understand it” while acceptability involves the listener factor of attitude which
is defined as “the value interlocutors ascribe to the speaker‟s accent (19)”. They relate the
two concepts to pronunciation and to „social and psychological factors‟ (9). Accessibility
is determined not only by the interlocutor‟s expectations and feelings, such as „experience
35
with and tolerance of low prestige or foreign accent‟ (10). Acceptability on the contrary,
depends on the value the interlocutors ascribe to the speaker‟s accent. Thus, for them, an
utterance may be phonetically accurate but not acceptable. Dalton and Seidlhofer‟s
accessibility clearly refers to the dimension of phonological intelligibility while
acceptability cannot be readily linked to any linguistic dimension as it relates to
psychological value-judgements that are non-linguistic in nature.
A one-term proposition is suggested by Bamgbose to cover the three dimensions of
understanding the speaker‟s words, understanding the speaker‟s meaning and also grasping
the intentions. The term is intelligibility which is defined as “a complex of factors
comprising recognizing an expression, knowing its meaning and knowing what that
meaning signifies in the sociocultural context” (10). It is described as a communicative act
which „involves a speaker and addresse, both participants contribute to the speech act and
its interpretation, and part of this contribution is making an allowance for the accent and
peculiarities of the other person‟s speech‟ (11). Thus, Bamgbose‟s single-term definition
can be linked to the three levels of phonology, semantics and pragmatics.
In a similar manner, James proposes one cover term “comprehensibility” to refer to the
three dimensions of understanding the speaker‟s words, understanding the speaker‟s
meaning and also grasping the intention. His definition of comprehensibility as “ a cover
term to refer to all aspects of the accessibility of the content - opposed to the form - of
utterances” (56) clearly relates the single term to three different dimensions.
36
Jenkins defines the concept of intelligibility as “the production and recognition of the
formal properties of words and utterances and in particular, the ability to produce and
receive phonological form” (10). This definition suggests that her concept is linked to only
the first level of language use which is phonological understanding.
Field proposes two terms: „intelligibility‟ and „comprehensibility‟ which were defined as
“the extent to which the content of the message is recognizable” and “the extent to which a
speaker‟s message is understandable, thanks to a combination of appropriate vocabulary,
correct (or appropriate) syntax, sensitive pragmatics and mastery of basic features of
pronunciation” respectively. Field‟s definitions, thus, correspond to two levels:
understanding of the speaker‟s words and understanding of the speaker‟s intentions which
involve the phonological and pragmatic levels respectively.
Smith and Nelson propose three terms – “intelligibility” which they define as
“word/utterance recognition”; “comprehensibility”- which they define as “the meaning of a
word or an utterance”; and “interpretability” which they define as “the meaning behind the
word or utterance” (334). To enable us link these definitions to the appropriate levels, we
may have to refer to the context of the empirical research in which they offered the
definitions. The definitions were based on a cloze procedure test in which the listeners
filled in the appropriate word(s). To Smith and Nelson therefore, the intelligibility of a
passage is high if the reader is able to copy the passage or fill in the blanks of the missing
words without much difficulty; a passage read is comprehensible if the reader is able to
make sense of the sentences or paraphrase them and interpretability is high if the reader is
37
able to identify the author‟s intentions. The first two terminologies seem to correspond to
Catford‟s “intelligibility” which is linked to understanding of the speaker‟s words while
“interpretability” is clearly linked to the higher dimension of understanding the speaker‟s
intentions.
To conclude this discussion on the inter-relationship between terminologies and levels of
language use, mention must be made of Smith and Nelson‟s assessment of intelligibility in
which they concluded that the terms “comprehensibility” and “interpretability” relate to the
discourse notions of “locutionary force” and “illocutionary force” respectively while
intelligibility relates to word/utterance recognition, corresponding to phonological
intelligibility. Intelligibility is further described as „recognising words and other sentence-
level elements of utterances‟ (430). Comprehensibility is described as „the category of
understanding meaning or the „speech act of request for a particular activity‟ (334).
Interpretability is also described as „the apprehension of intent, purpose, or meaning behind
an utterance‟. To illustrate the inter-relationship between the dimensions, these three
components are presented in an interactional scenario which is narrated below: An
Australian woman was having a conversation in English with a taxi driver in Istanbul.
Things were going well until she asked the driver to turn off the interior light as the driver
refused sharply. Since her request seemed innocuous to the passenger, and since a mutual
compatibility in English had been established by the preceding conversation, she thought
there had been a simple failure of intelligibility or comprehensibility – that the driver had
misheard or misunderstood some part of her utterance - so she repeated it, only to receive a
38
near-hostile negative response and marked silence until the end of the trip, which
terminated in the driver almost snatching the fare from her and driving away rapidly.
The story illustrates the fact that cultural differences (relating to pragmatics) cannot be
divorced from intelligibility. Turning off the light while a man and a woman are alone
together is almost taboo in Istanbul while it does not have the same cultural significance in
English culture. The driver heard the woman but did not successfully grasp the meaning
behind it because her reasons for wanting the light turned off were misinterpreted by the
driver. These discourse notions refer to the situational, social and cultural interpretations of
utterances which are extralinguistic as they depend on factors outside the linguistic form
for their interpretation. On this basis, it may be concluded that „intelligibility‟ (the level of
understanding the speaker‟s words/utterances), is limited to the field of
phonetics/phonology and does not extend to either „comprehensibility‟ or „interpretability‟
which correspond to higher levels of word/utterance meaning. These two are major
preoccupations in the field of discourse analysis/pragmatics.
These clarifications were necessary to enable us establish the scope of this investigation. It
has assisted in defining the interests of the present study as being limited to the recognition
of words/utterances, thereby linking it to phonetic/phonological intelligibility. Thus, this
area of study serves as the background for our investigation of accent intelligibility.
Another area which requires some discussion is factors affecting intelligibility. Background
noise, speaker‟s voice quality, speech rate, and familiarity are some of the variables that
39
have been linked to intelligibility in terms of either aiding it or hindering it. The
relationship between noise and intelligibility was suggested by Flege, Einstein & Verdi,
Clopper & Bradlow and Rogers & Dalby. Any unwanted or disturbing sound during a
communication process constitutes noise. Examples of disturbances which may impair
intelligibility include the ringing of telephones, traffic noises and extraneous conversations
etcetera. According to Rogers and Dalby, noise can occur at different levels of low,
medium and high depending on the volume. An investigation of different noise levels on
intelligibility was conducted which involved experimentation with three levels of low,
medium and high noise to determine effect on dialect recognition. Their conclusion was
that:
listeners are sensitive to dialect variation in noise---although
dialect classification is quite difficult under all listening conditions,
comparisons between the results…revealed that overall accuracy
and interpretability…were better in the more favorable listening
conditions than the degraded conditions (31).
However, noise can be avoided by ensuring that the recordings for intelligibility testing are
done in quiet places, free from unwanted distractions. Sound attenuated booths may also be
used during recordings. These are specially designed sound-proofed rooms which help to
ensure noise-free recordings. High quality recording microphones and digital recorders
could also be utilized to avoid electronic interference which also constitutes noise.
40
Apart from background noise, the voice quality of the speakers in an intelligibility test also
affects intelligibility. Voice qualities such as breathy, creaky, nasal, tense, hoarse, harsh
and whispery usually serve two purposes. First, they perform communicative functions of
speech prosody such as assigning stress and conveying linguistic distinctions and emotional
tone. Secondly, they convey information about the physical, psychological and social
characteristics of a speaker. But apart from providing linguistic and extra-linguistic
information about the speaker, Ramig has reported that voice characteristics may also
adversely affect speech intelligibility. Based on the examination of various acoustic and
perceptual reports of voice characteristics, he argues that “voice quality may have
detrimental effects on speech intelligibility” (124).
Speech rate is defined by Deterding as “the number of syllables spoken per second” (225).
The speed of an utterance may be calculated as the total duration divided by the number of
syllables. In the calculation of speech rate, the final syllable is usually excluded while the
value is stated in syllables/s. Previous research on speech rate has yielded a common
finding that a fast speaking rate results in reduced speaker intelligibility because a lot of
reduction or under-articulation of segments takes place in fast speech. Native speaker
speech is often described as being faster than non-native speech, so we can therefore
conclude that speed of delivery may contribute to intelligibility (Anderson-Hsieh &
Koehler, Munro & Derwing).
Two types of familiarity often affect intelligibility. They are accent familiarity and topic
familiarity. However, while it has been sufficiently established that topic familiarity
41
influences intelligibility, the same conclusion has not been adequately proven for accent
familiarity. For topic familiarity, there is some evidence that the use of technical words and
specific register reduces intelligibility. For instance, Smith and Rafiqzad observed that
intelligibility level differed according to the difficulty level of the passages used in their
experiment. However, there is no such consensus for the conclusions on accent familiarity
and intelligibility. On one hand, Gass & Varonis, Gupta and Major all agree that
intelligibility is affected by accent. Bross also supports this position by claiming that “the
key to intelligibility is the concept of calibration” (37). Calibration is the listener‟s ability
to make rapid correlations between the different sounds of an unfamiliar accent with the
sounds of the listener‟s own accent. It is argued that once the listener has been able to
calibrate the message, then intelligibility will naturally take place. On the other hand,
Eisenstein & Verdi, Strevens, Eisenstein and Hopper all disagree with the proposition that a
high degree of accent familiarity guarantees intelligibility. They base their conclusion on
the results of empirical studies which seem to indicate that accent familiarity is not a
significant determinant of intelligibility.
2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON INTELLIGIBILITY
Intelligibility studies involving the comprehension of non-native accents of English to
speakers of Received Pronunciation will first be considered and thereafter, Tiffen‟s 1974
study which is the major investigation on the intelligibility of Nigerian English will be
examined. Other relevant studies on the intelligibility of various varieties of English will
also be reviewed in this section.
42
Bansal‟s study of the intelligibility of Indian English is probably the first major work on
intelligibility. It was a pioneering effort which set the trend for several others in terms of
perspective. These studies are informed by a viewpoint that non-native language varieties
are in some way deficient compared with native varieties. Bansal, for example stated the
need for the study as due to:
the emergence of a wide variety of foreign dialects of English ... These
foreign dialects do not diverge to any appreciable extent from native
English, as far as morphology, syntax and vocabulary are concerned, but in
pronunciation they seem to differ so much from native English that
sometimes they do not sound English at all and are hardly intelligible (6).
In order to achieve this aim, an objective approach of intelligibility testing was adopted. It
involved twenty four educated Indian speakers of English from different mother tongue
backgrounds and 178 listeners of varied nationalities including the UK, the US, Nigeria,
and Germany. Various types of test materials were used for data gathering. They were:
connected speech in which the speaker was asked to speak about himself, work, interests
and hobbies for a few minutes, several reading passages, sets of sentence lists and word
lists. The listeners made both oral and written responses to the speakers‟ utterances. In
other words, the listeners gave oral repetitions of what the speakers had said. In certain
cases when the listeners‟ oral responses were not clear, they were then asked to write down
what they had heard. In addition to this, an opinion assessment scale of effort, the Richards
43
and Swaffield test was presented to the listeners. The listeners were to indicate on a scale of
1 to 9 the amount of effort that was required to understand the Indian speaker. Both
quantitative and qualitative methods of assessment of intelligibility were employed. This
involved attaching a numerical value to the Indian speakers‟ utterances correctly identified
by the listeners which was then followed by phonetic analysis of the instances where the
responses were incorrect.
The main conclusion was that the average intelligibility level of Indian English to speakers
of Received Pronunciation is 70% with intelligibility scores for individual speakers ranging
from 53% to 95%. From the analysis of the speech of the least intelligible Indian speakers,
the major causes of intelligibility failure were identified as follows:
a large number of divergencies in the distribution of vowels and consonants,
and in word stress, sentence stress and intonation. What makes these
speakers less intelligible is the frequency of the divergences from the normal
patterns of the distribution of vowels and consonants and the patterns of
stress and intonation in RP (147).
Besides this, the use of wrong stress patterns by the Indians was also identified as
being largely responsible for lack of intelligibility while phoneme substitutions
affected intelligibility only to a lesser extent. The most common substitutions
involved the following RP consonants and vowels:
and . Other causes of
44
unintelligibility were wrong sentence stress and rhythm, lack of clear articulation,
unfamiliar proper names, incorrect vowel length, and lack of aspiration in
voiceless plosives. To avoid these problems of intelligibility, the recommendation
for the Indian speakers was that “the correct distribution of English consonants
and vowels should be learnt by the constant use of a pronouncing dictionary”
(173).
Comparison of the performances of the British, German and American listeners
revealed that:
The German listeners understand Indian English less well than
British listeners. This is particularly marked in the connected
speech and reading passage tests. The conclusion is that it is
features of connected speech that present special difficulties to
German listeners…there is no significant difference in the scores
obtained by the American listeners (118).
The averages obtained by the 16 Nigerian listeners were 52% (connected speech), 34%
(reading passage), 54% (sentence list) and 66% (word lists). The findings regarding the
Nigerian listeners are as follows:
[T]he scores with the Nigerian listeners are significantly lower
throughout. The fact that Nigerian listeners understand Indian
English much less well than British listeners is understandable.
45
Nigerian English and Indian English have diverged from British
English in different directions and they are now farther apart
from each other than either is from the parent language, British
English (115).
Bansal‟s study is significant in terms of the fact that it is the first major study of the
intelligibility of second language speech. The relatively large sample of listeners also
makes the conclusions quite reliable and the adoption of a dual analytic mode also
enhanced the reliability of the intelligibility scores obtained by the speakers. However, the
selection of the speakers was without any identifiable set of criteria. Of major concern is
the fact that the educational and English proficiency levels of both the speakers and the
listeners varied widely as “thirteen of them (Indian speakers) were students but their
subjects of study covered a very wide range…one speaker was employed in the tea trade as
a tea taster” (39). The sample also included university lecturers of English and postgraduate
students of English phonetics. The same trend was observed with the listeners as some of
them were undergraduate and postgraduate students of English. Apart from the widely
differing proficiency levels, 12 out of the 24 Indian speakers were resident in England and
some of the American listeners also lived in England. It is rather doubtful that the
performances of these Indian and American speakers and listeners would have remained
unaffected by their stay in the native speaker community. Their interaction with native
speakers of English may have resulted in significant modifications to their speech. In terms
of institutional viewpoint, Bansal‟s orientation seems to support the view of the inherent
superiority of the native speaker. This view is supported by the recommendation that
46
approximation of native speaker speech norms should be the target of the second language
learner. Thus, he maintains that:
[A]mong the Indian speakers, the best speakers of English are those who
consciously tried to imitate the BBC accent, and those who tried to change
…pronunciation by attending a practical course in phonetics and spoken
English….the less efficient speakers were (those) who have not made any
effort to conform to any minimum standard of English pronunciation
based on British RP (168).
Following the same ideological and methodological frameworks employed by Bansal were
studies such as: Elalani on Jordanian English, Strevens and thereafter Brown on Ghanaian
English and Tiffen on Nigerian English.
With 15 Jordanian teachers and university students in addition to 48 British listeners as
speakers and listeners respectively, Elalani studied the intelligibility of Jordanian English
with the aim of the investigation being “to determine the linguistic variables causing
interference in the Jordanian use of English” (9). The recordings were made in Jordanian
classrooms, with both teachers and children joining in, and in addition, group conversations
were also taped. From these recordings, extracts were made for the listeners to listen to.
The study employed both the objective and subjective approach to intelligibility testing,
with the listeners being required to write down utterances as well as rate them according to
a 3-point scale as follows:
47
Intelligible, i.e. readily comprehensible
Just intelligible, i.e. difficult to understand, but of which sense could be made
Unintelligible, i.e. impossible of comprehension.
The main finding was that “defective pronunciation and inadequate language selection”
(45), were the major causes of unintelligibility. Problem areas for the Jordanian speakers
which constituted problems for the British listeners were the consonants and vowels, lack
of weak forms and differing stress and rhythmic patterns.
However, the specific segmental or suprasegmental features which led to lack of
intelligibility were not stated, neither was a hierarchy of features leading to unintelligibility
done. This makes it impossible to conclude on causes of intelligibility failure. Besides this,
the study seemed to have two methodological defects: firstly, the recordings were done in
Jordanian classrooms which implies that the environment was noisy; secondly, extracts of a
recording was used for the test and the listeners may have found this material to be rather
disjointed.
Two studies have been made on the intelligibility of Ghanaian English. Strevens conducted
“a quantitative assessment of the intelligibility which a West African pronunciation
possessed for speakers of …two accents” (119). With one RP speaker and about a hundred
Ghanaians from the Southern part of Ghana, the conclusion was that:
48
the average score of Received Pronunciation-speaking subjects was
84%, while the average score of Type 2-speaking subjects was 62%.
When it came to the recordings made by the speakers of Type 2
pronunciation, the averages were 27% by Received Pronunciation–
speaking subjects, and 35% by Type 2-speaking subjects. Even allowing
for imperfections in the design and conduct of the tests, it seems an
inescapable conclusion, on the basis of these figures that Type 2
pronunciation is a less efficient means of communication (120).
This conclusion was rather surprising because it claims that the speakers of RP were better
understood by Ghanaian listeners than other Ghanaian speakers of English as the general
observation in intelligibility testing is that speakers of the same accent understand one
another better than speakers of other accents. However, Brown‟s conclusions were
conversely different as he found that Ghanaians understood each other better than they did
the Britons. With an RP speaker and 45 Ghanaians from different mother tongue
backgrounds, the average intelligibility of the two varieties is as shown below:
Twi listeners: Twi reader 83%
RP reader 72%
Ewe reader 72%
Ewe listeners: Ewe reader 78%
Twi reader 73%
RP reader 70%
49
The scores indicate that all the Ghanaian speakers found other Ghanaians considerably
more intelligible than the RP speakers while Ghanaians with the same mother tongue
backgrounds were more intelligible to one another than Ghanaians from different mother
tongue backgrounds.
Tiffen conducted a major study on the intelligibility of Nigerian English to speakers of RP.
It remains the most comprehensive research on the intelligibility of Nigerian English till
date. The participants in the study were 24 Nigerians and 240 British listeners. While the
24 Nigerians were all undergraduates from Northern Nigeria and Southwest Nigeria, the
British speakers had widely varied levels of education. Some of them possessed
educational qualifications as low as primary education and others had higher levels such as
postgraduate degrees. The motivation for the study was stated as the need to ensure that
Nigerian speakers of English should try to approximate to the norm, which of course is RP.
It is clearly stated in the opening paragraphs:
For this reason, it is important that the type of English used
should keep within certain norms, if speakers are to be mutually
intelligible. If English should become so distorted - and there is
some evidence that this is already happening – as to become
incomprehensible both within and without Africa, one of the
main purposes for which it has been learnt will have been
thwarted (13).
50
Five types of tests were employed in the study namely: connected speech, reading passage,
phonemes, stress and attitude and intonation. A dual method of assessment was adopted as
the British listeners had to not only listen and write down what they heard but they also had
to fill in an opinion assessment scale of how easy/difficult it was to understand the Nigerian
speaker. The results of the opinion assessment scale were found to correlate with the
intelligibility scores as the most intelligible Nigerian were found to be the most easily
understood while the least intelligible Nigerians were the most difficult to understand. The
conclusion was stated as follows: “the listeners‟ subjective opinions of the speakers‟
intelligibility correlated closely with the scores obtained on Test 1. Averaged over 10
listeners, subjective grading of speakers is a satisfactory form of assessment” (187). As for
the intelligibility scores of the objective method of assessment, the average intelligibility of
the Nigerian undergraduates to British listeners is found to be 64.4% with a range of 29.9%
and 92.7%. A summary of the intelligibility scores for the various tests is presented below.
Mean scores (%)
Connected speech 64.4
Reading 65.5
Phonemes 76.4
Stress 40.4
Intonation 60.1
RP speaker 99.4%
Most intelligible Nigerian speaker 92.7% (Hausa speaker)
Mean of Nigerian speakers 64.4%
Least intelligible Nigerian speaker 29.9% (Yoruba speaker)
51
From the intelligibility scores, it was concluded that stress is the most crucial speech
component affecting intelligibility between Nigerian speakers and British listeners as stated
below: “faulty stress and rhythm was the most frequent cause of intelligibility failure”
(187). This conclusion was also supported by the scores of the connected speech test which
was the test assumed to be the most fundamental for intelligibility testing. Other features of
the Nigerian English accent were arranged in order of the impact they had on intelligibility.
This is presented as follows: incorrect word stress, incorrect phrasing, mispronunciation of
vowels, mispronunciation of diphthongs, mispronunciation of consonants,
mispronunciation of consonant clusters, incorrect elision, incorrect assimilation,
metathesis, incorrect and unfamiliar lexis and unusual syntax. Other conclusions reached in
the study include the finding that the Hausa speakers were more intelligible to the Britons
as the scores revealed that „10 of the 12 Hausa speakers scored above the mean, while 9 of
the 12 Yoruba speakers scored below the mean‟ (187). The final conclusion of this study
echoes Bansal‟s conclusions on Indian speakers of English that education correlates highly
with proficiency in English as Tiffen infers that:
[T]he above average speakers had better qualification at Credit
and Distinction level in Oral English than the below average
speakers. More of the above average speakers also had
qualifications in English at HSC level…the above average
speakers began English later and used it as a medium later than
the below average speakers at primary school, but at secondary
52
school they had more and earlier contact with native English
teachers (187).
This implies that the Nigerian speakers whose speech was closest to that of the native
speaker were the most intelligible. It is note worthy that the same conclusion had also being
reached by Bansal, thus establishing that education correlates very highly with
intelligibility.
This study is significant because it makes useful contributions in several ways including:
providing detailed characterization of the Nigerian accent of English, identification of the
features that are most crucial for the achievement of intelligibility, assisting to provide a
better framework for the teaching of spoken English. However, certain weaknesses put
limitations on the generalizations of the findings: perhaps the most important being that
Igbo speakers (from Southeastern Nigeria were excluded from the study. The Igbos of
Eastern Nigeria represent a significant population, being the third major ethnic/language
group in Nigeria apart from the Yorubas and the Hausas. Their exclusion is significant as it
may have influenced the findings of the study in terms of the conclusions reached on
positions as regards the most intelligible language group. Besides this, while the Nigerian
listeners were a homogeneous group in terms of educational level, there was no
corresponding homogeneity of educational level among the British listeners. The levels
varied from between primary education to post graduate training. This may have influenced
the listeners‟ listening proficiency. Another source of concern raised by the study is the
insistence on native speaker norms as the standard. Descriptions of the areas in which the
53
Nigerians deviated from native speaker speech norms were labelled as „errors‟,
„mispronunciations‟, „misinterpretations‟ and „incorrect‟. This seems to imply an
expectation of rigid compliance with RP standards, which is not only unattainable but also
undesirable given the existence of endonormative standards which are nationally
intelligible. Strict compliance with native speaker speech norms is even more undesirable
given the evidence from various empirical sources that native speaker accents are not
always highly intelligible.
A number of significant studies have reached the conclusion that native speaker accents are
not always among the most intelligible. Among such studies include those conducted by
Smith and Rafiqzad on speakers of Standard American English, Major et al on Standard
American English, Smith on both RP and Standard American English, Munro and Derwing
on RP, Deterding and Gupta on RP and lastly Atechi on both Standard American English
and RP. These studies are examined below in relation to their relevance as to the provision
of empirical evidence towards the establishment of the fact that native English phonology
is not inherently intelligible.
The study conducted by Smith and Rafiqzad is perhaps the foremost pioneering effort on
the testing of native English accents to non-native speakers. The opening statements
demonstrated that the focus of the study was clearly different from previous studies on
intelligibility which are informed by the ideology of the inherent intelligibility of native
speaker phonology. The aim of the study was therefore to discover “whether or not these
propositions are well founded” (371). To achieve this aim, 1386 Asians and Americans
54
were involved in the study which spanned 11 countries and involved nationals of Hong
Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, The Phillipines, Sri Lanka, USA, Bangladesh,
China, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Thailand. Collaborators were employed from these
countries to choose educated speakers of English between the ages of 20 and 40. Other
criteria used for the selection are that none: (1) had spent more than four consecutive
months in any English speaking country; (2) had been formally educated in schools
directed by native speakers of English; or (3) had ever lived with English speaking families
or groups. Each speaker was taped while giving a ten minute speech to a group of 10
educated fellow countrymen. A cloze procedure test of the speech was then prepared and
every sixth word in the passage was deleted. This passage was then presented to the
listeners along with a questionnaire to test listening comprehension.
Based on the combination of the objective approach which consisted of a cloze-procedure
test and the subjective approach which consisted of a listening comprehension
questionnaire, the results are as follows:
[B]ased on the intelligibility averages in eleven countries, the ordering
would be as follows: Sri Lanka 79%, India 78%, Japan 75%, Malaysia 73%,
Nepal 72%, Korea 68%, Phillippines 61%, United States 55%, Hong Kong
44%. (376):
55
The comprehension questionnaire also yielded the following results:
Speakers Average
Hong Kong: 57%
India 76%
Japan 75%
Korea 61%
Malaysia 76%
Nepal 67%
The Philippines 69%
Sri Lanka 76%
U.S.A 64%
The conclusions of the study seemed to disprove the proposition that native speakers are
always easily understood as the evidence shows that the native speaker (American) was
always among the least understood. This conclusion is further reinforced by the rank order
correlation of the scores which is presented below:
Difficulty Intelligibility Understanding
(Least to most) (Most to least) (Most to least)
India Sri Lanka India
Japan India Sri Lanka
Malaysia Japan Malaysia
Sri Lanka Malaysia Japan
Philippines Nepal Philippines
56
Nepal Korea Nepal
United States Philippines United States
Korea United States Korea
Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong
(378)
Even considering a prominent methodological shortcoming which was the differing
difficulty levels of the cloze procedure passages used in this research which as admitted by
the researchers “influenced the degree of intelligibility and understanding of the speakers”
(376), it may still be concluded that the native speaker is not always found to be highly
intelligible. This is clearly stated in the final paragraphs: “since native speaker phonology
doesn‟t appear to be more intelligible than non-native phonology, there seems
to be no reason to insist that the performance target in the English classroom be a native
speaker” (380).
Major, Fitzmaurice, Bunta and Balasubramanian also attempted to measure the
intelligibility of a native speaker accent to non-native listeners. According to them, the
research was necessary because „it is widely believed that listeners understand some
dialects more easily than others, although there is very little research that has rigorously
measured the effects‟ (37). The research participants consisted of 180 potential takers of
TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) who were all enrolled at either pre-degree
courses or were undergraduates at various American colleges and universities. They
comprised Chinese, Japanese and Spanish second language speakers of English as listeners
and 60 undergraduate and postgraduate native speakers of Standard American English from
57
U.S universities as speakers. The objective system of assessment was employed through a
test based on recordings of 12 short lectures. The participants were questioned based on the
recordings. For adequate comparison, other speakers were included in the test. They
include speakers of Southern American English, African American English (AAVE),
Australian English and Indian English. After the recordings were made, they were edited
and test tapes were constructed from the initial studio recordings. Multiple-choice answers
followed the test items. Statistical analysis showed that „both native and non-native
listeners are affected by a speaker‟s dialect--- and for non-native listeners, there were no
significant differences between Standard American and South American speakers‟ (58).
The conclusions further buttressed the point that the speakers of Standard American
English were not significantly more intelligible than speakers of other varieties because it is
maintained that:
[T]he results do not…support…that native-English speaking
listeners and ESL listeners would perform better on listening
comprehension tests in English based on lectures delivered by native
speakers of Standard American English (58).
Despite the fact that the focus of this study was listening comprehension rather than
phonological intelligibility, the results are relevant to intelligibility testing as
comprehension is related to understanding. However, the study suffered from a limitation
which is common to almost all listening comprehension test in that there was no control for
background knowledge. Some listeners may have had undue advantage over other listeners
if they had previous background knowledge of the topic.
58
Smith examined the intelligibility of both RP and Standard American English to second
language speakers of English. Among the other English varieties which were tested were
educated accents from China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Papua New Guinea, the Phillipines
and Taiwan. The major aim of the study was to help determine: „what differences, if any,
there are in the intelligibility…of selected taped material of nine national varieties. There
were 29 undergraduate participants and they were all balanced for age and sex. The test
material consisted of a recoding on forms of address used in each speaker‟s country to
address outsiders in English. The difficulty level of the test materials was controlled and
judged to be about the same level through the following means:
[B]oth speaker and respondent were fully proficient in English and
believed themselves to be educated speakers of their national variety
of English, each person spoke clearly and the number of embedded
sentences and the speed of delivery were approximately the same.
Thereafter, a cloze procedure of the passage was constructed with every 7 th word deleted
from the passage, leaving ten blanks which the listeners had to fill in. The passage was then
presented to the listeners to test intelligibility (word/utterance recognition). In addition, a
subjective questionnaire was also presented to the listeners. The listeners were to indicate
how easy or difficult it was to understand the speaker.
59
The important findings of this study include the following results: (a) the native speakers
were not as able to correctly identify their fellow native speakers as speaking standard
varieties of English an the non-native speakers were; (b) the non-native speakers was more
critical and seemed to have stricter criterion for identification of standard English, many
thought that the speaker of Standard American English was speaking non-standard English;
and lastly, (c) the results easily support the interpretation that it is possible for Standard
English to be spoken with many different accents. But what was perhaps the most striking
results of the investigation is the conclusion that „native speakers (from Britain and the
United States) were not found to be the most easily understood---thus, being a native
speaker does not seem to be as important as being fluent in English‟ (441).
A likely limitation of this study is the reliability of the findings of a study based on just ten
items. A ten-item test is perhaps not sufficient to measure the intelligibility level of an
accent. Perhaps a more extensive test would have been more adequate to achieve the aims
of the study. Nevertheless, the findings do seem to strikingly support the view that native
speaker accents is not inherently intelligible.
A similar study which is similar in orientation was that which was conducted by Atechi on
the intelligibility of two native speaker varieties to Cameroonians. This study is significant
as it is the perhaps the first to consider the intelligibility of a native speaker accent to
African non-native speakers. Thus, besides attempting to disprove the notion that native
speaker accents are inherently intelligible, the researcher also set out to:
60
[D]ismiss the trepidation nursed by scholars that the emergence of non-
native varieties around the world would cause English to disintegrate into
mutually intelligible varieties…and to contribute to the debate on the level
of phonological analysis that is suggested to pose the greatest threat to
intelligibility between native and non-native speakers (10).
The selected Cameroonians were all undergraduates while the native speakers of English
included both students and non-students. The age range of the Cameroonians was between
18 and 28 years while that of the native speakers extended to 60 year olds. Five types of
tests were designed to measure intelligibility in the study. They are as follows: connected
speech, passage reading, sentences with embedded phonemic contrasts, nucleus placement
in words and nucleus placement in sentences. The objective mode of assessment which
involves attaching a score to the items correctly identified by the listeners was adopted.
Based on this, the result for the American speakers was: „there is a wide range in the
intelligibility of native speakers of English…intelligibility scores in this column vary from
86.4% to 26.6%, with a mean score of 56.3%‟ (125); and for the Britons „the range (of
intelligibility) is fairly wide as the scores vary from 86.4% to 38.4%, with average of
58.7%‟ (127).
Atechi‟s study was a two-way investigation in the sense that it also considered the
intelligibility of speakers of Cameroonian English to Americans and Britons. A comparison
of the intelligibility scores obtained by all three groups of Cameroonians, Americans and
Britons is presented below:
61
Speakers and Listeners Intelligibility scores in %
Cameroonian speakers to British listeners 62.9
Cameroonian speakers to American listeners 59.7
British speakers and Cameroonian listeners 58.7
American speakers and Cameroonian listeners 53.9
An important inference can be drawn from these figures: the non-native accent was more
intelligible than the native speaker accents. However, perhaps these results should be
interpreted with a little caution. Several limitations are observable in the study as regards
the following: First, the wide margin between the speakers‟ ages and the listeners‟ ages (18
to 28 for the Cameroonians and 18 to 60 for the Americans and Britons); second, the
number of listener participants in the study is rather low – 40 – as it has been suggested in
the literature that a relatively large number of listeners is required for any useful
conclusions; third is the possibility that the Americans and Britons may have had their
speech influenced as they were resident in Germany; and lastly, there was no clarification
provided as to the specific British or American accent used by the native speakers. These
factors make it necessary to approach these conclusions with some caution. Nevertheless,
the conclusion reached is that: „this clearly shows that the native speaker of English is not
necessarily the most intelligible English speaker nor is… the native variety the most
intelligible‟ (130).
62
Another significant achievement of the research is the identification of the features of
American and British native speaker accents which affected intelligibility to the
Cameroonians. The study revealed that „the suprasegmental level was the most problematic
area of native English speech for the Cameroonian listeners as it led to the highest number
of intelligibility failures (46.5%) while the segmental level (40.2%), phonotactic
differences (11.8%) and lexical differences (01.5%) were less problematic‟. These
conclusions are in line with previous findings on the intelligibility of native speakers of
English, however it does seem that the number of listeners involved in the study was rather
low compared to the usual number of listeners in intelligibility studies as it has been
suggested that a relatively high number of listeners is necessary to provide any meaningful
conclusions.
To conclude this section of our review, it is pertinent to state that the current focus of
accent intelligibility studies seems to be the intelligibility of native speakers of English
(usually speakers of either RP or Standard General American) to non-native speakers. This
current re-orientation is not only crucial but timely because as argued by Rajadurai, “there
is need for a reconsideration… as empirical research has raised doubt about the
intelligibility of Inner Circle speech worldwide… the Inner Circle speaker was always
found to be among the least intelligible, showing that L1 phonology is not always
inherently most intelligible” (95). In the light of these intelligibility assessments, one may
consider the nature of RP and how Nigerians who are L2 speakers of English perceive the
accent in terms of intelligibility. These considerations as well as other related issues are the
problems which we shall attempt to resolve through this research. In order to resolve these
63
problems, a comprehensive description of both RP and NEA is necessary in order to fully
appreciate the degree of variation between the NEA and RP. Therefore, a discussion of the
NEA is attempted in the following section.
2.3 THE NIGERIAN ACCENT OF ENGLISH (NEA)
It has been established earlier that human language is subject to change. However, several
other factors apart from the natural processes of language change have contributed to the
evolvement of the Nigerian accent of English. Notable scholars such as Awonusi have
argued that these factors include:
mother-tongue interference, the history of the introduction of
English, the tradition of teaching English in Nigeria, the influence
of orthography or spelling, articulatory settings, social-cultural
values and incipient foreign values (207).
Interference is a phenomenon which characterizes multilingual societies such as Nigeria.
An estimated 505 languages are spoken in Nigeria (Grimes and Grimes 452). Of the
indigenous Nigerian languages, Igbo (spoken in the South-East), Yoruba (spoken in the
South-West) and Hausa (spoken in the North) are the major languages. Many Nigerians
are bilingual or multilingual with a command of several Nigerian languages and non-
indigenous languages such as English, Arabic and French. In view of this, Awonusi has
identified that interference which is characterized by the adaptation of the system of a
second language to that of a mother tongue is therefore observable in the speech of many
64
Nigerians, with an illustration of the dental and interdental fricatives providing an
illustration of this phenomenon. The absence of these sounds in the phonological systems
of the three major Nigerian examples is usually adjudged to be responsible for the inability
of some Nigerians to articulate these sounds accurately. British trading missions of the
sixteenth century which later developed into colonial rule also influenced the evolution of
the Nigerian accent of English. The majority of the British colonial officers in Nigeria
came from the upper or middle classes of British society, speaking RP. The initial contact
with RP developed into greater dominance of the accent with the establishment of
missionary schools where English was taught by native speakers of RP. Since then, the
teaching standard has been RP. However, other influences such as a language attitude
which seems to favour a „local‟ accent rather than a native-like accent has also contributed
to the evolution of this accent.
As a result of these influences, there is a diversity of spoken English in Nigeria. A further
complication is the lack of rigorous attempts at codifying these varieties. As of now, no
uniform and universally accepted description of a standard Nigerian spoken English exists
(Gut 818). What exists are some experimental and instrumental studies and a large body of
impressionistic studies. Due to the lack of quantitative data and the great variability of
Nigerian spoken English, most descriptions of spoken English in Nigeria are based on the
phonological tendencies of three major varieties. These major varieties correspond to the
three major Nigerian languages of Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, thus leading to spoken English
varieties such as the Hausa accent of English, Igbo accent of English, and the Yoruba
accent of English.
65
The descriptions of NEA that have been undertaken have employed the criterion of
educational background for the description and classification of English accents in Nigeria.
Many studies which involve the correlation of speaker competence and educational
background include Brosnahan, Adetugbo, Jibril, Banjo and Udofot. A discussion of the
classifications provided by Banjo and Udofot is presented below as the two views seem to
represent the linguistic realities in Nigeria. Banjo proposed four varieties with distinct
linguistic features:
- Variety I is used by those Nigerians who picked up English as a result of the requirements
of their occupation. They are possibly semi-literate people with only elementary school
education. It is characterized by a high transfer-rate of phonological features from the
mother tongue and is unacceptable even nationally.
- Variety II speakers are likely to have had at least primary school education. It features
some transfer from the mother tongue and does not make „vital phonemic distinctions‟.
This variety of English is accepted and understood both nationally and internationally.
- Variety III is associated with university education and is recommended and is
recommended as the model for Nigerian Standard English. It is most widely accepted in
Nigeria.
-Variety IV is equal to British English and is less accepted in Nigeria than Variety III as it
sounds affected.
Udofot claims that Banjo‟s Variety IV is not a variety of Nigerian English and that spoken
Nigerian English can be divided into at least three sub-varieties. These sub-varieties
66
collectively show phonological differences from British Standard English in both
segmental and prosodic terms, and in many cases, the speaker‟s education is correlated
with the degree of proficiency. Three varieties are proposed by Udofot. They are Non-
Standard Variety, Standard Variety and Sophisticated variety. They seem to correspond to
Banjo‟s Variety I, II and III respectively.
In order to present a comprehensive description of the varieties of spoken English in
Nigeria, our review attempts a global view of the NEA through reference to the general
English accent used in West Africa. Certain trends have been observed in both the NEA
and the West African accent of English. These trends include the high correlation of
variables such as education and competence for the classification and description of both
accents of English. More importantly, many areas of convergence have also been identified
between all West African varieties of English including the NEA. Areas of convergence
have been identified by researchers such as Bobda, Gorlach and Kachru. Convergence has
been linked to one common influence which is colonization. In recognition of this,
Omoniyi has argued that „no doubt…(this) may be a consequence of the same general
political experience, i.e. colonization‟ (172). Therefore, our review includes references to
areas of convergence between the three main accents of English in Nigeria and the broader
West African accent of English. This is done in order to provide a more globalized
description of these Nigerian accents of English. Notions often associated with issues of
accent convergence which are employed here include: common core or nucleus and
periphery. Common-core or nucleus has been described by Nelson as „the set of features
and characteristics which all varieties have in common‟ (738). „Periphery‟, is a related
67
concept used to refer to „those features which are unique to individual varieties, and are not
shared with any variety‟ (738). Therefore, this aspect of the review will consider certain
features which form the common core features of West African Englishes and also include
the periphery features – that is, features which are specific to the NEA. Another
consideration which informs this review is that as Omoniyi rightly observes, the literature
on second language English varieties is mostly written from two main viewpoints. The first
is those written from a micro-analytical framework which “seeks to establish and describe
the nature of deviation or difference from default native–speaker Englishes”, while the
second involves a macro-analytical framework that “explores contact situations for the
sociopolitical relationships they promote and the impact of these on English, indigenous
languages, and societies as language users” (175). It is added that a major consequence of
writing from these orientations is that “while the former retains the trinity of ENL, ESL and
EFL, the latter dissolves it”. It is pertinent that we state this distinction because it divides
the literature in this section along these lines. While some of the descriptions present the
phonology of West African Englishes as mere deviations from native speaker norms (RP),
others examine them as legitimate varieties without reference to native speaker varieties.
The intention is to present some sort of pronunciation atlas for Nigeria and the section
draws mainly from the work of Gut, Awonusi, Udofot and Mesthrie. These studies are
some of the most current descriptions in this area and they also provide what we consider
to be adequate descriptions of the NEA. It must also be stated that the entire description
presented below is guided by Schneider‟s general comment about the difficulty of
cataloguing pronunciations of English:
68
[T]he amount of detail of sound realizations - idiosyncratic, phonologically
conditioned or not, socially or regionally motivated – is extremely difficult
to grasp and categorize...difference in levels of details...ranges from minute
phonetic analyses with lots of diacritics to essentially broad phonemic
categorizations (1111).
Besides this, other principles which guide the review are as follows:
(a) a certain degree of intra-speaker, inter-speaker and stylistic variation characterizes
spoken language and the observations here are no exception. Therefore, it may not
be right to make generalizations about all the features at all times.
(b) Well‟s standard lexical sets are used for easier differentiation between phonemes.
When different accents are being compared, this system is a better alternative to
using minimal pairs. The key word for each standard lexical set appears
conventionally in capital letters, and is shorthand for a whole list of other words
sharing the same vowel.
(c) Reference words are underlined, and;
(d) iNEA, yNEA and hNEA stand for Igbo accent of English, Yoruba accent of
English and Hausa accent of English respectively.
2.3.1 Short Vowels
West-African varieties of English have either a 5- or 6-vowel system for the short
monophthongs. Two other features which characterize the vowel system is (a) schwa is
marginal and (b) length distinction between vowels is not a general feature. The educated
69
accent of Nigerian English (henceforth ENEA) has a 6-vowel system comprising the KIT,
DRESS, TRAP, LOT, STRUT and FOOT vowels.
KIT
This is the front, high, spread vowel. Generally in West Africa, the realization is , a
tense, long variety. The same realization occurs among Yoruba speakers of English in
Nigeria (henceforth yNEA), and Igbo speakers of English in Nigeria (henceforth iNEA).
This lengthening leads to a lack of distinction between word pairs such as sit and seat.
Some Igbo speakers also realize this vowel as a pharyngealized , while the realization
among the Hausa speakers is a close approximation of the RP realization .
DRESS
The front, mid, half-open vowel has two variants within RP. While is found among
younger RP speakers, is more common with older speakers. The same realization is
the variant commonly found in West Africa while free variation between and occurs
in yNEA and iNEA. The Hausa speakers of English in Nigeria (henceforth hNEA)
have a different realization of this vowel, oscillating between the schwa, and .
TRAP
This is the central/back, open, low vowel. Two variants of this vowel occur in RP. in
Modern RP and in Traditional RP. There is uniform realization throughout the varieties
of spoken Nigerian English with being the realization of the vowel. However, there is
usually a raising to .
70
LOT
The back, low vowel is realized as in both traditional and modern RP. In West Africa,
this vowel is variously realized as , or but it is realized as in both yNEA
and iNEA. In hNEA, it is .
STRUT
This vowel is fairly central, neutral and half-open. There is usually a lowering or backing
of the vowel in West Africa. This leads to realizations such as and . is the
variant found in yNEA and iNEA, while , an allophone close to RP or sometimes
also is found in hNEA.
FOOT
This is the high back, half-close vowel. Variants in West Africa include a weakly rounded
or well- rounded or a short . In yNEA and iNEA, the distinction between full and
fool is neutralized due to the realization of this vowel as . In addition to this, a
pharyngealised variant of , which is is sometimes also found in iNEA. A very
similar realization to RP is the variant in hNEA.
2.3.2: Long Vowels
A 5-vowel system is usual for West African Englishes for long vowels (Mesthrie 2004).
This system includes,, or the lexical distribution sets of FLEECE, GOOSE,
THOUGHT, NURSE and BATH. It excludes the RP lexical sets of CLOTH and PALM.
71
Besides this, the set of BATH is most likely the most distinguishable feature of traditional
and modern RP. While traditional RP consistently has , modern RP realizations are
and . With being more prevalent.
BATH ~
In West Africa, this vowel has a front realization which is . Other less common variants
are or . In both yNEA and iNEA, the realization is such that word
pairs such as march and match are homophones. For hNEA, the realization is .
CLOTH
The realization for this vowel in modern RP is while for traditional RP, it is between
~. The variant for yNEA, iNEA and hNEA is while hNEA also includes the
variant .
NURSE
There is immense variation in the realization of this vowel with six variants in West Africa
alone. The vowel is in Ghanaian English, in Northern Nigerian English, in
Southern Nigerian English and also ,, and . The variant for yNEA is depending
on the spelling, in work, in girl, in dirty, in perch, in sir. The realizations
are the same for iNEA but hNEA has only the vowel for the set of NURSE.
72
FLEECE
As with most long vowels, shortening occurs in West African varieties. The realizations in
West Africa are or . For both yNEA and iNEA, the realization is , while it is
for hNEA.
PALM
A front variety of this vowel occurs in West Africa. This variant is also the realization
in yNEA, iNEA, and hNEA. The implication is that word pairs such as march and match
are homophones.
THOUGHT
Short forms of this vowel characterize West African varieties. They are variants such as
, and unlengthened or . In yNEA, the realization is so that caught and
cut become homophones. The same realization occurs in iNEA but in hNEA, the
realization is , a closed variant of the RP vowel.
2.3.3: Diphthongs
FACE
The variants of this vowel found in West Africa include or . is the variant
most commonly found in yNEA, in iNEA and so that the distinction between let and
late is neutralized.
73
PRICE
Realizations such as are common in West Africa but is also an alternative form.
The realization in yNEA and iNEA is but in hNEA, the first element may be
centralized. When this occurs, the onset may be raised to or .
CHOICE
This vowel shows relatively little variation. Realizations in West Africa include and
. is the variant found in yNEA, iNEA and hNEA.
MOUTH
This vowel also shows slight variation as it is throughout West Africa. In yNEA and
iNEA, it is also but the realization differs slightly in hNEA as the first element may be
centralized to .
GOAT
This vowel is usually monophthongized into throughout West Africa. The realizations
in yNEA and iNEA vary from to while it is in hNEA.
SQUARE
Immense variation occurs with this accent with realizations including half-open and half-
close qualities such as ,,,, in West Africa. The general realization in the
74
Nigerian accent of English is a diphthongal realization with some speakers realizing it
as .
NEAR
Diphthongal realizations occur throughout West Africa as and . In yNEA,
iNEA and hNEA, the realizations are or with an epenthetic as .
START
In yNEA, iNEA and hNEA the realization for this vowel is .
NORTH
In the accents of English in Nigeria, this vowel is usually realized as .
FORCE ~
The realization in yNEA, iNEA is , while in hNEA, the vowel is realized as ,
or .
CURE
There is a great deal of variation found in West African accents of English with this vowel.
Variants include , , and the monophthongal realization .
75
2.3.4: Other Vowels
happY
This vowel is realized as and . Generally in Nigerian accents of English the vowel
is realized as . It is also realized sometimes as and sometimes as in words such as
greeted because of the influence of spelling pronunciation
lettER
The West African variants for this vowel are and . It is realized as in yNEA,
iNEA and hNEA.
horsES
Variants in Nigerian English are and .
commA
The realizations of this vowel in West Africa are and . , one of the West African
variants is also the realization in yNEA, iNEA and hNEA.
2.3.5: Triphthongs
Awonusi points out that “NEA has virtually no triphthongs” (220). Instead of triphthongs,
glide formation processes apply in the accents of Nigerian English. This process changes
the middle vowels into the corresponding semi-vowels as in:
76
fire
lion
power
our
2.3.6: Consonants in NEA
The description of NEA consonants will be brief as consonants are not usually crucial in
issues of accent variation. General commentaries about consonant sounds in NEA are as
follows:
NEA is non-rhotic. Both yNEA and hNEA speakers use the tap in all positions while some
iNEA speakers use the roll. Besides this, while all NEA accents use the linking , the
sandhi or intrusive is “practically non-existent.” (Awonusi 244). With regards to the
nasals, only two of them , are phonologically significant for NEA. exists in the
speech of very few speakers. The same occurs for the postalveolar fricative .
Another general feature of the NEA is the spelling-induced pronunciation of words. This
occurs generally as in debt and bomb pronounced with a terminal , loan words such as
elite , plateau , and the pattern which Awonusi (op.cit) described as h-
restoration which is the use of in words which are less in RP e.g. heir and hour.
Another spelling-induced feature is the voicing of certain non-voiced consonants such as
increased - because the orthography suggests it. Voicing of in maximum
and laxity is also reported by Gut (821).
77
Several consonant cluster simplification strategies occur in NEA but the most significant
for the educated speakers is the insertion of epenthetic vowel or between word- final
syllabic consonants and the preceding consonant as e.g. in bottle t.
Other phonological processes in NEA include metathesis, e.g. the pronunciation for
ask.
2.3.7: Sentence Stress
Many scholars have made commentaries on the nature of Nigerian English prosody. They
include Jubril, Jowitt , Udofot, Eka , and Simo Bobda. A summary of their observations
will be attempted here as there are no systematic studies available.
Five features which are general to sentence stress in the Nigerian accent of English are as
follows:
(a) Sentence stress is rarely used for emphasis or contrast. Instead, extra words are
introduced for emphasis. For instance, instead of saying “Mary did it” Nigerians
tend to say “It was Mary who did it”.(Gut 826)
(b) Given information is hardly de-accented.
(c) An overall preference for “end-stress”, i.e. the placement of the nucleus, on the
most prominent accent.
(d) A large number of extra accented syllables occur in which virtually all verbs,
adjectives and nouns are accented.
(e) Accent, which is defined as “the phonetic realization of stress in speech” (Gut
890), is primarily realized by tone with lexical words receiving high tone on the
78
stressed syllable and non-lexical words receiving low tone. The stressed syllable
of lexical words is produced with a high tone, which then spreads to the end of
the word. Any unstressed syllables preceding the stressed syllable are produced
with a low tone.
2.3.8: Rhythm
The rhythm of the Nigerian English accent has been described as “syllable-timed”
(Adetugbo 131), “inelastic” (Eka 9) and “full-vowel timed” (Udofot 20). These labels are
pointers to the roughly equal intervals between syllables in Nigerian English. This has also
been confirmed by Akinjobi and also by Gut. Suggestions that Nigerian English is syllable-
timed follows the traditional division of the languages of the world as either syllable-timed
or stress-timed. Speech rhythm, according to Gut is the “periodic recurrence of events such
as syllables in .... syllable-timed languages and the feet in…..stress-timed languages. (cf
Gut 818). Therefore, the presence of full and strong vowels rather than reduced vowels in
unstressed syllables gives the Nigerian accent its characteristic timing which differs from
the stress-timed rhythm of Standard British English.
An alternative to the traditional view of speech rhythm as discrete units has been proposed
by Dauer . This view is based on the assumption that the rhythm of any language is a result
of phonological, phonetic, lexical and syntactic facts about the language. In Dauer‟s view, a
composite of these features will locate any language along a rhythm continuum instead of
in a distinct class of syllable-timed vs. stress-timed. This approach provides a better
explanation because it offers a fluid classification for all world languages. The approach
79
also applies to the NEA as it supports the views expressed by Eka that NEA should not be
categorized as strictly syllable-timed, but should be described as a language variety with “a
tendency towards syllable-timing” (10).
Speech rhythm is central to this study because it is one of the features in which marked
accent variation occurs between the two accents in focus in the study and is therefore a
crucial determinant of speech intelligibility between Nigerians and the speakers of RP.
2.3.9: Intonation
This is the final segment in our consideration of the NEA. A striking difference exists
between NEA intonation tunes and RP tunes. These differences are noticeable in terms of
the patterns and range of the tunes. Adetugbo, Tiffen, Eka, Jowitt and Udofot and Ufomata
concur that the mastery of RP intonation patterns is a problematic area for Nigerians. To
overcome these limitations, Nigerians use “more words, longer utterances and gestures in
place of using tonic placement to agree, disagree or express doubt” (Ufomata7).
Nevertheless, several empirical studies have been undertaken to attempt a description of the
intonation patterns employed by Nigerians and two of them (Udofot 2002 & Jowitt 2000)
which seem to be the most comprehensive have similar conclusions. The prevalence of
falling tones over rising tones and unidirectional tones over more complex tones was
revealed in Udofot; while Jowitt considers Nigerian English intonation system to be
„simplified‟. The principal elements of Nigerian English intonation were listed as follows:
1. falls predominate in statements, wh-questions, and commands;
80
2. rises predominate in yes-no and tag questions;
3. complex tomes are seldom used, although there is some use of the fall-rise
in non-final subordinates and of the rise-fall for strong emphasis;
4. “end-stress” is a general rule for intonation groups;
5. where the “core” pattern includes a falling nucleus, it is a low-falling nucleus.
The picture that has been drawn here is that the NEA presents marked differences in
comparison with RP. However, the degree of variation between the two accents cannot be
fully appreciated until the description of RP is also presented. The following chapter
presents some of the major commentaries on the phonetic/phonological features of RP,
particularly areas which may impinge on intelligibility.
CHAPTER THREE: ASPECTS OF RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION
3.0 Introduction
81
In this chapter, an attempt will be made to establish the phonetic/phonological description
of our RP accent variety with a view to further delimiting the focus of the present study. In
our consideration of RP, the names with which this accent has been variously referred is
first examined. Several sociolinguistic themes which run through the major names of RP
are also discussed. This is subsequently followed by an assessment of sub-varieties of the
accent, while phonological features which constitute a “mainstream” accent of RP are
thereafter discussed.
3.1 Received Pronunciation
Standard British English accent is one of the names given to a particular accent of British
English. But what is probably the most common name and also the name which linguists
use to refer to this accent is Received Pronunciation. The earliest recorded use of this
term is by Ellis where it is described as follows:
in the present day we may…recognize a received pronunciation
all over the country, not widely differing in any locality, and
admitting a certain degree of variety. It may be considered as the
educated pronunciation of the metropolis, of the court, the pulpit,
and the bar (23).
„Received‟ is used by Ellis in the 19th century archaic sense of the word when it meant
„accepted in the most polite circles of society‟ (25). In the first half of the 20th century, the
term Received Pronunciation was again adopted by Daniel Jones, the first Professor of
Phonetics at University College, London. Although he initially used the term Public
82
School Pronunciation in 1916, in subsequent works he used the term „Received
Pronunciation‟ to refer to an accent which is “the everyday speech of the families of
Southern English persons whose men-folks have been educated at the great public boarding
schools”(45). Jones later expanded the users of this accent to include non-Southern English
people “but who have been educated at these (public) schools” (45). These descriptions
focus on the educational background of the speakers of RP of which Jones himself is a part
having attended a public school. Jones also based the description of RP in the editions of
his pronouncing dictionary (English Pronouncing Dictionary) on his own pronunciation.
Thus, it may be concluded that a public school education is a criteria for the identification
of the speakers of RP.
The association of this accent with public school education probably provides an
explanation as to why the accent is also referred to as Public School Pronunciation (PSP).
This term was first used by Daniel Jones in the first edition of English Pronouncing
Dictionary (EPD) in 1917. Windsor Lewis uses the term General British, while Wells and
Colson use Southern British Standard to also refer to the same accent. The term BBC
English is used by Roach and Hartman to refer to this accent probably because of its
familiarity as the accent used by announcers and newsreaders in the BBC (The British
Broadcasting Corporation). This company was founded in 1922 with a policy of employing
“men who in the presentation of programme items, the reading of news bulletins and so on,
can be relied upon to employ the correct pronunciation of the English tongue”
(Mugglestone 273). However, accent leveling has forced the BBC to reassess its policies
and practices and this has led to lesser linguistic hegemony, leading to comments by BBC
83
authourities in the early 1970s that “a far greater variety of presenters and attendant
linguistic patterns being available on-screen, with a stronger sense of different voices”.
(Mugglestone 280). This re-visioning makes has made the term BBC English somewhat
misleading. However, the most widely known term for this accent remains Received
Pronunciation, as Wells also notes that:
the accent which enjoys the highest overt prestige in England is
known to phoneticians as Received Pronunciation (for short, RP).
This name is less than happy, relying as it does on an outmoded
meaning of received („generally accepted‟)…It is what English
people mean when they say that someone „hasn‟t got an accent‟
(though to Americans it is a typical British accent). (117)
A careful look at the naming practices associated with RP reveal certain recurrent themes.
The principal ones are non-localizability of the accent, upper-class society and
association with public school education. These themes are examined below:
3.1.2 RP and Non-localizability
A philologist, who was dubbed „father of modern phonetics‟ by the Philological Society,
Alexander J. Ellis through this description of RP as: „a received pronunciation all over the
country, not widely differing in any locality, and admitting a certain degree of
variety…may be considered as the educated pronunciation of the metropolis, of the court,
the pulpit, and the bar‟ (23: emphasis added), established the geographical neutrality of this
accent. It has often been said that RP is not the accent of any particular region because it
84
may be encountered as the native accent of people who come from all over Britain.
However, its origin is traceable to the south-east of England, most especially London and
its adjacent counties. This is an area that has for long been the bastion of wealth in
England. Nevertheless, its origin is merely traceable to this region as RP cannot be said to
be „synchronically southern‟ (Ramsaran 15). Certain key phonological characteristics of the
south-eastern accent such as t-glottalling in prevocalic environments and the use of [
rather than in the happY lexical set readily differentiate it from RP (Wells 303). Other
markers also distinguish RP from all other regional accents in England, thereby making it
geographically neutral. Hughes, Trudgill and Watt summarize the key phonological
characteristics of regional accents of English in the British Isles in a table showing the
salient features of each accent. The table is reproduced below to demonstrate the unique
differences between regional accents within the British Isles and RP.
in in in in in in in in in in mud path palm hazy bar pull harm sing few gate
Scotland & + - - - + - + - + -
N. Ireland
85
S. Ireland + + + + + + + - + -
Northeast - - + + - + + - + -
Central north - - + - - + - - + -
Central Lancs. - - + - + + - + + -
Merseyside - - + + - + - + + +
Humberside - - + + - + - - + -
NW. Midlands - - + - - + - + + +
E. Midlands - - + - - + - - - +
W. Midlands - - + + - + - + + +
S. Midlands + + + + - + - - - +
E. South-west + - - + + + - - + +
W. South-west + - - + + + - - + -
South-east + + + + - + - - + +
East Anglia + + + + - + + - - +
Wales + - + + - + - - + -
(Hughes, Trudgill & Watt 71)
Though RP has distinct features which differentiate it from all other regional accents in
Britain, care must be taken not to create the impression that each of these accents
represents discrete varieties. Rather than this, the varieties form a continuum, a gradual
changing of pronunciation which occurs from Scotland to the Southwest of England to
Wales. RP occupies one extreme end of the accent continuum due to its total lack of
regional features. At the other extreme are the broadest forms of regional accents which
86
contain localized features. Besides the continuum of regional variation, the association of
RP with the upper classes also implies that accents in Britain may be identified on a
continuum of social variation with RP again occupying one extreme while accents used by
the lower classes occupy the other extreme. The relationship between RP, regional
variation and social variation is often modelled as having the form of an equilateral triangle
or a pyramid as in the figure below:
social
variation
regional variation in pronunciation
(After Hughes, Trudgill & Watt 10)
The base of the triangle is broad, implying considerable amounts of phonological variation
between the different regional accents spoken by the lower classes. Going upwards from
the base, the increasing narrowness of the triangle implies decreasing regional variation
between the accents of speakers higher up on the social scale. Similarly, the point at the top
of the triangle indicates the total lack of regional variation which we have already noted is
characteristic of the RP accent, spoken as it is by people at the top of the social scale. There
is no doubt that this model is an effective one because it explicates a well known fact which
87
is that it is impossible to tell where an RP speaker comes from. Between the top of the
triangle and the base are speakers with different degrees of regionally marked speech; and
the higher the person is on the social scale, the less regionally marked will be his or her
accent. Therefore, it is usually possible to tell from which broad origin of the British Isles,
middle-class speakers come from. Working-class speakers can usually be pin-pointed even
more accurately to their geographical origins. At the apex of the triangle is RP whose
speakers are impossible to identify as coming from any particular region, hence the
description of the accent as non-localizable. The relationship between RP and regional
accents is described rather succinctly by Wells:
[T]he more localizable (and hence non-upper-class) characteristics an
accent has, the „broader‟ we say it is. A maximally broad accent reflects
(i) regionally, the highest degree of local distinctiveness, (ii) socially, the
lowest social class, and (iii) linguistically, the maximal degree of
difference from RP. An important and defining characteristic of RP is thus
its non-localizability within England. (14)
3.1.3 RP and the Upper-class society.
The class-specificity of RP is often linked to the high social status, substantial wealth and
political power of its speakers. It is not co-incidental that most RP stereotypes have upper-
class connotations. References to RP stereotypical speakers include: „dowager duchesses,
88
certain army officers, Noel Coward-type sophisticates, and popular images of elderly
Oxbridge dons‟ (Wells 133); and also „retired admirals and brigadiers; dukes and their
families‟ (Ramsaran 39). This stereotype is even more finely ingrained on the
consciousness when it is realized that all the twentieth century English Prime Ministers and
of course the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth are all speakers of RP.
Therefore, the use or non-use of RP may be said to polarize the British society because the
accent acts as a segregating influence, dividing the population into those who speak RP and
those who do not. This division has been likened to a linguistic shibboleth (Judges 12: 5-
6), and an accent bar (Abercrombie 226). The story is told in the bible of how language was
used as a means of group identification. In the book of Judges, Jephthah had mobilized the
Gileadites army to attack the Ephraimites. However, many of the Ephraimites escaped but
the Gileadites waited for them at the Jordan River. As the Ephraimites attempted to cross
the river, they were asked if they were Ephraimites. In order to confirm their responses,
they were asked to pronounce the word shibboleth because the Gileadite guards knew that
the Ephraimites „could not frame to pronounce it right‟ (Judges 12:6). Instead, they
articulated sibboleth. In this way, the Gileadites were able to identify the Ephraimites and
they were subsequently executed.
This story has become rather symbolic of the way language acts as a marker of group
identity just as RP has become the linguistic symbol of upper class British society. But
instead of language being a marker of ethnic identity as it is in this biblical account, it is a
marker of class identity in England. An observation of the social significance of RP within
89
England informs this conclusion. The significance of RP within England seems to go
beyond a mere means of communication, hence, Waller‟s observation of RP serving as „an
instrument of communication and also of ex-communication‟ (16). This was stated in
reference to the manner in which RP speakers are accorded certain priviledges in the
society which non-RP speakers are not accorded. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of
how RP has been used as an instrument for the ex-communication of non-RP speakers
through exemption from certain employment priviledges. However, the evidence remains
anecdotal because discrimination is not permitted in most modern societies including
England, so there is scant documentary evidence of this. But Trudgill has confirmed this
observation regarding RP that the accent „has been the necessary passport to certain kinds
of jobs such as BBC newscaster and presenter positions and telephone sales jobs‟ (267).
RP has also been likened to an „accent bar‟ by Abercrombie. This again refers to the way in
which language affects access to priviledges in the English society. This term was coined
on the model of the „colour bar‟ which exists in some societies. It is an analogy used to
describe the accent prejudice in England which favours speakers of RP who are „on the
right side of the bar‟ (49). One of the consequences of the accent bar was this story of a
young English girl reported in the press which was provided by Abercrombie. As the
consequence of a divorce, this girl had gone to live with her father, while her brother and
sister lived with the mother. The father sent the girl to an expensive school, the result being
that she became an RP speaker. Her brother and sisters continued to speak with their local
accents. A judge had to take a decision on the girl‟s future and the judge‟s decision was
that she should stay with her father because she now spoke RP and had moved into a
90
different social class „so as not to have to mix with speakers of a socially inferior accent‟
(Abercrombie 50).
Sociolinguistic interviews conducted by Fabricius also stress that accents other than RP are
often judged to be deficient and consequently put their speakers at a disadvantage. The
interviewee, a male undergraduate RP speaker claims that:
I think it would be …you‟d be hard pushed to say at the moment
that your accent doesn‟t make a difference to your chances of
getting into Cambridge for example, and I don‟t think at least I
would like to think that none of it‟s deliberate but I think if you
have you know if you have a very strong North Welsh accent for
example, it‟s or strong Scottish accents or something which seems
quite alien I don‟t think I think if you‟re having to concentrate that
much more on listening to it, I can well believe that you‟re not
consciously saying “dear oh dear they‟re not as good” but
somehow you feel as if you‟re not getting on with them as well
because you‟re having to put so much more effort in just talking to
them um and I don‟t I hope none of this is done deliberately but I
can see that if you‟re… as inevitably happens at your interview,
hundreds of people, you‟re relying to an extent on a gut feeling.
(40)
3.1.3: RP and Public School Education
91
The association of the RP accent with public school education started in the nineteenth
century with the establishment of the first public boarding schools in England for boys.
These schools catered for boys aged between eleven to eighteen years. While at these
schools, the boys were usually isolated from their surroundings and only met pupils of
other public schools when playing against them at various sports. This system of Victorian
education for boys has been thoroughly described by Mugglestone as „officially established
through the 1860 appointment of the Royal Commission as an endowed place of education
of old standing, to which sons of gentlemen resort in considerable numbers‟ (209). The first
set of schools included Eton, Westminster, Winchester , Harrow, Rugby, Charterhouse and
Shrewsbury. Of these, Winchester dates back to 1382, Eton to 1440, Westminster and
Shrewsbury to 1560, and Harrow to 1571. Although they were originally founded to absorb
intakes from the less-privileged members of the society, „the poor and needy of the local
area‟, this changed later on in the century. Initially, the masters were, in addition to private
(fee-paying) pupils also allowed to take a limited number the poorer children on
scholarship so that the patterns of intake included sons of earls, bishops, vicars, stewards,
blacksmiths and cooks. However, a gradual change began to take place as the rich and
affluent began to displace the „poor and needy‟ at a number of these schools (210). For
example, as noted by Mugglestone, out of 3000 pupils who entered Eton between 1755 and
1790, only thirty eight were the sons of tradesmen and by 1930, this had dropped to zero.
Even though some of the headmasters of these schools attempted to put a stop to the
discrimination in the admissions policies, this apartheid system of schooling became so
pervasive that the School Inquiry Commission set up in 1868 to conduct an investigation
92
into the problem. Mugglestone noted that one of the headmasters that were questioned
responded that:
[H]ad very numerous applications from „persons of good standing in
the world and good fortune‟, and that he had invariably been asked,
„What is the character, station and position of the home boarders?‟
When he answered that they were „of all classes down to the sons of
blacksmiths and washerwomen‟, the application had immediately
been withdrawn. Of these „home boarders‟‟‟, he stated that he had
succeeded in gaining them perfect fair play in school‟, but that he
had had to separate them out of school and that „mainly for the sake
of the village boys‟. He felt that if he allowed them to associate, „he
should have a constant fear of their being ill-treated. (223)
The reason for this behaviour was pointed out by the headmaster: “It is not the fault of the
boys, it is the fault of society…I never yet saw a man who would send his boy to a school
in order to associate with those lower than himself” (223). Some of the advantages of these
prestigious schools which were usually monopolized by the elite included the inculcation
of religious and moral principles, gentlemanly conduct and intellectual ability. Thus, the
products of these schools tended to be a blend of social elegance, refinement, wealth, good
manners, and perfect gentlemanly conduct.
However, education at such public schools was not only for the purpose of producing a
gentleman but was also for the purpose of remedying „linguistic provincialities…a means
93
of integration into the linguistic as well as social properties of an elite… to protect its
pupils against those habits of faulty pronunciation, together with those vulgar and offensive
tones in reading and speaking‟ (Mugglestone 229). It appeared that this aim was generally
well attained because in referring specifically to Eton, one of the first such schools, Wells
comments on the homogenization influence of these schools noting that “an Old Etonian
sounds much the same whether he grew up in Cornwall or Northumberland” (119).
Abercrombie identifies the linguistic influence in these schools as RP: „Just as RP is a
unique accent, a unique institution provides its basis. This institution is the English public
school‟ (49). The sustenance of RP in the public school system was no doubt ensured by
peer pressure because even though RP was never explicitly taught in these schools, the
students seemed to effortlessly acquire it from fellow pupils who came from RP-speaking
homes. The social and linguistic hegemony of these schools continued for much of the 19th
century as Mugglestone states: „though in previous decades it had been acceptable an even
advisable for a gentleman to be educated at home…by the end of the nineteenth century,
the dominance of the public school tradition was such that this was the archetypical
education for a gentleman, or for those who wished to be numbered amongst such‟ (217).
This is also reinforced by the conclusion that at the close of the nineteenth century:
it was… the homogenization of social environment amongst the pupils
at such schools which in itself prepared the ground for the
homogenization of accent later associated with them. They reinforced
notions of „proper‟ English through a sense of collective identity in
which this too operated as a sign of membership and
integration…Conceptions such as these tended to function as a self-
94
perpetuating paradigm, confirming the associations of the „best‟ accent
and the „best‟ education in schools of this order by means of the
emphasis given to the social composition (and social sensibilities) of
their intake (282).
In present day England, the public school institutions are now officially referred to as
independent schools and the focus remains high academic achievement as expressed in
Mugglestone:
UK independent schools achieve the very highest academic standards. Of
the 500 schools listed by The Times as achieving the highest GCSE re-
sults in 1999, about 380 were independent schools. About 80% of pupils at
independent schools (including special schools) gain five or more GCSE
passes at grades A-C (compared with a national average of 43%). Eighty
per cent of independent school A-level candidates gain three or more
passes, compared with a national average of 61%. Nine out of ten-A-level
leavers from independent schools go on to higher education. At the
primary level, most prep schools taking part in national curriculum testing
report attainment levels well above the national average. It is sometimes
claimed that this academic success is due to selective admissions policies.
Some independent schools do admit only children of the highest academic
ability; many, however, admit a much wider range of ability. Evidence
from the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE Statistical
95
Bulletin no 4/95) suggests that pupils at all levels of ability do better in
independent schools. Comparing A-level results from schools of all kinds,
it concluded that, at every level of ability, there was a clear tendency for
candidates in independent schools to achieve higher A/AS51 level scores
than those in maintained schools (251).
However, it appears that the same social and linguistic homogenization tendencies of the
public schools of the preceding centuries continue to characterize the independent schools.
The schools remain elitist charging fees well beyond the reach of the average parent. The
least expensive day schools tend to charge around £1000 per term, while the the most
exclusive boarding schools charge over £5000 per term, for full boarding. Fabricius
provides details of the linguistic influences of present day public schools through a series
of interviews held with former independent school students in 1997 and 1998. By then, the
interviewees were university undergraduates and graduates. Their ages ranged from 18 to
31 years. The interview protocol comprised questions which were primarily aimed at
gathering information on the social and linguistic influences that they experienced while
attending the independent school. For example, when asked if there were changes in the
way they spoke after they were admitted into an independent school, a male interviewee
responded that:
I think it happens entirely involuntarily um, so many times I‟ve rung
home and my sister had picked up on something I‟ve said and maybe
phrase I‟ve used or even just the way that I‟ve formed you know just
said the word and pointed out quite how you know public school it
96
sounds but when you‟re living amongst you know boys who are all
speaking the same effectively then then it doesn‟t it doesn‟t you don‟t
doesn‟t occur to you but it‟s sad because I mean in the same way as all
dialects in this country are all sort of gradually you know meandering
towards a form of London English, the boys at school who came from
Yorkshire (or) whatever were… people did pick up on their accents and
joke about them you know they all ganged up on them you know
because so many of us all came from um the south and all spoke the
same way it was you know kind of group mentality I mean not in a nasty
way of course but it was noticed and to notice it is as much to say that‟s
not the norm (54).
When also asked if they changed the way they spoke after having left the independent
school, a female speaker responded that:
[N]ot, after I left school yes, um because when I came out of
[public school] I I played it down basically I my… both my brother
and my sister um, it‟s something you notice more in boys or at
least I notice more in boys that they tend to have a more plummy
accent or that they‟re not, less aware of having it… when I came
out of school, I had a very very very plummy accent and I I still do
but not as much as I used to I‟ve played it down a lot. (55)
3.2: Sub-varieties of RP
97
Having considered the naming of RP, we turn to a consideration of sub-varieties within RP.
These include U-RP, Refined RP, Regional RP, Adoptive RP etcetera. There is the sub-
variety used by the royal family, the aristocrats, upper-class families, professions which
have traditionally recruited from upper-class families (i.e. the Navy) which Wells (279)
identifies as U-RP (meaning upper-crust RP) and Cruttenden (78) refers to as Refined RP.
Wells distinguishes this from other forms of RP, describing the stereotypes associated with
this variety as:
…special voice quality and manner of delivery. …the speech…of an
elderly Oxbridge don; and to that of the popular image of a jolly-
hockey-sticks schoolmistress at an expensive private girls‟ school
(280).
Similarly, Cruttenden‟s classification describes Refined RP as follows:
that type which is commonly considered to be upper-class…a
speaker of Refined RP has become a figure of fun and the type of
speech itself is often regarded as affected…Refined RP reflects a
class distinction (78).
The descriptions of this variety given by both Wells and Cruttenden coincide in terms of
being strictly upper-class and inciting a negative attitude.
Regional RP is a somewhat contradictory term which Cruttenden adopts to represent
varieties which unlike Refined RP and U-RP do not reflect class distinction but regional
differences. It is described as “the type of speech which is basically RP except for the
presence of a few regional characteristics which go unnoticed even by other speakers of
98
RP” (78). This variety supports the idea of an RP accent with regional features such as
Northern England RP and Cockney RP. The contradictory nature of such descriptions is
also noted by Cruttenden that “part of the definition of RP is that it should not tell you
where someone comes from” (78).
RP varieties which reflect other considerations rather than class or region are adoptive RP
and near-RP. Speakers of adoptive RP are “adults who did not speak RP as children”
(Wells 281). Such adults are motivated to learn RP as a result of social pressure from RP
speaking circle of friends or office colleagues. They may be regarded as „social climbers‟
who recognize the advantage that an RP accent may offer in terms of better job
opportunities etc. However, there is a distinction between such people and native speakers
of RP. This is that they “lack control over the informal and allegro characteristics of RP”
(284). Characteristic features of native RP informal speech include reduction phenomena
such as elision, assimilation, and smoothing. However, speakers of adoptive RP tend to
avoid such characteristics, consciously or unconsciously regarding such variants as „lazy or
slipshod‟ (284).Without this distinction, it would otherwise be difficult to draw a line
between adoptive RP and native RP.
Near-RP is another variety which is neither based on class or regional considerations.
Wells (297) describes this variety as:
any accent which, while not falling within the definition of RP,
nevertheless includes very little in the way of regionalisms which would
99
enable the provenance of the speaker to be localized within England (or
even as Australian, New Zealand or South African).
It seems that near-RP coincides with Cruttenden‟s Regional RP as Wells supports the
argument of the existence of not one but “several” varieties of near RP similar to
Cruttenden‟s view of the existence of “regional RPs in the plural” (78). Besides this,
several usages which are representative of varieties of near RP but also differ significantly
from RP based on the criteria of phonemic, phonotactic, phonetic and lexical distinctions
are provided by Wells. They include the absence of any of the phonemic distinctions found
in RP particularly between and ; and , rhoticity in non-prevocalic
environments, yod dropping, diphthong shifting, and the use of rather than in -ed and
-es suffixes.
However, it is note-worthy that despite the identification of these features, the
difficulties involved in treating accent varieties as monolithic entities are
recognized by Cruttenden:
General RP, Refined RP and Regional RP are not accents with
precise enumerable list of features but rather represent
clusterings of features…thus there are not categorial boundaries
between the three types of RP or between RP and regional
pronunciations; a speaker may, for example, generally be an RP
speaker but have one noticeable feature of Refined RP (79).
100
The same justification regarding the impossibility of making clear distinctions
between RP accent varieties is stated by Wells:
[I]t is open to question whether it is desirable or possible to draw
firm lines of demarcation between RP, Near RP, and non-RP.
The justification for my proposing the term „Near-RP‟ is that it
conveniently refers to a group of accent types which are clearly
„educated‟ and situated away from the lower end of the socio-
economic scale, while differing to some noticeable degree from
what we recognize as RP (301).
The difficulty involved in drawing lines of demarcation between accent varieties is also
revealed in the controversy involving Estuary English. While some writers have identified
it as a distinct accent variety, others simply describe it as RP with influences from Cockney
(Rosewarne,Coogle, & Haenni). Cruttenden also states that “Regional RP will vary
according to the region involved” and identifies a London influenced form of RP as
„Estuary English‟ (79). This name was coined by David Rosewarne and was first published
in his article in the Times Educational Supplement in 1984. This accent is described as a
“middle ground” between Cockney and RP which is characterized by a “mixture of non-
regional and local south-eastern pronunciation and intonation”. The name Estuary English
was used for this accent because of its link to the geographical spread of the accent as the
features associated with the accent are features which spread outwards from London along
the Thames Estuary into Essex and North Kent in England.
101
Initially used only among journalists, this name eventually became popular among
phoneticians who described it as a modification of RP towards Cockney. It is also similar
to RP in the sense that it is an upper/middle class accent which is adopted by “those
wishing to avoid the stigma of RP as „posh‟ and by upwardly mobile speakers of local
dialects” (79)who usually speak RP. As Mugglestone concurs,
this …(accent) is the mode of speech which could be adopted by
Diana as the „People‟s Princess…and similarly deployed by
Tony Blair as a representative of Labour as the „People‟s Party‟,
an „everyman‟ who speaks to all (286).
Furthermore, Estuary English has been proclaimed by David Rosewarne in his newspaper
articles of the mid 1980s as „the new standard English‟, „tomorrow‟s RP‟ and the new
mode of „talking proper‟. Evidences of the declining prestige of RP are observable in
various dimensions. First is the negative value judgements of arrogance and snobbishness
which was observed by sociolinguistic studies of the 1990s. Such negativity may be
perceived in the following commentary on the present status of RP:
whereas once, people aspired to be posh; it was the voice of the
people in power – in the law, in the City, in the Establishment. Now
there are plenty of people who would be ashamed to speak like that.
A posh voice is seen as naff and unfashionable. (Mugglestone 281):
This negative trend is also reinforced in the media industry as RP‟s role as the accent of
choice in modern films exhibits role reversals whereby heroes and heroines are no longer
102
depicted using RP accents as in many nineteenth century novels. Instead, it has regularly
been deployed for those roundly depicted as villains as Fabricius notes:
[T]he humour of, for example, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, tended to
exploit such affected accent stereotypes, while Disney films for children
seem to reflect the more negative, slightly sinister (because of being
exclusive and arrogant) aspects of U-RP speech: most of the villains of
these films have been U-RP or conservative RP speakers (31).
Trudgill confirms that advertising in Britain has regularly moved away from RP as the
most effective endorsement of a product‟s claim because „messages couched in RP …
proved to be less persuasive than the same messages in local accents‟ (176).
Some writers confirm the decline of RP which Coogle has noted that „many younger
priviledged people make an effort not to sound too “posh”, as they know that this makes
them unacceptable in their peer group‟ (retrieved on the 14th August 2011 from
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/estufaqs.htm.) While the phonetician Susan Ramsaran
comments that „a real or assumed regional accent has come to have „a greater (and less
committed) prestige for younger speakers‟ (86).
Other writers have sought to determine the nature of Estuary English on the basis of its
reported linguistic features. Haenni, reported in Fabricius discusses selected accent features
(such as t-glottalling, l-vocalisation, and certain vowel phenomena) used to determine
whether they can define a rigid boundary between Received Pronunciation, Estuary English
103
and Cockney. The survey fails to find any single clear-cut „marker of Estuary English‟ On
the basis of this examination of academic and journalistic comments on the linguistic
features of Estuary English, as well as of people‟s awareness of the term, it is concluded
that:
It is thus very difficult to uphold the notion of Estuary
English as a distinct variety in its own right … it appears
rather daring to assign it a place among the stereo-typed (or,
at least, the most „dialectally prominent‟) accents of Britain.
(34).
Estuary English has continued to generate commentaries but the general consensus as to its
existence as a distinct variety of spoken English seems to be skepticism.
3.3 The Phonological Core of a Mainstream RP Accent.
We will now attempt to identify the phonological features which may be found in a
mainstream accent of RP. By this, we mean a clustering of features which form a central
tendency of all RP accent varieties. The description includes a list of both phonemic
distinctions and phonetic features of the accent. For the purposes of this study, we define a
mainstream RP accent as an amalgam of the features listed in Collins and Mees, Wells and
also Cruttenden. The entire section presents a summary of views expressed in notable works
on the phonology of RP such as Wells, Upton, Cruttenden, Brown and Collins & Mees. Our
list of RP phonemic distinctions is an uncontroversial list of 20 contrastive vowels and
diphthongs as stated below:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
104
These vowels and diphthongs are all recognized RP phonemes except which has a very
limited occurrence and the variable pronunciation as . Wells points out that “there are
plenty of RP speakers who pronounce some or all of poor, moor, your and sure with ,
and they are on the increase” (287). Besides this, lexical variability is also an important
consideration of the phonemic status of RP vowels and diphthongs. Pronouncing dictionaries
sometimes offer as many as five alternative pronunciations for one word, all within
mainstream RP.
The consonant sounds of our mainstream RP accent are less controversial and are stated
below:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
The phonemic status of these 24 consonant sounds are not in doubt but the voiceless labio-
fricative is not included here even though it is a possible phoneme on the basis of
minimal pairs such as which and witch. According to Wells, “the use of /hw/ in where, wheel
etc is restricted to the speech conscious,” (285) meaning that it has a low frequency of
occurrence.
Statistics for consonant frequencies in RP is provided by Cruttenden and the data reveals the
same 24-consonant phoneme inventory presented above ranging from - 1.97% to -
0.10%. and also show relatively high percentage frequencies (3.56% and 2.81%
respectively). It was noted that structural conditioning occasioned by the frequent
occurrence of determiner the and pronouns in <th-, wh-> probably accounts for the
comparatively high scores of these particular phonemes. Another observation is that “the
105
alveolar phonemes emerge as those which occur most frequently in English, this being a
generalization which appears to be applicable to many languages” (196).
Setting aside the segmental phonemes of RP for now, a consideration of the supra-segmental
features of the accent also reveals certain phonetic/phonological features which define
mainstream RP.
3.3.1 Stress & Rhythm
Stress and rhythm are inter-related isochronic features of speech. For the purpose of this
study however, consideration of stress is limited to sentence stress while rhythm is fully
explored. Native English speech is usually classified as „stress-timed‟ in direct opposition to
second language English speech varieties which work on the principle of „syllable-timing‟
(Gut 828).
In mainstream RP as well, stressed syllables tend to occur at roughly equal intervals of time
as the unstressed syllables in between give the impression of being compressed if there are
many and expanded if there are few (Collins & Mees 108). The shortening of vowels from
their full forms to reduced forms or weak vowels such as , , in addition to various
phonetic/phonological processes of connected speech give mainstream RP speech its
characteristic rhythm. These features may be classified into three broad areas namely:
1. Allophonic variation: Realisational variations of phonemes due to adjustment of
tongue positions to facilitate co-articulation with adjacent or near-adjacent
segments. (Wells 42; Collins & Mees 116).
106
2. Assimilation: The replacement of a phoneme by a second under the influence of
a third phoneme (Collins & Mees 118).
3. Elision: Deletion of a phoneme which necessitates a change from the ideal form
in connected speech (Collins & Mees 118).
These three areas are crucial to the present study because these patterns of allophonic
variation, assimilation and elision are distinctive to mainstream RP speech. These processes
are not only limited in the Nigerian English accent but when they do occur, they follow a
different patterning (Gut 825). Variations such as these may constitute intelligibility
problems which form the central point of the present study. The views are generally in
agreement and cover the areas of allophonic variation, assimilation and elision particularly
as they relate to recent changes within mainstream RP.
3.3.2 Allophonic Variation
The height and degree of centralization of the vowel varies, but is largely relatively open and
central. It is also usually symbolized by unstressed syllables.
The same central and open qualities of are associated with this vowel and it is also
symbolized by .
107
A fronted and more open realization of which is symbolized by usually occur with
this vowel.
This vowel usually involves a glide from to . This makes it diphthongal in all
contexts except before fortis consonants. Another notable phonological characteristic of this
vowel is what is termed „happY tensing‟. This feature affects the final vowels in words such
as happy, lucky and coffee. It involves the realization of the final vowel with a closer
quality (). This quality is similar to a short variety of .
There is considerable variation in the realization of this vowel with qualities ranging from
close mid to open mid. This results in realizations of for unaccented syllables.
It is diphthongal , fronted and becoming gradually less rounded particularly following
palatal and palato alveolar and .
Relatively central, lacking lip-rounding. This often results in a realization which is similar to
. It is also noted that some speakers take this process even farther so that the realization
of the vowel is close to .
108
This diphthong has changed its traditional starting-point to a more fronted position while the
second element is unrounded and also fronted making it similar to .
This either has the same starting point with or is backed to a position similar to
.
The starting point of the diphthong is central and the realization is very similar to or
. The diphthongal movement is very little and there is also minimal lip rounding.
An important phonological process which often characterizes the realization of this phoneme
is the process of smoothing. It is a process of monophthongization of this vowel through the
omission of the glide. This smoothing process also applies to other diphthongs and is
discussed more extensively below under elision.
Because of the monophthonging process described above, a long monophthong is the
usual realization of this diphthong.
109
The most usual realization of this vowel is
The staring point for this diphthong varies between close-mid and open-mid. It is also
usually monophthongized into .
Monophthongization of this vowel also occurs in some cases.
RP triphthongs
All the RP triphthongs namely , , and have their individual vowel
elements maintained in careful speech. But the second element is usually omitted in faster
speech.
Setting aside RP vowels, and turning to RP consonants, only the alveolar plosive is
noted to present any considerable allophonic variation. Glottal reinforcement (also called
pre-glottalisation) and t-glottalling (also known as glottal replacement) are the phonological
features which are involved in variable pronunciation. Although both features were
considered to be restricted to lower class accents such as Cockney, they are certainly
observable in certain environments within the RP accent. This observation is made by Wells
(201):
Glottalling is the switch from an alveolar to a glottal articulation of ,
whereby in a range of syllable–final environments. This is by now
110
very firmly established in casual RP before obstruents … and is increasingly
heard before other consonants (, , ). Among younger RP speakers it can
even be heard finally before vowels… or in absolute final position.
Fabricius (145) also supports this observation in a commentary of the current
sociolinguistic status of t-glottalling in modern RP:
1. T- glottalling in modern RP is stable in pre-consonantal environment in both
speech styles and is accepted by these speakers in formal and non-formal
speech.
2. It has entered modern RP as a vernacular change (spreading out from
London), but its vernacular status is obscured by other factors.
3. It has to some extent lost its stigma, but not yet acquired prestige in word-
final pre-pausal and pre-vocalic environments.
3.3.3 Assimilation
This term refers to the effect created as a result of phonetic conditioning, when one phoneme
is replaced by a second phoneme. Assimilation is one of the features which create the special
allegro characteristics of mainstream RP speech, thereby differentiating it from the speech of
the typical Nigerian. Some of the commentaries on this speech feature which are examined
below show that the patterns of assimilation in RP speech are distinct and rather more
extensive than that of the Nigerian English accent. For instance, Collins and Mees basing
their typology of mainstream RP assimilation on direction and type of assimilation recognize:
leading, lagging, reciprocal, place, energy and manner assimilations . Leading
111
assimilation is described as a situation whereby as a result of phonetic conditioning, features
of an articulation may lead into those of a following segment. On the other hand, lagging
assimilation involves the holding of the articulation features of a preceding segment over
another segment. Cases involving a two-way exchange of articulation features were termed
reciprocal assimilation. Place, energy and manner articulations were terms used to refer to
„types of influences in assimilation‟. Three types of influences were described: assimilations
involving a change in place of articulation (place assimilation), assimilation involving a
reduction of the fortis/lenis contrast (energy assimilation) and assimilation involving a
change in the manner of articulation (manner articulation). Likewise, Cruttenden (301-303)
provides a detailed explanation of this phenomenon by identifying regressive or
anticipatory, coalescence and progressive assimilation. Regressive/anticipatory
assimilation and coalescence assimilation correspond to Collins and Mees‟ leading and
manner assimilation respectively. Progressive/perseverative assimilation is described as an
uncommon process which may occur when a plosive is followed by a syllabic nasal and the
nasal undergoes assimilation to the same place of articulation as the preceding plosive.
Collins and Mees also add that greater complexity be may introduced into the process of
assimilation in two ways: (a) when two types of assimilation affect one phoneme; and (b)
when more than one phoneme is affected by an assimilation.
3.3.4 Elision
A historical view of elision is presented by Collins and Mees (118) in their examination of
the status of this phenomenon in both older varieties of English and contemporary English.
„Historical assimilation‟ is the term that is suggested to cover cases where the deletion of a
phoneme in a word has become fixed and the original ideal forms have become extinct. The
112
„silent letters‟ of English illustrate cases of historical elision (e.g. talk, comb, know, iron).
However, Cruttenden, Wells, Brown and Gimson provide accounts of the processes of elision
in present-day English. Elision is generally described as a process whereby a phoneme is
deleted or elided, unlike assimilation which involves the replacement of a phoneme by a
second one. Cruttenden (303) provides two major environments in which elision may occur
in mainstream RP. They are word-internal position and word-final or word-boundary
positions. Elision in the former usually involves the loss of a vowel, consonant or entire
syllable involving weak accents. The alveolar plosives and and consonant
clusters are also identified as the commonly elided segments in word-boundary positions.
Another type of elision which involves mainstream RP diphthongs and triphthongs is an
innovatory phonological process known as smoothing. Described by Wells (238) as a
„monophthonging process‟ in which the quality of the resultant monophthong is that of the
starting-point of the underlying diphthong, it involves vowels with front and back; mid to
close quality. Commenting on the same process, Cruttenden admits that it results in “the
reduction of the phonetic sequences , to , … new homophones are
produced in this way, e.g. tyre, tower; shire, shower; sire, sour (145). Of all the RP
phonetic/phonological connected speech processes discussed in this section, „smoothing‟ is
perhaps the most crucial for intelligibility and Gimson may well be right in his observation
that „this monophthongization of and and their coalescence with is
likely to be one of the most striking sound changes affecting southern British English” (140)
3.3.5 Intonation
113
The final supra-segmental feature to be considered in this review is intonation.
Differences exist in the intonation of RP and NEA and this affects intelligibility as
agreed by Cruttenden that:
while the variation in intonation between languages (and between
dialects of English) is not as great as that involved in segments, it is
nonetheless sufficient to cause a strong foreign accent and in some
cases lead to misunderstanding (270).
Intonation is a speech feature which is usually acoustically manifested by pitch with three
principal functions. However, for the purpose of the present study, only the discoursal and
attitudinal functions of intonation are relevant. The traditional approach which employs the
nuclear tone to describe the shape of tunes is adopted in the discussion of RP intonation.
Generally, there is agreement among scholars on RP intonation tunes and their meanings.
Roach and Cruttenden reflect this agreement as regards the following:
(i) Declaratives: falling tones
(ii) Yes/no-interrogatives: low-rising tones
(iii) Tag-interrogatives: a falling tone (high fall or low fall ) or a rising
tone (usually low rise).
(iv) Polite imperatives: Rising tone (low rise or fall rise
(v) Exclamatives: Falling tone.
114
Cruttenden also includes a description of tones for certain formulaic expressions such as
„thank you‟, „good morning‟. In such situations, it is claimed that falling tones and high fall
tones generally show sincerity in the first and second expressions respectively.
In conclusion, the examination of aspects of segmental and suprasegmental variation
between NEA and RP has revealed striking differences. There is little doubt that these
differences are bound to affect intelligibility. What we do not know are the specific features
which are crucial for intelligibility and the extent to which intelligibility is affected by
these phonetic and phonological differences. These are the questions which we will attempt
to answer in the subsequent chapters of this study.