2020
DOI: 10.1075/jslp.20050.lev
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revisiting the Intelligibility and Nativeness Principles

Abstract: Levis (2005) named two conflicting approaches to pronunciation teaching, the Nativeness Principle and the Intelligibility Principle. This paper revisits those two principles to argue for the superiority of the Intelligibility Principle in regard to where pronunciation fits within the wider field of language teaching, in how it effectively addresses teaching goals, in how it best addresses all contexts of L2 pronunciation learning, and in how it recognizes the reality of social consequences of pronunciation dif… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
47
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
(50 reference statements)
0
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the theoretical emphasis mentioned above, at least two further reasons may be offered for the lack of relevance she describes. One of these is a long-standing pre-occupation with native-like accuracy in assessments of L2 production, in accordance with the "nativeness principle" (Levis, 2005(Levis, , 2020. In their historical overview, Munro and Derwing (2011) pointed to a dearth of empirical pronunciation studies motivated by the opposing "intelligibility principle, " despite repeated calls for an instructional focus on intelligible L2 speech going back at least as far as Sweet (1900).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In addition to the theoretical emphasis mentioned above, at least two further reasons may be offered for the lack of relevance she describes. One of these is a long-standing pre-occupation with native-like accuracy in assessments of L2 production, in accordance with the "nativeness principle" (Levis, 2005(Levis, , 2020. In their historical overview, Munro and Derwing (2011) pointed to a dearth of empirical pronunciation studies motivated by the opposing "intelligibility principle, " despite repeated calls for an instructional focus on intelligible L2 speech going back at least as far as Sweet (1900).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Defining successful Lx acquisition this way justifies characterizations of "non-native-accented" input as having a "negative effect" (Young-Scholten, 1995), as well as characterizations of variation in multilinguals' productions as "mispronunciations" (e.g., Bosch & Ramon-Casas, 2011;Llompart & Reinisch, 2021), as "less accurate" than native speakers' productions (Hayes-Harb & Masuda, 2008) or "inauthentic" (Flege & Liu, 2001). This ideology has, of course, been challenged (e.g., by Falkert, 2016;Golombek & Jordan, 2005), often in the context of promoting intelligibility (as opposed to native-likeness) as a goal for Lx learners (e.g., Levis, 2005Levis, , 2020, though it is important to note that the intelligibility construct is also not devoid of social influence and bias (see, e.g., Babel & Russell, 2015;Ingvalson et al, 2017). Many scholars have further challenged the underlying native/non-native speaker dichotomy altogether (e.g., Cheng et al, 2021;Kabel, 2009;Moussu & Llurda, 2008), highlighting the ways in which racism and the racialization of "non-native" teachers of English underlie ideologies of preference for nativespeaker language teachers (Ramjattan, 2019a(Ramjattan, , 2019b.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two teacher characteristics should be treated separately and not as interchangeable constructs as done in previous research (Swanson, 2012). Levis (2020) makes a similar distinction between intelligibility and nativeness in language teaching and how each principle addresses teaching goals. These unique features are distinct and have varied influences on individuals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%