Cover not available
Part of
The Evolution of Pronunciation Teaching and Research: 25 years of intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness
Edited by John M. Levis, Tracey M. Derwing and Murray J. Munro
[Benjamins Current Topics 121] 2022
► pp. 153–179

Second language comprehensibility as a dynamic construct

ORCID logo | Concordia University
ORCID logo | Iowa State University
ORCID logo | University of Calgary
ORCID logo | Concordia University
ORCID logo | Concordia University
ORCID logo | Concordia University
This study examined longitudinal changes in second language (L2) interlocutors’ mutual comprehensibility ratings (perceived ease of understanding speech), targeting comprehensibility as a dynamic, time-varying, interaction-centered construct. In a repeated-measures, within-participants design, 20 pairs of L2 English university students from different language backgrounds engaged in three collaborative and interactive tasks over 17 minutes, rating their partner’s comprehensibility at 2–3 minute intervals using 100-millimeter scales (seven ratings per interlocutor). Mutual comprehensibility ratings followed a U-shaped function over time, with comprehensibility (initially perceived to be high) being affected by task complexity but then reaching high levels by the end of the interaction. The interlocutors’ ratings also became more similar to each other early on and remained aligned throughout the interaction. These findings demonstrate the dynamic nature of comprehensibility between L2 interlocutors and suggest the need for L2 comprehensibility research to account for the effects of interaction, task, and time on comprehensibility measurements.
Keywords: comprehensibility, pronunciation, dynamic, interaction, processing fluency, second language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background literature
    • 2.1Comprehensibility: A measure of understanding
    • 2.2Comprehensibility: An index of processing fluency
    • 2.3A dynamic approach to comprehensibility
  • 3.The present study
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Tasks
    • 4.3Repeated assessments
    • 4.4Procedure
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Coding
    • 5.2Identification of covariates
    • 5.3Statistical modeling
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Comprehensibility across time
    • 6.2Convergence or divergence in comprehensibility
    • 6.3Interview responses
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Time- and task-sensitive view of comprehensibility
    • 7.2Between-speaker alignment in comprehensibility
  • 8.Limitations and future work
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements and open materials and data statement
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 1 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.121.08tro
References (43)
References
Baese-Berk, M. (2018). Perceptual learning for native and non-native speech. In K. D. Federmeier & D. G. Watson (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Current topics in language (pp. 1–29). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2017). Linguistic dimensions of accentenedness and comprehensibility: Exploring task and listener effects in second language French. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 547–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, G. M., & Ernestus, M. (2018). Phonetic alignment in English as a lingua franca: Coming together while splitting apart. Second Language Research, 34, 343–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. E., Kuhlen, A. K., & Charoy, J. (2018). Discourse and dialogue. In S. L. Thompson-Schill (Ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 145–209). Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. M., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3647–3658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. (2019). VocabProfilers [computer program]. [URL]
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015b). Does speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99, 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Linguistic dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 443–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2015a). Second language comprehensibility revisited: Investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 814–837. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Giles, H., Beck, A.-C., & Tatum, N. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84, 385–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ETS. (2017). TOEFL iBT® and IELTS® academic module scores: Score comparison tool. [URL]
Flege, J., & Fletcher, K. (1992). Talker and listener effects on the perception of degree of foreign accent. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 370–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galindo Ochoa, J. A. (2017). The effect of task repetition on Colombian EFL students’ accuracy and fluency (Unpublished master’s thesis). Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., Tosi, A., & Pickering, M. J. (2018). Alignment during interaction. In. S.-A. Rueschemeyer & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 575–593). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2007). Communication Accommodation Theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Santer (eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–309). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Graf, L. K. M., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28, 393–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, O. (2012). Impact of rater characteristics and prosodic features of speaker accentedness on ratings of international teaching assistants’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9, 249–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122, 148–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Fujieda, M. (1999). Intelligibility and comprehensibility of American and Irish Englishes in Japan. World Englishes, 18, 49–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. (2018). Dimensions of pronunciation. In O. Kang, R. I. Thomson, & J. M. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation (pp. 413–431). Routledge.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagle, C., Trofimovich, P., & Bergeron, A. (2019). Toward a dynamic view of second language comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 647–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, E. J., Sanson, M., Miller, E. K., Quigley-McBride, A., Foster, J. L., Bernstein, D. M., & Garry, M. (2014). People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. (2014). L2 learners’ assessments of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning, 64, 715–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakhomov, S. V., Kaiser, E. A., Boley, D. L., Marino, S. E., Knopman, D. S., & Birnbaum, A. K. (2011). Effects of age and dementia on temporal cycles in spontaneous speech fluency. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 619–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Reber, R., & Greifeneder, R. (2017). Processing fluency in education: How metacognitive feelings shape learning, belief formation, and affect. Educational Psychologist, 52, 84–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Shintani, N. (2016). Do native speakers of North American and Singapore English differentially perceive comprehensibility in second language speech? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 421–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2017). Using listener judgements to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38, 439–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2015). If it’s hard to read, it changes how long you do it: Reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22, 206–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., & Khan, S. (2016). Instructor accents in online education and their effect on learning and attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 494–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, B. E., Elliott, N. C., & Baese-Berk, M. M. (2017). Comprehensibility and intelligibility of international student speech: Comparing perceptions of university EAP instructors and content faculty. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 42–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xie, X., Weatherholtz, K., Bainton, L., Rowe, E., Burchill, Z., Liu, L., & Jaeger, T. F. (2018). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented speech and its transfer to an unfamiliar talker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143, 2013–2031. DOI logoGoogle Scholar