Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 8:1 (2022) ► pp.13–39

Phonological features that predict accentedness, comprehensibility, and perceived teaching suitability in Arizona K-12 teachers

ORCID logo | Northern Arizona University
Motivated by a proposed administrative practice that would have discriminated against non-native English speaking (NNES) teachers, this study described an extensive phonological analysis on speech samples from ten certified Arizona teachers to investigate linguistic features that differentiate native English speaking (NES) teachers from NNES teachers. In addition, educational stakeholders (n = 141) impressionistically evaluated the speech samples for comprehensibility, accentedness, and perceived teaching suitability. Phonological features were used to predict listeners’ ratings on these three constructs. Multiple phonological features were found to predict comprehensibility, accentedness, and perceived teaching suitability, but each construct was predicted by a unique set of features. Lastly, stakeholders’ evaluations of NES and NNES teachers were analyzed. Despite individual variability in many of the features of NNES and NES teachers’ speech, educational stakeholders rated NNES teachers as more accented, less comprehensible, and less suited to teach.
Keywords: non-native English speaking teachers, accentedness, comprehensibility, educational stakeholders’ perceptions, speech evaluations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Education policy context in Arizona
    • 1.2Relationships between phonological features and listener evaluations of comprehensibility and accent
    • 1.3Relationships between phonological features and listener evaluations of (perceived) teaching suitability
    • 1.4The study
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
      • 2.1.1Speakers
      • 2.1.2Listeners
    • 2.2Speech elicitation task
    • 2.3Phonological analysis
    • 2.4Data collection procedures
    • 2.5Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Phonological differences between NESTs and NNESTs
      • 3.1.1Segmental features
      • 3.1.2Suprasegmental features
    • 3.2Relationships between phonological features and listener ratings
      • 3.2.1Comprehensibility
      • 3.2.2Accentedness
      • 3.2.3Perceived teaching suitability
    • 3.3Listener evaluations of NES teachers and NNES teachers
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Phonological differences between NES teachers and NNES teachers
    • 4.2Prediction of phonological features on ratings of accentedness, comprehensibility, and perceived teaching suitability
    • 4.3Reconciling listener evaluations with objective phonological analyses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.18005.mor
References (29)
References
Anderson-Hsieh, J. & Koehler, K. (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Language Learning, 38 (4): 561–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson-Hsieh, J. & Venkatagiri, H. (1994). Syllable duration and pausing in the speech of intermediate and high proficiency Chinese ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 28 1, 807–812. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arizona Department of Education. (2013). Arizona College and Career Ready Standards – English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from [URL]
Avery, P. & Ehrlich, S. (2008). Teaching American English pronunciation. China: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blum, A. & Johnson, E. (2012). Reading repression: Textualizing the linguistic marginalization of non-native English-speaking teachers in Arizona. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. 11(3), 167–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, S. (2003). Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to foreign accent. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6 (3–4), 283–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (2017). What do we know about comprehensibility? Retrieved 29 July, 2019 from [URL]
Derwing, T., Frazer, H., Kang, O., & Thompson, R. (2014). Accent and ethics: Issues that merit attention. In A. Mahboob and L. Barratt (Eds.), English in a multilingual context: Language Variation and Education (pp. 63–80). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gándara, P. & Orfield, G. (2012). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and U.S. linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11 1, 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. M. (2012). Firing of FedEx driver for foreign accent highlights ongoing issues. Minority Trial Lawyer, 11 (1), 23–24.Google Scholar
Iredell-Statesville Schools. Academic Vocabulary 2014. Accessed 18 December, 2014 from [URL]
Jin, T., & Mak, B. (2013). Distinguishing features in scoring L2 Chinese speaking performance: How do they work?. Language Testing, 30 (1), 23–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, M. (2010, April 30). Arizona grades teachers on fluency. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from [URL]
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39 1, 31–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38 (2), 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., Thomson, R., & Moran, M. (2018). Exploring the intelligibility of a variety of native and nonnative English accents. Applied Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Denes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32 (2), 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kossan, P. (2011, September 12). Teacher accent scrutiny halted to avoid lawsuit. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from [URL]
Moran, M. (2016). Arizona teachers’ speech: Phonological features and listener perceptions. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.] Northern Arizona University.
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38 (3), 289–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (2), 233–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintana-Lara, M. (2014). Effect of acoustic spectrographic instruction on production of English /i/ and /I/ by Spanish pre-service English teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (3), 207–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ray, G., & Zahn, C. (1999). Language attitudes and speech behavior. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 18 (3), 310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (4), 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. (15 September, 2004). Subpart 1 – Grants and Subgrants for English Language Acquisition and Subpart 1: Grants and Subgrants for English Language Acquisition and Language Enhancement. Accessed 21 October, 2014 from [URL]
Wennerstrom, A. (2000). The role of intonation in second language fluency. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 102–127). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
WIDA Consortium World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment. (2007). English Language Proficiency Standards and Resource Guide: 1–74Google Scholar