Parameters Used for Phonological Competence Assessment in the English as a Lingua Franca Context

Abstract

The article explores the existing linguo-didactic terms “phonetic competence”, “phonological competence”, “phonetic-phonological competence” in Russian scientific literature and defines the phenomenon within this work. The authors draw a line between phonological competence development in university students of linguistic and non-linguistic majors, as well as between productive and receptive phonological skills development considering the status of English as a lingua franca. The article reviews the main parameters of phonological competence assessment outlined in academic literature – intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness – in diachrony in order to define their relationship and suggest their translations for using in the Russian academic literature.

References

1. Kolesnikova A.N. 2016. Model’ optimizacii obuchenija prakticheskoj fonetike v jazykovom vuze na baze mul’timedijnyh tehnologij (anglijskij jazyk) [Optimization model of teaching phonetics at a linguistic university via multimedia technologies (the English language)]. Cand. Sci. Thesis (Pedagogy)]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

2. Lavrova O.A. 2010. Sovershenstvovanie fonologicheskoj kompetencii v processe podgotovki lingvistov: anglijskij jazyk, jazykovoj vuz, starshij jetap obuchenija: dis kan. ped. nauk [Mastering phonological competence in linguists: the English language, linguictic universities: Cand. Sci. Thesis (Pedagogy)]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

3. Melezhik K.A. 2016. Interpretacija smysla v mezhnacional’noj kommunikacii na anglijskom jazyke [Interpretation of meaning in transnational communication in lingua franca English]. Liberal Arts in Russia, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 394–402. (In Russ.)

4. Olejnik A.V. 2019. Anglijskij jazyk kak sredstvo mezhkul’turnogo obshhenija: istoricheskaja retrospektiva i sovremennye osobennosti (foneticheskij aspekt) [A historical retrospective and modern features of English as a means of intercultural communication (the phonetic aspect)]. Moscow State Linguistic University Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 110–123. (In Russ.)

5. Primak O.V. 2013. Foneticheskaja kompetencija v mezhkul’turnoj kommunikacii [Phonetic competence in intercultural communication]. Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennoj nauki [Topical questions in modern science], vol. 29, pp. 204–212. (In Russ.)

6. Prisnaja L.L. 2008. Fonetiko-fonologicheskaja kompetencija i ee komponentnyj sostav [Phonological competence and its components]. Izvestija RGPU im. A.I. Gercena [Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences], vol. 70, pp. 287–289. (In Russ.)

7. Proshina Z.G. 2015. Terminologicheskaja sumjatica v novom lingvisticheskom rakurse: metajazyk kontaktnoj variantologii [Terminological confusion in a new linguistic perspective: metalanguage of the English diversity studies]. Vestnik, Semiotics and Semantics, vol. 1, pp. 105–117. (In Russ.)

8. Safonova V.V. 2018. Filosofskaja binarnaja oppozicija «dialog kul’tura – ne-dialog kul’tur» v lingvodidakticheskom rassmotrenii [Philosophical binary opposition “dialogue of cultures -non-dialogue of cultures” in linguodidactic review]. Prepodavatel’ XXI vek [Lecturer XXI century], vol. 1–2, pp. 20–39. (In Russ.)

9. Trubetskoy N.S. 1960. Osnovy fonologii [The basics of phonology]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Inostrannoy Literatury. (In Russ.)

10. Homutova A.A. 2013. Foneticheskaja kompetencija: struktura, soderzhanie [Phonetic competence: content and structure]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University, Series “Linguistics”, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 71–76. (In Russ.)

11. Crowther D., Trofimovich P., Saito K., Isaacs T. 2015. Second language comprehensibility revisited: investigating the effects of learner background. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 814–837.

12. Field J. 2003. The fuzzy notion of ‘intelligibility’: A headache for pronunciation teachers and oral testers. IATEFL Special Interest Groups Newsletter, pp. 35–38.

13. Gooch R., Saito K., Lyster R. 2016. Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, vol. 60(C), pp. 117–127.

14. Isaacs T., Trofimovich P. 2012. Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 34, pp. 475–505.

15. James C. 1998. Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analysis. London, Longman.

16. Jenkins J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

17. Kachru B. 1985. Standards, codifications, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English 486 TESOL QUARTERLY in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.

18. Kang O., Rubin D., Pickering L. 2010. Supresegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 94, pp. 554–566.

19. Kang O., Thomson R.I., Murphy J.M. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary English Pronunciation. Taylor and Francis.

20. Kang O., Thomson R., Moran M. 2018. Empirical approaches to measuring the intelligibility of different varieties of English in predicting listener comprehension: Measuring intelligibility in varieties of English. Language Learning. Vol. 68(1), pp. 115–146.

21. Levis J.M., Sonsaat S., Link S., Barriuso T.A. 2016. Native and Nonnative Teachers of L2 Pronunciation: Effects on Learner Performance. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 894–931.

22. Luchini P.S. 2017. Measurements for Accentedness, Pause and Nuclear Stress Placement in the EFL Context. Ilha do Desterro, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 185–200.

23. Maslova A. 2017. Perceptions of stakeholders towards the choice of pronunciation norms in language teacher education in Russia. Moscow University Young Researchers’ Journal, no. 6.

24. McKay S. 2002. Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

25. Munro M., Derwing T. 1995. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, vol. 45(1), pp. 73–97.

26. Munro M., Derwing T., Morton, S.L. 2006. The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 28, pp. 111–131.

27. Saito K., Trofimovich P., Isaacs T. 2017. Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 439–462.

28. Sheppard B., Elliott N., Baese-Berk M. 2017. Comprehensibility and intelligibility of international student speech: Comparing perceptions of university EAP instructors and content faculty. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 26, pp. 42–51.

29. Smith L., Nelson C. 1985. International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources. World Englishes. Vol. 4, pp. 333–342.