Intelligibility can be defined as ‘being understood by a listener at
a given time in a given situation’; so, it is the same as
'understandability' (Kenworthy, 1987: 13). According to her, intelligibility depends on the listener’s ability to accurately identify a speaker’s words. The more words a listener is able to identify accurately when said by a particular speaker, the more intelligible that speaker is deemed to be. Bamgbose (1998: 10) defines intelligibility as: ‘a one-way process in which non-native speakers are striving to make themselves understood by native speakers whose prerogative it was to decide what is intelligible and what is not’. While this view takes the speaker into consideration, it ignores the listener’s role. Intelligibility is a mutual process of communication that involves both the speaker and the listener. Bamgbose (1998: 11) argues that: ‘when a speaker and a listener communicate, they both contribute to the speech act and its interpretation’. Unintelligible communication
may be the result of a speaker’s substitution of a sound, a word, or a phrase with another and the listener’s inability to understand the message.
In recent decades, the idea of intelligibility has become crucial in the teaching of pronunciation. This approach implies that different features have different effects on understanding (Levis, 2005: 371). Moreover, Levis argues that: ‘instruction should focus on those features that are most helpful for understanding and should de-emphasise those that are relatively unhelpful’ (ibid). This assumption of differential importance is evident in most intelligibility-based arguments for pronunciation instruction. For example, Avery and Ehrlich (1992) believe that instruction should focus on supra-segmental features, and that a focus on these features leads to better and quicker speaker intelligibility than a focus on segmental features. According to Derwing and Munro (2001), most second language learners’ primary aim is to be understood when they communicate in their second language by a wide range of listeners in a variety of contexts. They argue that (2001: 285):
Although a non-native accent can sometimes interfere with this goal, prior to the publication of this study, second language researchers and teachers alike were aware that an accent itself does not necessarily act as a communicative barrier. Nonetheless, there had been very little empirical investigation of how the presence of a non-native accent affects intelligibility, and the notions of ‘heavy accent’ and ‘low intelligibility’ had often been confounded.
According to Munro and Derwing (2001), some of the key findings of the study are that even heavily accented speech is sometimes perfectly intelligible and that prosodic errors appear to be a more potent force in the loss of intelligibility than
phonetic errors. However, these findings added support to some common, but weakly substantiated beliefs. Moreover, the study was significant because it also provided a framework for a program of research to evaluate the ways in which such factors as intelligibility and comprehensibility are related to a number of other dimensions (ibid).
The teaching implications of the approach to L2 speech evaluation used in this study has also proved useful in investigations of the benefits of different methods of teaching of pronunciation to ESL learners (ibid). This implies that in particular, it is now clear that learner assessments are best carried out with attention to the multidimensional nature of L2 speech, rather than with a simple focus on global accentedness. In other words, not only segmental features but also supra- segmental features should be taken into account in assessing learners. Derwing, Munro, and Wiebe (1998) have shown, for instance, that some pedagogical methods may be effective in improving intelligibility while others may have an effect only on accentedness.
Although Abercrombie (1963: 37) argues that: ‘language learners need no more than a comfortably intelligible pronunciation’, it is only later on that many English language teachers realized that it was a realistic teaching goal rather than native-like accent. Cruttenden (2001: 296) believes that: ‘Clearly, a foreign learner who requires an adequate performance in the language for the practical purposes of everyday communication will not need to master all the variants described…Nevertheless, any teacher or learner must consider how much of the time given to the acquisition of another
language should be devoted to pronunciation and what level of performance is necessary for efficient communication’.
For Cruttenden (2001: 292), the foreign learner, even one aiming at a native pronunciation:
Should observe the rules concerning weak forms, should cultivate the correct variations of word rhythmic patterns according to the context, and should make a proper use of liaison forms. In addition, s/he should be aware of the English assimilatory tendencies governing words in context. If the learner is aiming at a native like level of production, s/he must use the special assimilated and elided word forms. The learner’s awareness of the existence of these forms is important as it will help him/her understand much of ordinary colloquial English. The foreign learner is recommended to aim at a relatively careful pronunciation of English in his own speech and, at the same time, to be aware of the features which characterize the more colloquial pronunciation s/he is likely to hear from native speakers.
As long ago as 1963, Abercrombie (1963) claims that: ‘'intelligibility' not 'perfection' is what language learners need’. Abercrombie (Abercrombie, 1963: 37 as quoted in Tech, 1981) argued that:
Most…language learners need no more than a comfortably intelligible pronunciation, and by ‘comfortably’ intelligible, I mean a pronunciation which can be understood with little or no conscious effort on the part of the listener. I believe that pronunciation teaching should have, not a goal which must of necessity be normally an unrealised ideal, but a
limited purpose which will be completely fulfilled: the
attainment of intelligibility.
According to Kenworthy (1987: 13), setting intelligible pronunciation, rather than native-like pronunciation, as a goal
practically means that we are aiming for something 'close enough'. To put it differently, although the foreign speaker does not make precisely the same sound or use the exact feature of linkage or stress, it is possible for the listener to match the sound heard with the sound (or feature) a native speaker would use without too much difficulty.
Most researchers agree that intelligibility is the most appropriate goal for learners, although different learners may have different specific goals. The most sensible goal for learners is to be 'comfortably intelligible' so that they can be understood with little or no conscious effort on the part of the listener (Kenworthy, 1987). A goal like native-likeness may be time- consuming and unrealistic. It is essential, therefore, that teachers make it clear to learners that the goal is intelligible rather than native-like pronunciation, on the grounds that the former is a realistic goal that can be achieved by learners, at a certain age (Please see chapter 4, section 4.2 below for more detail about age and the critical period hypothesis).
According to Pennington (1996), the justifiable and pressing goal is intelligibility. This aim is adequate for those who use the second language for limited communication, and for those who communicate in the second language primarily with others who speak the same first language. Consequently, it is enough to be an intelligible speaker of the target language. It can be said that this mostly applies to learners in the English Department at Damascus University as they often use English language for limited communicative purposes with other non-native speakers. Cruttenden (2001: 299) identifies three types of intelligibility. These are:
1. Restricted intelligibility;
2. Minimal general intelligibility; 3. High acceptability.
1. Restricted intelligibility: Restricted intelligibility refers to the ways in which a speaker may sound unintelligible when s/he speaks English with the phonetic and phonological system of his/her own language. The speaker may be comprehensible only to the extent that some keywords can be decoded as a result of the general context of the situation. Learners whose aim is restricted intelligibility may seek neither to imitate a natural model nor to have any international validity. According to Cruttenden (2001: 299), this is the actual situation for many of those who use English as a second language (even teachers of English) especially within the continents of Africa and India because:
Often, English is used as a lingua franca within their own country which have a number of indigenous languages none of which is acceptable as a national language. Such types of English of restricted intelligibility may conform in many features of lexis and grammar to the native language of Britain or America and may thus in their written form pose no great problems of international intelligibility. But in the spoken form of transmission, interference from indigenous languages may erect a formidable barrier for listeners from other areas where English is spoken.
2. Minimal general intelligibility: The minimum general intelligibility means that the speaker possesses a set of distinctive elements which correspond in some measure to the inventory of the RP phonemic system and the speaker is capable of conveying a message efficiently from a native English listener’s standpoint (Cruttenden, 2001: 298). Cruttenden
(2001: 313) argues that the learner’s style of speech may sound foreign, but it will be generally intelligible to most native English speakers. This means that the native listener will need to adjust his/her decoding habits in much the same way that s/he does when listening to a native speaker using a regional accent of English which differs considerably from his/her own. Cruttenden (2001: 308) describes this type of performance as one in which the learner preserves the chief elements of the RP system and can convey a message with some ease to a native English listener. It is regarded as essential that the accentual characteristics if English (including rhythmic features and the associated obscuration of weak syllables) should be retained, as well as the ability to produce the common consonant clusters. But it is possible to reduce the segmental inventory of English very considerably and still retain a good level of intelligibility. The level of minimum general intelligibility may be the practical purpose of the majority of foreign learners. For example, there is no need for a taxi driver to progress beyond the level of basic intelligibility. As a result, for such a purpose, there is no need to pay too much attention to the phonetic and phonological system of the target language. Cruttenden (2001: 104) argues that: ‘because of the difficulties with the RP vowel system, foreign learners may need to set the more attainable target of minimum general intelligibility’. For example, the English diphthong /ƏƱ/ may be given the quality which leads to confusion with /Ɔ/.
3. High acceptability: Gimson (1989:320) defines high acceptabiliy as: ‘a level of attainment in production which, for the native listener, is as readily intelligible as that of a native RP speaker and which is not immediately identifiable as foreign, and as a level of receptive ability which allows the foreign listener to
understand without difficulty all varieties and styles of RP as well as the other important forms of English’. The native listener may not identify the speaker as a non-native. The speaker is precise in the phonetic realization of phonemes accentual and intonational patterns. Many learners may aim at high acceptability for academic reasons or work purposes. Such learners may wish to communicate with non-natives easily without signalling their regional origins.
On the one hand, the minimum general intelligibility could be an attainable target for the majority of the foreign learners. They simply want to be understood when they communicate with others. Therefore, it may be satisfactory for them to be intelligible and the lingua franca core model (Please see section 2.11 about the lingua franca core) is perhaps sufficient. On the other hand, high acceptability could be the aim for learners who aspire to academic positions or work purposes. This means they may aspire for something close to RP. It is significant to investigate learners’ aims of pronunciation in the English Department at Damascus University (Please see the results in Chapter 6) in order to decide the model of pronunciation that learners follow.