Dutch Speakers and English Pronunciation: A Case Study

Introduction

Dutch and English have a considerable number of phonological commonalities in that they

are both stress-timed languages with a substantial number of segmental correlates.

Nonetheless, Dutch speakers ‘commonly find it difficult to master some of the sounds of

English’ (Wester, Gilbers & Lowie 2007, p. 477). This case study explores English pronunciation

and prosody by a native Dutch speaker, comprising a needs analysis and a multi-model

intervention programme to promote intelligibility and reduce interlocutor load. The learning

activities include drama, haptic, and NLP techniques in order to remediate the four

pronunciation errors that pose the largest barriers to intelligibility. These include vowel and

consonant substitutions, inadequate word stress and insufficient separation of tone units.

Method

The data for this study were collected in an informal setting, whereby the learner recorded

two speaking tasks on a smart phone. The tasks consisted of a reading of a set script and a

free speech assignment. The recording was transcribed into English orthography (Appendix

A) and problematic segmental and suprasegmental features were delineated in a diagnostic

chart (Appendices B & C). The results predominantly confirm findings of previous research of

the target learner group; however, one unexpected feature was identified.

Participant Background

The participant is a 45-year-old native Dutch EFL speaker, who converses in Standard Dutch

in formal settings but switches to a South Guelderish dialect in informal contexts. He is an

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 1/31

intermediate ELL, who received the majority of English instruction during six years of

secondary schooling. This required approximately five hours of classroom participation and

self-study per week, which primarily involved literature studies, vocabulary learning and

grammar practice. The national curriculum traditionally places a strong emphasis on reading

skills (European Commission 2012, p. 127), whereas oral communication and pronunciation

are either neglected or omitted from school curricula entirely (Noorman 2008, p. 6).

The participant predominantly uses the L2 in business communications, whereby English

functions as the lingua franca. As a logistics manager for a multinational company, he

converses with both NNS and NS interlocutors. Although he feels confident conversing with

the former, he feels less confident talking to the latter. He expressed integrative and

instrumental motivation for pronunciation instruction. Firstly, he wishes to sound more

native-like to increase confidence when conversing with NS interlocutors. Secondly, he wants

to avoid miscommunications with NNS staff so that company time is used more effectively.

He identified no specific topics he wishes to prioritise.

Dutch Speakers and English Pronunciation

The speech recording was analysed for segmental and suprasegmental features respectively.

The results demonstrate a speech pattern characterised by substitution of unfamiliar and

unfamiliar phonemes; word-final devoicing; apocope; lack of tone unit boundaries; and,

insufficient word stress and intonation. The findings predominantly confirm the research

literature of Dutch speakers of English (DSE). The discussion below is limited to the most

salient issues.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 2/31

Segmentals

Phonemes without correlate in the L1 appear to be problematic. The participant substitutes

the voiced dental fricative with /d/, /v/ or /f/, and its voiceless counterpart with /f/ or /t/,

depending on positional variation (Appendix B, pp. 24 - 25). Additionally, the open front vowel

is consistently substituted in that the words ‘accent’, ‘can’ and ‘practice’ are pronounced with

a prominent /ɛ/ sound (Appendix A, line 1, 10 & 11). These findings correlate with the results

of a small-scale research project of 132 DSE, which found that pronunciation of the phonemes

/ð/, /θ/ and /æ/ appeared to be problematic for more than fifty percent of the participants

(Hermans & Sloep 2015, p. 61). These errors may be due to L1 interference in that these

phonemes have no correlate in the native tongue. Considering that language learners filter

the L2 through the sound inventory of the L1, they are likely to hear and produce unfamiliar

sounds incorrectly (Gilbert 2008, p. 21).

Nonetheless, vowels that do have a correlate are also pronounced with a distinct ‘Dutch

flavour’ due to incorrect movement of the articulators. For example, the participant produces

the low central vowel /ʌ/ either as a low back or a mid central vowel (Appendix B, p. 25).

Furthermore, diphthongs lack the characteristic glide quality in that the closing diphthong

/əʊ/ becomes the long pure vowel /ɔ:/ (Appendix B, p. 26). These findings match the results

from the aforementioned study, confirming that incorrect productions of /ʌ/ and /əʊ/ may

be characteristic of DSE.

Contrarily, the participant substitutes /ɪ/ with /i:/ (Appendix B, p. 25), which is not listed in

the inventory of common errors of DSE in the aforementioned study. At present, the cause is

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 3/31

unclear, in that the short vowel is an unmarked phoneme in the Dutch phonetic alphabet thus

suggesting facilitation rather than interference. However, the error occurs in the

pronunciation of multisyllabic words only, which may indicate this is a suprasegmental rather

than segmental error, in that the speaker applies an L1 word stress pattern by lengthening

the final syllable.

Word-final articulations appear to be particularly problematic for the participant, in that

word-final consonants tend to be devoiced or deleted. For example, /d/ becomes /t/, /z/

becomes /s/, /v/ becomes /f/, and /ʤ/ becomes /ʒ/ (Appendix B, p. 24). Furthermore, /t/ is

deleted in word-final consonant clusters, in that ‘accent’ is pronounced as /ɛksən/ and

‘difficult’ as /dɪfɪkʌl/ (Appendix A, line 1 & 2). This error is particularly problematic in

negations, in that ‘can’t’ is pronounced as /kɛn/ (Appendix A, line 10), resulting in utterances

that convey the opposite of intended meanings. These segmental errors might be caused by

L1 interference. In Dutch, pronunciation of word-final syllables is constrained by the

obligatory phonological rule of devoicing (Kuijpers, Van Donselaar & Cutler 2002, p. 1661).

Consequently, all word-final obstruents become voiceless in the participant’s English

pronunciation. Additionally, word-final /t/-lenition is an optional feature in Dutch in that the

plosive is usually released in formal speech; however, in informal registers, it may be reduced,

especially in coda clusters, or even entirely deleted (Mitterer & Ernestus 2006, p. 77). The

participant speaks a Dutch dialect in informal settings, in which the word-final /t/ is not

released. This unmarked feature is transferred to the L2.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 4/31

Suprasegmentals

The analysis of suprasegmental features demonstrates that the learner applies prosodic

patterns that research literature confirms as characteristic of DSE. This may be caused by L1

interference in that NNSs ‘tend to rely on their L1 rhythm system . . . and this is likely to

interfere with acquiring oracy in English’ (Gilbert 2008, p. 22)

Firstly, the participant does not pause between tone units when expected (Appendix C, p. 30).

An analysis of a multilingual speech database found that English speakers pause eight times

in a fast-spoken text consisting of thirty-five words, whereas Dutch speakers pause only ten

times in a text more than twice in length (Monaghan 2002, Table 20.2 & 20.4). Although

comparison of the data is problematic in that each participant read an L1 text, it might

indicate that Dutch speakers pause less frequently than Anglophone speakers. The participant

may have transferred the L1’s rapid rate of speech to the L2.

Secondly, the participant produces the focus words without sufficient highlights or

distortions. Syllables with secondary-stress and unstressed syllables are produced with nearly

equal vowel quality (Appendix C, p. 29). This matches the findings in a review article, which

reported that Dutch speakers ‘do not segmentally reduce the unstressed vowels of English

words’ (Braun, Lemhöfer & Mani 2010 p. 378). This is caused by L1 interference in that an

unstressed syllable directly adjacent to a stressed syllable most often contains a full vowel in

Dutch (Cooper, Cutler & Wales 2002, p. 208).

Thirdly, the participant produces the peak in the stressed syllable without sufficient vowel

lengthening and pitch level increases (Appendix C, p. 31) resulting in comparatively

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 5/31

intonation. Reduced pitch contours might be characteristic of DSE. A small-scale study found

that DSE produce smaller pitch movements than NS, produce no precursive rise, and produce

a limited or no rise on the nucleus (Willems 2010, p. 53).

Four Intelligibility Barriers

The features discussed above signal that the participant is a non-native speaker of English.

However, accentedness is not inherently problematic since it does not necessarily have a

negative impact on either intelligibility or comprehensibility (Munro & Derwing 1999, p. 303).

On the contrary, a small-scale study found that native English listeners might perceive a

foreign-accented speech simultaneously highly intelligible, comprehensible as well as heavily-

accented (Munro & Derwing 1999, p. 302). Therefore, the identification of the four most

problematic features has been guided by the relative functional load (RFL) principle and the

prosody pyramid theory. The identification has been guided furthermore by the general rule

that a conflation of ‘stress errors with other types of errors can seriously disrupt

communication’ (Gilbert 2008, p.5).

The two most serious segmental errors include the substitution of word-final /d/ with /t/ and

the substitution of /æ/ with /ɛ/. These errors have been prioritised based on the notion that

these phoneme contrasts carry a high RFL, namely RFL 72 and 42 respectively (Celce-Murcia

2008, pp. 108 & 260). Therefore, these errors are likely to reduce intelligibility significantly by

conveying incorrect or confusing messages. Especially when the two segmental errors appear

in conjunction, as in the minimal pairs /bæd/, /bɛd/, /bæt/ and /bɛt/, which all sound alike, it

is unlikely that the speaker’s intended meanings will be conveyed correctly. Instead,

confusion and miscommunication are likely to arise.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 6/31

The two most serious suprasegmental errors include insufficient tone unit boundaries and

inadequate contrastive highlighting and obscuring in the focus word. The continuous flow of

speech punctuated with few and relatively brief boundaries renders it a sea of sounds. This

places a burden on the listener, who – if the burden becomes too great – might stop listening

altogether (Gilbert 2008, p. 2). Furthermore, new or paramount information is insufficiently

emphasised thus it is unlikely that listeners grasp the speaker’s intended meanings. The

combined lack of thought group boundaries and lexical stress have a negative impact on

intelligibility thus requiring priority in pronunciation instruction.

ESL versus EIL Contexts

The four aforementioned features should remain the focus in both ESL and EIL contexts in

that intervention promotes listener-friendly speech that is intelligible to both NSs and NNSs.

However, in ESL contexts, the teaching and learning programme could be supplemented with

additional activities to accommodate sociolinguistic factors that impact the non-native

speaker.

In ESL contexts, accentedness could receive more attention than in EIL contexts based on the

perception that ‘there is intolerance for foreign accents in certain circles, particularly

employers’ (Sato 1991, cited in Munro & Derwing 1999, p. 286). Therefore, out of

consideration for the participant’s socio-economic well-being, instruction should target those

features that most saliently signal the learner as a NNS. Perhaps the intervention programme

could be supplemented with additional instruction on accurate perception and production of

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 7/31

dental fricatives and diphthongs as incorrect pronunciation will in all likelihood mark the

speaker as a NNS.

Contrarily, accentedness is less of a consideration in EIL contexts in that speech production

should be intelligible to other NNS speakers. Listening and speaking is complicated in EIL

contexts in that both interlocutors decode English pronunciation according to different

phonological rules. Therefore, Jenkins (2002, p. 96) argues for pronunciation teaching based

on the Lingua Franca Core (LFC), which focusses on ‘those phonological and phonetic features

which . . . seem to be crucial as safeguards of mutual intelligibility’. According to this theory,

three out of the four problem areas identified would be considered non-core features, in that

‘word stress is unteachable’, pronunciation errors in consonant clusters are problematic in

word-initial and word-medial position only, and vowels can be pronounced with consistent

regional qualities (Jenkins 2006, p.99).

Contrarily, the LFC guidelines appear counterproductive in relation to the present study.

Firstly, it is unclear how Jenkins envisages a speaker emphasises meanings if not through word

stress. Secondly, consonant clusters in word-final position often carry crucial grammatical and

semantic information thus suggesting that they should be teaching priorities. This is

confirmed by the present study in that the speaker deletes negations in word-final consonant

clusters thus reducing intelligibility. Thirdly, the participant produces segmental errors that

have a high RFL, which, especially when conflated, might result in miscommunication and

confusion. For example, the participant pronounces /bæd/, /bɛd/, /bæt/ and /bɛt/ identically,

thus increasing interlocutor load, in that the listener has to solve a linguistic puzzle before the

intended meanings can be comprehended. The LFC guidelines appear to contradict the

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 8/31

participant’s needs in relation to improving intelligibility and reducing interlocutor load.

Therefore, the aforementioned teaching priorities should not be changed in an EIL context in

that they promote listener-friendly, clear speech.

Intervention Programme

The intervention program is sequenced according to the prosody pyramid in that it progresses

from thought group boundaries to lexical stress to segmental errors. It includes controlled,

guided and free practice, including activities based on drama, haptic, and NLP techniques.

Where possible, the activities align with the learner’s vocational and avocational interests in

order to render the programme relevant to the learner’s context and foster engagement with

the activities.

Intervention 1 - Thought Group Boundaries

This part of the programme focusses on thought group boundaries. The first activity is an

adaptation of a drama technique described by Celce-Murcia et al. (2008, p.340). However, in

contrast to the recommendation, the adaptation is a perception activity. Its purpose is to

develop awareness of improved intelligibility in moderately-paced speech punctuated by

effective tone unit boundaries. Accordingly, the learner listens to two speeches. The first

speech is delivered rapidly, punctuated with few pauses only. The second speech is more

listener-friendly, characterised by a slower speech rate and appropriate tone unit boundaries.

Each speech is followed by listening comprehension questions. The purpose of this activity is

to demonstrate that slower speech with effective boundaries facilities comprehension of the

message. Once awareness of the relation between tone unit boundaries and intelligibility has

been developed, the prosody pyramid and the concept of thought groups should be

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 9/31

explained. The activity is concluded with a listening exercise whereby learner marks

boundaries on a transcript while listening to a well-delivered, listener-friendly speech.

The second activity requires that the learner writes and delivers a work-related speech, which

needs to be recorded. Firstly, the learner needs to deliver the speech as per usual, without

considering appropriate pauses. Thereafter, he needs to listen to the recording and mark on

a transcript where he should have paused to improve intelligibility. After this analysis, the

learner needs to make a second recording incorporating his own findings as well as teacher

feedback. The second recording also needs to be evaluated for improvements in delivering

listener-friendly speech with appropriate pauses.

Intervention 2 - Word Stress

The following two activities focus on word stress. The first activity requires that the learner

develops a learner-dictionary of work-related terminology. Prior to the activities, the concept

of word stress including schwa needs to be explained, perhaps with the help of visual aids and

cartoons to clarify the concepts. Additionally, phonetic notations of word stress and the

schwa-symbol need to be shown so that the learner can proceed with the first activity. This

requires that the learner identifies work-related terminology and examines these in a

dictionary to discover their stress patterns and possible vowel reductions. This is followed by

controlled practice, whereby the learner pronounces the words with the correct stress

pattern, including vowel lengthening, reductions and syncope.

The second activity aims to consolidate the speaking skills introduced above. It includes haptic

techniques, based on the notion that ‘a motor act activates neuronal pathways, classically

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 10/31

expressed as “neurons that fire together, wire together”’ (Gilbert 2008, p. 33). The activity is

an adaptation of Acton’s ‘Rhythm Fight Club Demonstration’, and requires a punch bag and

boxing gloves. This technique is particularly suitable for the learner, who has been a keen

amateur boxer for many years. It proceeds as follows: the learner punches the bag while

uttering the words identified in the activity above. The syllable with primary stress is

accompanied by a powerful uppercut; the syllable with secondary stress is accompanied by a

gentle jab; and unstressed syllables are accompanied by no punches at all. This activity can

progress in complexity, in that the movements can accompany entire phrases, whereby the

learner uses most strength on the focus words, limited strength on non-prominent words,

and steps back into neutral position at thought group boundaries.

Intervention 3 - Devoicing: /d/ becomes /t/

The following activities focus on devoicing, and the substitution of /d/ with /t/ specifically.

The purpose of the activities is to teach the learner resyllabification and blending strategies

in order to remediate word-final devoicing. The learner experiences difficulties pronouncing

voiced consonants in word-final position but not in word-medial position. Hypothetically, by

blending two words, the troublesome voiced consonant moves from word-final to word-

medial position thus no longer posing a pronunciation problem. The first activity involves

controlled pronunciation practice of CC+V sequences including /d/ in word-final position, e.g.

‘blin/d__eye, wil/d__ass and ol/d__age’ (Celce-Murcia et al. 2010, p. 172). The activity can be

reinforced with kinaesthetic techniques by making a sweeping arm movement when

connecting the two words.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 11/31

The second activity is a communicative activity whereby the learner recounts a past event.

During the narration, the learner needs to use regular verbs in the past simple tense thus

ascertaining frequent occurrence of words with voiced alveolar plosives in word-final

position. The learner may need to develop a short vocabulary list beforehand. The free

practice is preceded by an activity based on an NLP technique described by Celce-Murcia et

al. (2010, p. 339). Firstly, the learner has to visualise the event to be narrated. Secondly, he

needs to visualise the action verbs. Thirdly, he needs to imagine the /d/s flying from one word

to the next. Once the learner has a strong mental image of /d/-resyllabification, he can

proceed with the narration. The learner should try to recall the mental imagery created prior

so as to establish neural connections between visual representations of resyllabification and

required motor movements.

Intervention 4 - Substitution: /æ/ becomes /ɛ/

The last part of the intervention programme focusses on the substitution of /æ/ with /ɛ/. The

activities include drama techniques and controlled practice of minimal pairs. The activities

should be preceded by a demonstration of the different jaw movements involved in producing

/æ/ versus /ɛ/. The first activity involves listening to a recorded speech during which the

teacher and learner jointly mime the production of /æ/ and /ɛ/ sounds. The miming reinforces

that the vowels require different jaw movements, whereby the jaw is opened further to

produce the /æ/ phoneme.

The second activity consolidates accurate production of the open front vowel by practising

minimal pairs, such as /bæt/ versus /bɛt/, /mæt/ versus /mɛt/. The difficulty level can be

increased by adding multisyllabic words to the controlled practice.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 12/31

Self-Reflection

This project has provided numerous new insights and skills in addition to learning how to

conduct a pronunciation needs analysis and undertake a mini-research project. Three insights

appear particularly significant in relation to this project. Firstly, I have learned that

pronunciation – like grammar – can be segmented into manageable chunks, which renders it

both teachable and learnable. Especially for adult learners, this is inspiring news, in that it

means that no one needs to accept a fossilised accent. Instead, it can be improved upon in a

systemic manner. Secondly, I have learned that mastering English pronunciation is more

multi-faceted than learning how to speak like the natives do. As interactive, communicative,

goal-oriented beings, clear communication appears a more rewarding goal than acquiring a

NS accent. The participant will potentially reap more benefits from developing clear, listener-

friendly speech without the aforementioned intelligibility barriers, than acquiring a NS

speaker accent. Thirdly, I am starting to develop a more ‘perceptive ear’, which seems like the

auditory equivalent of the ability to read body language. Prosody conveys interpersonal

meanings the speaker may not intend to verbalise. By carefully examining the participant’s

speech for prosodic clues, I have become – admittedly only incipiently – more aware of the

unspoken information speakers convey through prosodic means. Enervation, excitement,

boredom, enthusiasm; they can all be detected, if only one knows how to listen.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 13/31

References

Acton, B n.d., ‘AH-EPS-Rhythm Fight Club-Demo (conversational fluency)’, podcast, viewed 16

October 2015, https://vimeo.com/61195605.

Braun, B, Lemhöfer, C & Mani, N 2010, ‘Perceiving unstressed vowels in foreign-accented English’,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 376 – 387.

Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, DM, Goodwin, JM & Griner B 2010, Teaching Pronunciation, Cambridge
University Press, New York.

Cooper, N, Cutler, A & Wales, R 2002, ‘Constraints of Lexical Stress on Lexical Access in English:
Evidence from Native and Non-Native Listeners’, Language and Speech, vol. 45, no. 3, pp.
207 – 228.

European Commission 2012, Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012, European
Commission, viewed 16 October 2015,
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143en.pdf.

Gilbert, JB 2008, Teaching Pronunciation Using the Prosody Pyramid, Cambridge University Press,
New York, USA.

Hermans, F & Sloep, P 2015, ‘Teaching the Dutch how to pronounce English’, International Journal of
Language Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 55 – 80.

Jenkins, J 2002, ‘A Sociolinguistically Based, Empirically Researched Pronunciation Syllabus for

English as an International Language’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 83 – 103.

Kuijpers, C, Van Donselaar, W & Cutler, A 2002, ‘Perceptual effects of assimilation-induced violation
of final devoicing in Dutch’, paper presented at The 7th International Conference on Spoken
Language Processing, 16 – 20 September, Denver, viewed 16 October 2015,
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/27269181_Perceptual_effects_of_assimilation-
induced_violation_of_final_devoicing_in_Dutch.

Mitterer, H & Ernestus, M 2006, ‘Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-
lenition in Dutch’, Journal of Phonetics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 73 – 103.

Monaghan, A 2002, ‘An Auditory Analysis of the Prosody of Fast and Slow Speech Styles in English,
Dutch and German’, Improvements in Speech Analysis, 1st edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
USA, pp. 204 – 217.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 14/31

Munro, MJ & Derwing, TM 1999, ‘Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech
of Second Language Learners’, Language Learning, vol. 49, pp. 285 – 310.

Noorman, I 2008, ‘ENL, ESL, EFL, EIL or ELF? On the Idea of Teaching the Lingua Franca Core at Dutch
Secondary Schools’, MA Thesis, Utrecht University.

Wester, F, Gilbers, D & Lowie, W 2007, ‘Substitution of dental fricatives in English by Dutch L2
speakers’, Language Sciences, vol. 29, no. 2 – 3, pp. 477 – 491.

Willems, N 2010, English Intonation from a Dutch point of view, Netherlands Phonetic Archives, De
Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 15/31

 Appendix A: Transcripts of the Two Speech Samples

Explanations

The first text below is an orthographic transcript of the scripted text read aloud by the learner.

This text is the reading passage as provided for the subject ‘English Pronunciation and

Prosody’. The second text is a transcript of an unrehearsed narrative during which the learner

talks about his hobby, namely cross-country horse-drawn carriage racing. Nick refers to this

interest by the Dutch term ‘mennen.’ During the narrative he states that he has become the

‘reservist of the section East’ which means that he is currently the runner-up in regional

competitions in the eastern provinces of the Netherlands.

The following symbols have been used to transcribe the audio recordings:

 Asterisk * for obviously mispronounced words due to the learner’s unfamiliarity with

the word rather a systematic speech pattern,

 Double dash surrounded by spaces – for restarts,

 Single dash immediately after phoneme - for words not pronounced completely,

 Square brackets [] for words inserted by the transcriber in order to clarify the meaning

of unrehearsed/unscripted speech,

 Triple full stops . . . for omissions of text from the original script.

Transcript 1: Scripted text

Is English your native language? If not, your foreign accent may show people that you come

from another country. Why is . . . difficult to speak a foreign language without an accent?

There are a couple of answers to this question. First, age is an important factor of learning in

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 16/31

pronounce. We know that young children can learn a second language with a perfect

*pronuncation. We also know that older learners usually have an accent, to some older

individuals also have learned to speak without an accent.

Another factor that influences your – influences your *pronuncation is your first language.

English speakers can’t, for example, recognize people from France by their France accents.

They can also identify Spanish or Arabic speakers over the telephone, just by listening

carefully to them. . . . this mean that accents can- be changed? Not at all! But you can change

your pronunciation without a lot of hard work. In the end, improving appears to be a

combination of three things: concentrated hard work, a good ear, and a strong ambition to

see – to sound like a native speaker.

You also need accurate information about English sounds, effective strategies for practice,

lots of exposure to spoken English, and patience. Will you make progress, or will you give up?

Only time will tell. I’m afraid. But it’s your decision. You can improve! Good luck, and don’t

forget to work hard.

Transcript 2: Unrehearsed/unscripted text

And now I’m going to tell something about my hobby. I am – my hobby is a Dutch – uh it’s

called in Dutch ‘mennen’. It’s dri- -- is driving with a horse, but you are not sitting on the horse,

but you are driven on a car [carriage] behind it. In the Netherlands, I am the reserve champion

of the section ‘East.’ What do you have to do for this uh hobby? Now, first of all, you need a

very fast horse. And also, what you need is a good – is a good car [carriage]. What do have to

do? You have to drive as fast as possible through twenty coins. The distance is one kilometre,

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 17/31

you have to do this in three minutes. You mustn’t touch one of the coin, and, you must drive

it in three or less uh than three minutes, than you can possibly win. If I will be the champion

next week on Saturday, I have to be -- I go to the championship of the Netherlands. If I will be

the champion? I don’t think so. But, I will try.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 18/31

 Appendix B: Segmental Analysis and Diagnostic Chart

Segmental Analysis

Transcript 1: Scripted text

1 Is English your native language? If not, your foreign accent may show people that you come

/neɪtɪf læŋgwɪʒ/ /ɛksən/ /ʃɔ:/ /kɒm/

2 from another country. Why is . . . difficult to speak a foreign language without an accent?

/kaʊntri:/ /dɪfɪkʌl/ /læŋgwɪʒ wɪvaʊt/

/ɛksən/

3 There are a couple of answers to this question. First, age is an important factor of learning

/dɛr/ /dɪs/ /fæktɒr/

4 in pronounce. We know that young children can learn a second language with a perfect

/nɔ:/ /jɒŋ/ /wɪf/

5 pronuncation. We also know that older learners usually have an accent, though some older

/prɔ:naʊnseɪʃʌn/ /nɔ:/ /tɔ:/

6 individuals also have learned to speak without an accent.

/ɪndi:vi:du:ls/ /wɪvaʊt/

7 Another factor that influences your – influences your pronuncation is your first language.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 19/31

 /prɔ:nʌnseɪʃʌn/

8 English speakers can’t, for example, recognize people from France by their France accents.

/kɛnt/ /frɛns/ /frɛns ɛksɛns /

9 They can also identify Spanish or Arabic speakers over the telephone, just by listening

/kɛn/ /i:dɛnti:faɪ spæni:ʃ/ /æræbɪk/

10 carefully to them. . . . this mean that accents can- be changed? Not at all! But you can

/dɛm/ /dɪs/ /dæt ɛksənts kɛn/ /ʧeɪnʃt/ /kɛn

11 change your pronunciation without a lot of hard work. In the end, improving appears to

ʧeɪnʃ/ /prɔ:nʌnseɪʃʌn wɪvaʊt/ /hɑ:rt/ /ɛnt/

12 be a combination of three things: concentrated hard work, a good ear, and a strong

/fri: tɪŋs/ /kɒnsɛntreɪtɪt hɑ:rt/ /gʊt/

13 ambition to see – to sound like a native speaker.

/neɪtɪf/

14 You also need accurate information about English sounds, effective strategies for practice,

/ni:t ɛku:rət/ /ɛfɛktɪf/ /prɛktɪs/

15 lots of exposure to spoken English, and patience. Will you make progress, or will you give

/ɛkspɔ:sər/ /spɔ:kn ɪŋglɪs/

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 20/31

16 up? Only time will tell. I’m afraid. But it’s your decision. You can improve! Good luck, and

/əfreɪt/ /di:sɪʃʌn/ /kɛn ɪmprʊf gʊt/

17 don’t forget to work hard.

/dɔ:nt/ /hɑ:rt/

Transcript 2: Unrehearsed/unscripted text

18 And now I’m going to tell something about my hobby. I am – my hobby is a Dutch – uh it’s

/sɑmtɪŋ baʊt mə/ /dətʃ/

19 called in Dutch ‘mennen’. It’s dri- -- is driving with a horse, but you are not sitting on the

/dətʃ/ /wɪv/

20 horse, but you are driven on a car behind it. In the Netherlands, I am the reserve

/nɛdərləns/

21 champion of the section ‘East.’ What do you have to do for this uh hobby? Now, first of
/ʧæmpjən ɒf/ /hæf/ /dɪs/ /ɒf/

22 all you need a very fast horse. And also, what you need is a good – is a good car.

/fɛri:/

23 What do you have do? You have to drive as fast as possible through twenty coins. The

/draɪf/ /trʊ/ /də/

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 21/31

24 distance is one kilometre, you have to do this in three minutes. You mustn’t touch one of

/ki:lɔ:meɪtr/ /dɪs/ /fri:/ /məsn tɒtʃ/ /ɒf

25 the coin, and, you must drive it in three or less uh than three minutes, than you can

də kɔɪn ɛn/ /məs draɪf/ /fri:/ /dɛn fri:/ /dɛn/ /kɛn/

26 possibly win. If I will be the champion next week on Saturday, I have to be -- I go to the

/ʧæmpjən/ /sɑ:tʌrdeɪ/ /hɛf/

27 championship of the Netherlands. If I will be the champion? I don’t think so. But, I will try.

/ʧæmpjənʃɪp/ /nɛdərləns/ /də ʧæmpjən/ /fɪŋk/ /bət/

Segmentals Diagnostic Chart

Problematic Feature Examples Comments

Consonants
– High Functional Load (FL)
1. /d/ becomes /t/ in
word final position.
- / əfreɪt/ (line 16) and This learner’s speech is
/ hɑ:rt/ (line 17). characterised by word final
devoicing. This is
problematic with alveolar
plosive contrasts in that
they carry a high FL (RFL 72).
Hence, incorrect
pronunciation may
negatively affect
comprehensibility. E.g., the
contrast between /bɛd/ and
/bɛt/ would be unclear,
which could lead to
misunderstandings.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 22/31

 2. /z/ becomes /s/ in - /tɪŋs/ (line 12) and This is an additional
word final position. /nɛdərləns/ (line 27). systematic pattern of word
final devoicing, whereby the
voiced alveolar fricative
becomes a voiceless
alveolar fricative. This is an
additional high FL error -
RFL 38 - which may
negatively impact
comprehensibility. E.g., the
declension of plural noun
forms are not clearly
pronounced which may lead
to miscommunication.
Consonants
– Low Functional Load (FL)
3. /v/ becomes /f/ in - /neɪtɪf/ (line 1) and This is an additional
word final position. /ɪmprʊf/ (line 16). systematic pattern of word
final devoicing. However,
this feature has less impact
on comprehensibility since
labiodental fricative
contrasts carry a low FL.
4. /ð/ becomes The speaker substitutes the
- /d/ in word initial - /dɛr/ and /dɪs/ (line voiced dental fricative
position; 3). depending on positional
- /v/ in word medial - /wɪvaʊt/ (line 2). variation. As this is
position; and, considered a low FL error, it
- /f/ in word final - /wɪf/ (line 4). may not have a negative
position. impact on
comprehensibility.
5. /θ/ becomes The speaker substitutes the
- /f/ or /t/ in word - /fri:/ (line 12); /fɪŋk/ voiceless dental fricative
initial position; and (line 27); /tɪŋs/ (line depending on positional
12); and /through/ variation. However, as
(line 23). above, this feature may not
be problematic. It is a
- /t/ in word medial - /sɑmtɪŋ/ line 18). salient feature that the
position. speaker chooses different
substitutes for the
problematic vowel.
6. /ʤ/ becomes /ʒ/ or - /læŋgwɪʒ/ (line 1) and The speaker changes the
/ʃ/. /ʧeɪnʃt/ (line 10). voiced affricate into
different voiceless
substitutes. However, as
above, this feature may not
be problematic.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 23/31

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 24/31
 Consonants
- Other
7. /t/-final deletion 8. /kænt/ becomes The /t/ has been deleted
/kɛn/ (line 10). entirely in word-final
consonant clusters,
especially in negations after
auxiliary verbs. This feature
is problematic in that the
listener will hear exactly the
opposite of the intended
message.
Vowels
– High Functional Load (FL)
8. /ʌ/ becomes /ɒ/. - /kɒm/ (line 1) and This feature is relatively
/jɒŋ/ (line 4). problematic since the
contrast of low central
vowels and low back vowels
carries a high FL (RFL 61).
This feature is likely to
affect comprehensibility
negatively.
9. /æ/ becomes /ɛ/. - /ɛksən/ (line 1) and The substitution of open
/prɛktɪs/ (line 14). front vowels with mid front
vowels might be
problematic since this
contrast carries a relatively
high FL (RFL 42). Therefore,
this may affect
comprehensibility
negatively; for example,
/bæd/ could be understood
as /bɛd/.
Vowels
– Low Functional Load (FL)
10. /ʌ/ becomes /ə/. - /dətʃ/ (line 18) and The substitution of the low
/bət/ (line 26). central vowel with the mid
central vowel may not be
problematic since this
contrast error carries a low
FL.
Vowels - Other
11. /ɪ/ becomes /i:/ in - /spæni:ʃ/ (line 9) and This feature occurs in
multisyllabic words. /di:sɪʃʌn/. multisyllabic words only.
Contrarily, the vowel is
pronounced correctly in /
dɪs/ and /tɪŋs/. This might
be a combination of a

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 25/31


Diphthongs
– High Functional Load (FL)
12. /əʊ/ becomes /ɔ:/.
segmental problem, i.e.
substitution, and a
suprasegmental problem,
i.e. insufficient de-emphasis
of the unstressed syllable.
- /nɔ:/ (line 4) and The diphthong lacks the
/dɔ:nt/ (line 17). glide and is pronounced as a
long, pure vowel. This
feature may be problematic
since this contrast carries a
high FL (RFL 42).

NB: Relative functional load (RFL) rankings originate from Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, DM, Goodwin, JM
& Griner B 2010, Teaching Pronunciation, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 26/31

 Appendix C: Suprasegmental Analysis and Diagnostic Chart

Suprasegmental Analysis
Transcript 1: Scripted text

1 || Is English your native language? | If || not, || your foreign accent may show people that

2 you come from another country.| Why is . . . difficult to speak a foreign language without

3 an accent? || There are a couple of answers to this question. | First, | age is an important

4 factor of learning in | pronounce. || We know that young children can learn a second

5 language with a perfect pronuncation. | We also know that older learners | usually have

6 an accent, | though some older individuals | also have learned to speak without an

7 accent.|

8 | Another factor that influences your || influences your || pronunciation | is your first

9 language. | English speakers can’t, for example, recognize people from France by their

10 France accents. | They can also identify Spanish | or Arabic speakers over the telephone,

11 | just by listening carefully to them | . . . this mean | that || accents can- be changed?

12 | Not at all! || But you can change your | pronunciation without a lot of hard work. | In

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 27/31

13 the end, improving appears to be a combination of three things: concentrated hard work,

14 | a good ear, and a strong ambition to see | to sound like a native speaker.||

15 || You also need accurate information about English sounds, | effective strategies | for

16 practice, | lots of exposure to spoken English, and patience. || Will you make progress,

17 | or will you give up? || Only time will tell. | I’m afraid. | But it’s your decision. You can

18 improve! Good luck, and don’t forget to work hard.||

Transcript 2: Unrehearsed/unscripted text

19 || n now I’m going t tell something bout m hobby. || I am | my hobby is a Dutch | uh it’s

20 called in Dutch |‘mennen’. | It’s dri- -- is driving with a horse, | but you are not sitting on

21 the horse, but you are driven | on a car behind it. || In the Netherlands, I am the reserve

22 champion of the section ‘East.’ || What do you have to do for this | uh hobby? | Now,

23 first of all | you need a very fast horse. || And also, || what you need is a good | is a good

24 car.|| What do you have do? || You have to drive || as fast as possible || through twenty

25 coins. | The distance is one kilometre, | you have to do this in three minutes. || You

26 mustn’t touch one of the coin, | and, | you must drive it in three or less uh than three

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 28/31

27 minutes, | than you can possibly win. || If I will be the champion | next week on Saturday,

28 I have to be -- I go to the championship of the Netherlands. | If I will be the champion? |

29 I don’t think so. | But, | I will try. ||

NB: Incorrect deletions and reductions have been marked in blue.

Suprasegmentals Diagnostic Chart

Problematic Feature Examples Comments

Word Stress The learner’s speech is
characterised by both a lack
of emphasis and de-
emphasis. This lack of
contrastive highlights may
impact intelligibility
negatively in that the peak
in focus words is not
sufficiently emphasised.

1. Equal stress on all - ‘decision’ (line 17) - This speaker does

syllables – lack of de- and ‘kilometre’ (line neither reduce
emphasis. 25). unstressed vowels
nor produce the
schwa sound.
Instead, all vowels
are produced with
equal stress.

2. Stressed vowels not - ‘speakers’ (line 9) - The speaker does

lengthened and ‘champion’ (line not lengthen
appropriately – lack 25). stressed syllables
of contrastive vowel sufficiently to
length. contrast stressed
and unstressed
vowels.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 29/31

 3. Negative transfer of - ‘Arabic’ (line 10) and - The speaker
L1 stress patterns to ‘strategies’ (line 15). transfers L1 stress
multisyllabic words. patterns especially
to words shared by
the L1 and L2.

Linking The learner produces

comparatively staccato
speech due to a lack of
linking in connected speech.

4. No glides between - ‘hobby is’ (line 19) - Pronounced as

vowel sequences and ‘Why is’ (line 2). separate words
between words. rather than
hobby y is.

5. No intervocalic - ‘good ear’ (line 14) - Pronounced as

consonant sharing. and ‘some older’ separate words
(line 6). rather than
goo_d_ear.

Tone Unit The learner speaks at a

6. Insufficient pauses - ‘country. Why’ (line
between sentences. 2) and, ‘decision.
You’ (line 17).
continuous rate with only
brief pauses between most
major boundaries.
Sentences appear to run
together, which may affect
comprehensibility.

Sentence Stress / The speaker places equal

Prominence
7. Equal stress on most - ‘Why . . . accent?’
words in the thought (line 2 – 3); ‘you . . .
groups. minutes’ (line 26 -
27) and ‘If . . .
Netherlands’ (line 27
– 28).
stress on all nearly content
words in the thought groups
and sentences. Therefore, it
is difficult to identify either
new information and/or the
most important
information.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 30/31

 Rhythm The learner speaks
continuously with brief
8. Deletion of entire - ‘it’ (line 2) and ‘does’ pauses only. Perhaps as a
words. (line 11). consequence of maintaining
a fast rate of speech, the
learner omits words
Therefore, intended
meanings may not be
understood by listeners.

9. Reduction of - ‘to’ and ‘my’ (line This strategy to maintain

syllables. 19). the flow of speech might be
interference from the L1.
For instance, in Dutch ‘my’,
/maɪn/ can be reduced to
/mən/.

Intonation The learner’s speech is

characterised by either level
10. Limited variation in 11. ‘a couple of answers intonation contours or
pitch levels. to this question’ (line limited pitch variations. For
3) and ‘What . . . instance, a number of
hobby’ (line 22). declarative sentences have
a level pitch contour rather
than a rise fall intonation
towards the end of the
thought group.

Gijsbertha van de Water Page 31/31