Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit hypothesis

Abstract

In a follow-up study to that of Bent and Bradlow (2003), carrier sentences containing familiar keywords were read aloud by five talkers (Korean high proficiency; Korean low proficiency; Saudi Arabian high proficiency; Saudi Arabian low proficiency; native English). The intelligibility of these keywords to 50 listeners in four first language groups (Korean, n = 10; Saudi Arabian, n = 10; native English, n = 10; other mixed first languages, n = 20) was measured in a word recognition test. In each case, the non-native listeners found the non-native low-proficiency talkers who did not share the same first language as the listeners the least intelligible, at statistically significant levels, while not finding the low-proficiency talker who shared their own first language similarly unintelligible. These findings indicate a mismatched interlanguage speech intelligibility detriment for low-proficiency non-native speakers and a potential intelligibility problem between mismatched first language low-proficiency speakers unfamiliar with each others' accents in English. There was no strong evidence to support either an intelligibility benefit for the high-proficiency non-native talkers to the listeners from a different first language background or to indicate that the native talkers were more intelligible than the high-proficiency non-native talkers to any of the listeners.

Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high-proficiency non-native talkers and listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness

“…It is important to note, however, that the matched non-native talker-listener pairs, CRO talkers and listeners doing the task in their L2, overall did not perform significantly differently from the mismatched native talker non-native listener groups (in A above). This result suggests that for highly proficient L2 learners sharing the same L1 background may not provide the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit, the advantage that a shared interlanguage provides for non-native talkers and listeners presumably due to the similar L2 phonological representations (van Wijngaarden, 2001;van Wijngaarden et al, 2002;Munro, Derwing, and Morton, 2006;Bent and Bradlow, 2003; also Stibbard and Lee, 2006, for different results). That is, once a certain level of fluency and experience in L2 processing has been achieved it may no longer be advantageous to hear L1-specific or some intermediate forms of L2 production.…”

Spoken-word recognition in foreign-accented speech by L2 listeners

“…When translated to intelligibility, our results may offer a possible explanation for why some studies find mutual intelligibility of foreign-accented speech for L2 listeners (e.g., Bent & Bradlow, 2003;Munro et al, 2006, van Wijngaarden, 2001, while other studies do not (e.g., Leikin et al, 2009;Stibbard & Lee, 2006). Based on the present findings it could be that foreign-accented sentences are mutually intelligible when the sentences contain many contrasts that are difficult to perceive for all the different L2 listeners; when there are few such contrasts that all the L2 listeners find difficult to perceive, intelligibility would not be mutual.…”

“…The general outcome of these studies is that L1 listeners usually find unaccented L1 speech more intelligible than L2 speech, but L2 listeners can find L2 speech at least as intelligible as L1 speech. Interestingly, some studies have even found that L2 listeners find L2 speech from speakers with varying language background equally intelligible (e.g., Bent & Bradlow, 2003;Munro et al, 2006;van Wijngaarden, 2001;van Wijngaarden et al, 2002), although others studies have failed to find such mutual intelligibility of foreign-accented speech (e.g., Leikin et al, 2009;Stibbard & Lee, 2006). In these studies, segmental characteristics of words to be identified are typically not controlled, and a possible explanation for the discrepancy in findings is therefore that the number of keywords with similar perceptual difficulties for different L2 listeners varied between studies.…”

“…In these studies, L1 and L2 listeners are usually presented with foreignaccented sentences (e.g., Bent & Bradlow, 2003;Hayes-Harb, Smith, Bent, & Bradlow, 2008;Leikin, Ibrahim, Eviatar, & Sapir, 2009;Munro & Derwing, 1999;Munro, Derwing, & Morton, 2006;Stibbard & Lee, 2006;van Wijngaarden, 2001;van Wijngaarden, Steeneken, & Houtgast, 2002) or words (Imai, Walley, & Flege, 2005) and their task is to write down what they heard. The general outcome of these studies is that L1 listeners usually find unaccented L1 speech more intelligible than L2 speech, but L2 listeners can find L2 speech at least as intelligible as L1 speech.…”

The effect of input source (Native vs. Non- native) and EFL learners’ perceptions towards it, on their listening performances, across gender

“…Also, Smith and Bisazza (1982) found that Native American and British are more intelligible than native Chinese speakers. In another study, Stibbard and Lee (2006) aimed at finding the potential of using non-native English in listening tests. They concluded that there were no significant differences in intelligibility and comprehension scores for high proficiency non-native speakers and native speakers.…”