The Intelligibility of Thai English Pronunciation to
Native and Non-Native Speakers of English
Jirada Suntornsawet
PhD Student, Department of Education, University of York
Supervisor: Dr. Beatrice Szczepek Reed
Background of the Problems
I am an Indian, very brown, born in Malabar,
I speak three languages, write in two, dream in one.
Don’t write in English, they said,
English is not your mother-tongue.
Why not leave me alone, critics, friends, visiting cousins,
Everyone of you? Why not let me speak in any language I like?
The language I speak becomes mine,
its distortions, its queernesses, all mine, mine alone.
It is half English, half Indian, funny perhaps, but it is honest.
It is human as I am human, don’t you see?
It voices my joys, my belongings, my hopes.
And it is useful to me as cawing is to crows or roaring is to lions,
It is human speech, the speech of the mind that is here and not there,
A mind that sees and hears and is aware. not the deaf, blind speech.
(Kamala Das: ‘An Introduction’, 1965)
Introduction

Standard English Only

Standard English will be appropriate in all
contexts of English language use.
(Quirk, 1985: 1)

Standard English as King English.
(Phillipson, 1992)

Native English possesses no less
intelligibility than indigenous English
accents.
(Trudgill, 2003)
Introduction

Non Standard English Allowance

Concentric Circles of English Users
(Krachu, 1962)

English does not belong to any specific group of people
but it belongs to whoever the interlocutor is.
(Kirkpatrick, 2007)

The Dynamic of New English
(Schenider, 2007)

Lingua Franca Core Concept
(Jenkins, 2000)
Introduction
Kachru's Three Concentric Circles of English
Literature Review

Lingua Franca Core

A theory arguing that some English speech
sounds are more crucial than others in
promoting communication

Rather than possessing native-like
pronunciation, non-native pronunciation is
permissive as long as the intelligibility is
reached.
Literature Review

Intelligibility Analysis

Intelligibility


Comprehensibility


Recognition of words and utterance
Ability to ascertain a meaning (Locutionary Force)
Interpretability

The degree to which one is able to perceive the intention
behind another’s word of utterance (Illocutionary Force)
(Smith, 1987)
Literature Review


Speech Intelligibility Testing
Speech Recognition, Speech Understanding

Needs to be qualitatively judged by human only
(Holmes and Holmes, 2001: 210)

Transcription Task: American Standard Method for
Measurement of Monosyllabic Word Intelligibility
Hawley (1977)

Text Independent
(Holmes and Holmes, 2001: 224)

Subjective appraisal: Rating Scale Method
(Egan, 1977)
Research Questions

1. How does the degree of Thai accentedness – weak, moderate, and
strong, in Thai English pronunciation have the impact on the
intelligibility to different groups of English users; namely,
a) English native speakers?
b) English non-native speakers whose L1 is not Thai?
c) English non-native speakers whose L1 is Thai?

2. Which specific pronunciation features of Thai English pronunciation
cause the problem in the intelligibility to different groups of English
users; namely,
a) English native speakers?
b) English non-native speakers whose L1 is not Thai?
c) English non-native speakers whose L1 is Thai?
Methodology

Participants

9 English Language Users
3
English Native Speakers
3
English Non Native Speakers (non Thai L1)
3
English Non Native Speakers (Thai L1)
Methodology

Informants

2 Thai English Speakers (weak accent)

2 Thai English Speakers (moderate accent)

2 Thai English Speakers (strong accent)

Audio Recorded Speech (10 mins)

Controlled topic (Dissertation)

Judges for Level of Accentedness

3 linguist experts

10 non-linguist experts
Methodology

Instruments


Transcription Tasks
Data Analysis:

Transcription Tasks


Accurate Transcription – Level of intelligibility possessed by
each group of listeners
Error Transcription – Phonological features to be focused in
teaching English pronunciation for Thai students
Data Analysis

Intelligibility Level
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
NS
50%
NNS
NNST
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
weak
moderate
strong
Data Analysis

Problematic Phonological Features

Segmental Features

Consonants

[dʒ] as [ʃ] – genre

[z] as [s] - design

[v] as [w] - environmental

[θ] as [t] - there
Data Analysis


The pronunciation of unreleased final
consonant

[r], [t], [k], [z], [d], [n]

[s] always replaced with unaspirated [t]

[l] always replaced with glide [w]
Replace rhotic [r] with lateral [l] – ‘lecturer’
Data Analysis

Fail to produce certain group of consonant
cluster

[dr] as [dʷ] - dressing

[fr] as [f] (drop [r]) - different

[pl] as [pr] - applied
Data Analysis

Vowels

Monopthongization


[əʊ] as [ɔ] - approaches

[ēə] as [e] - lesbianism
Strengthen unstressed weak vowel [ə] as
stressed vowel as

[e], [a], [ɔ], [æ]
Data Analysis

Suprasegmental Features

Stress: wrong placement of stress
especially in the words with more than two
syllables ‘literature’ ‘cinematic’
My Research Journey

Obstacles

It is inappropriate to judge the quality of any language
as language is merely the tool for communication.

Level of intelligibility should not be measured only in
term of pronunciation. In fact, grammar, style, and
fluency performed by individual speakers come to the
play.

Certain Thai English informants do not want to be the
informant of the research.
References

Egan, P. J. (1977). Articulation Testing Methods. In Hawley, E. M. (Ed.), Speech Intelligibility and Speaker Recognition (pp.
175-202). Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Inc.

Flege, J. 1980. Phonetic Approximation in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 30: 117-134.

Hawley, E. M. (Ed.), (1977). Speech Intelligibility and Speaker Recognition. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Inc.

Holmes, J. and Holmes, W. (2001). Speech Synthesis and Recognition. London: Taylor & Francis.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krachu, B. B. (Ed.), (1982). The Older Tongue: English Across Cultures. Ulbama, Illinois. University of Illinois Press.

Quirk, R. (1985) The English Language in a Global Context. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H. G. (Eds), English in the World:
Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 1-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press.

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, L
(1987). Language Spread and Issues of Intelligibility. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.

Trudgrill, P. (2003). Native-Speaker Segmental Phonological Models and the English Lingua Franca Core. In Seidlhofer, B.
(Ed.), Controversies in Applied Linguistics. (pp.78-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thank You for Your Attention
Questions & Comments