Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Martina Slámová Germanic and Slavic Accents of English Bachelor's Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D.
2018 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, g only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Author's signature Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor, PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, PhD., for the kind
guidance, help and valuable advice she offered me.
Moreover, I would like to thank the speakers who kindly prepared the recordings for
this thesis as well as the respondents who listened to them and answered the
questionnaire.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their patience and support. Contents
1 Introduction 8
2 Theoretical Section 11
2.1 The English Sound System 11
2.1.1 Vowels 12
2.1.1.1 Monophthongs 13
2.1.1.2 Diphthongs and triphthongs 15
2.1.2 Consonants 17
2.2 Slavic languages 22
2.2.1 Mispronounced Vowels 22
2.2.1.1 Mispronunciation of Isel 25
2.2.1.2 Mispronunciation of h:l 25
2.2.1.3 Mispronunciation of 25
2.2.1.4 Mispronunciation of lal 25
2.2.1.5 Mispronunciation of IBVI 26
2.2.2 Mispronounced Consonants 26
2.2.2.1 Devoicing of final consonants 29
2.2.2.2 Lack of aspiration 30
2.2.2.3 Dental fricatives 30
2.2.2.4 Confusion between /w/ and Nl 30
2.2.2.5 Mispronunciation of/rj/ 31
2.2.2.6 Mispronunciation of/h/ 32
2.3 Germanic languages 32
2.3.1 Mispronounced vowels 35
2.3.1.1 Mispronunciation of /ae/ 36
2.3.1.2 Mispronunciation of IBVI 36
2.3.1.3 Mispronunciation of leil 37
2.3.1.4 Incorrect vowel length 37
2.3.2 Mispronounced consonants 38
2.3.2.1 Devoicing of final consonants 38
2.3.2.2 Mispronunciation of 161 and /G7 39
2.3.2.3 Mispronunciation of /w/ 39
2.3.2.4 Mispronunciation of/j/ 39
2.3.2.5 Mispronunciation of iy and Afc/ 40 2.4 Suprasegmentals 40
2.4.1 Stress in English 40
2.4.1.1 Reduction 41
2.4.1.2 Liaison 42
2.4.2 Stress in Czech and Polish 43
2.4.3 Stress in Dutch and German 43
2.4.4 Rhythm in English 44
2.4.5 Rhythm in Czech and Polish 44
2.4.6 Rhythm in Dutch and German 45
2.4.7 Intonation in English 45
2.4.8 Intonation in Czech and Polish 46
2.4.9 Intonation in Dutch and German 47
3 Practical Research 48
3.1 Methodology 48
3.2 Analysis of the recordings 52
3.2.1 Speaker 1 54
3.2.2 Speaker 2 58
3.2.3 Speaker 3 61
3.2.4 Speaker 4 63
3.3 Comparison 65
3.4 Assessors' evaluation of the recordings 68
3.5 Research Results 71
4 Conclusion 74
5 Bibliography 77
Summary 79
Shrnuti 80
Appendix 81 List of tables
Table 1: Description of English consonants; Cruttenden revised, created by the author 20
Table 2: Table 2: Comparison of consonants in English, Czech and Polish
(Karas & Madejowa, 1977), (Karczmarczuk, 2012), (Krčmová, 2010), (Palátová,
2016), (lnternationalPhoneticAlphabet.org) 28
Table 3: Comparison of consonants in Dutch, English and German. (Collins &
Mees, 2003, (Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language, 2016, 2014),(Swan and
Smith, 2001) 35
Table 4: Questionnaire Template; (created by the author) 50
Table 5: Model transcription of text 1 in GenAm 52
Table 6: Speaker 1 - speech transcription 53
Table 7: Model transcription of text 2 in GenAm 56
Table 8: Speaker 2 - speech transcription 57
Table 9: Speaker 3 - speech transcription 60
Table 10: Speaker 4 - speech transcript 62
Table 11: Q1 - Which of the speakers sounds most pleasant to your ear? 68
Table 12: Q2 - On scale 1-5, rate the speakers' intelligibility 68
Table 13: Q2.1. - Can you explain why? 68
Table 14: Q3 - Rate the speakers' accents' comparability to a native speaker's;
69
Table 15: Which of the speakers has made most mistakes in their pronunciation
of sounds and in their stress, rhythm and intonation? 69
Table 16: Q4.1. - Can you be more specific about the mistakes? 69
6 Table 17: Q5 - If you were to give advice to each of the speakers, what would you recommend to work on to improve their pronunciation? 70
Table 18: Q6 - Based on the speakers' accents and the table below, can you guess their countries of origin? 70
7 1 Introduction
Pronunciation is one of the key elements in verbal communication.
Unarguably, it is a criterion according to which speakers are judged and evaluated. It represents an essential component of speaking performance which shapes and influences an impression of the speaker's individuality.
Nevertheless, in process of learning the foreign language, a primary focus on vocabulary and grammar tends to prevail over the acquisition of accurate pronunciation. However, a good grasp of grammar and extensive vocabulary do not guarantee mutual intelligibility among speakers unless correct pronunciation comparable to a native speaker's level is mastered. It should, therefore, be of a primary interest of all English learners to acquire pronunciation proficiency in order to ensure smoothness and ease of communication free from obscurities which impede the comprehension.
Many works have been written on the pronunciation errors of non-native speakers of English. Some have also been aimed at different accents of English focusing on segmental and suprasegmental mistakes. This thesis focuses on
Germanic and Slavic varieties of English, particularly those spoken in Europe. It is concerned with both segmental and suprasegmental1 mistakes and with perceptions of the foreign accents by native speakers. It has been particularly the author's interest in various accents of learners of English as well as curiosity about how speech performances of non-native speakers of English are perceived which have led her to choose this topic for the thesis. Its primary goal
1 These include prosodic features such as stress, rhythm and intonation which apply not solely to single phonemes but also syllables, words and sentences.
8 is to analyse, compare and contrast pronunciation errors of two language groups, namely Slavic and Germanic; and to find out whether the speaker's first language represents any decisive factor in their aptitude for mastering English pronunciation. It is expected that the speakers from the Germanic language group will demonstrate better speech performance than the Slavic speakers given the fact that Dutch and German belong to the Germanic language group as English. These languages have similar sound systems to English in comparison with others such as Czech or Polish which come from a different language background. Moreover, according to EF Proficiency Index, the
Netherlands is in the lead and Germany in top ten countries among eighty others in the world ranked by skills at speaking English (ef-australia.com.au).
Therefore, it is assumed that German and Dutch speech will contain fewer pronunciation mistakes and will achieve a better evaluation.
For analysing the data in a practical research, it is necessary to provide a theoretical background first. This thesis has found the biggest source of inspiration in Tichy's Pronunciation of English by Non-native Speakers (2016) where he compares and contrasts pronunciation errors made by politicians from three language groups. The theory will provide brief definitions of sound systems of the languages concerned and compare them to that of the English language. For this purpose, works such as The phonetics of English and Dutch
(2003) by Beverley Collins and Inger Mees, Polish reference grammar (1975) by M. Z. Brooks, The phonology of German (2000) by Richard Wiese will provide a great contribution as they all describe sound systems of the languages. Gimson's Pronunciation of English (2014) by Alan Cruttenden will be an essential source for clarification of English speech sounds including the
9 English vowels and consonants. Lastly, the theory will present the most common errors made by the non-native speakers. This will be gained from books Teaching English Pronunciation (1990) by Joanne Kenworthy and
Learner English: A Teacher's Guide to Interference and Other Problems (2001) by Michael Swan and Bernard Smith, which list the most frequent mistakes in pronunciation made by learners of English as a second language.
The research section will consist of spoken data collection which will be further processed and analysed. The first part will include recordings of the non- native speakers where each of them will be reading a short text.
In the second part, the recordings will be assessed by native speakers of
English. The listeners' evaluation will be based on the representative's intelligibility, degree of comparability to a native's speaker's speech, perception of the accent, and last but not least, they will guesstimate participant's origin.
Native speakers' assessment should also help draw some conclusions on whether segmental and suprasegmental mistakes are strikingly noticeable and hinder speakers' intelligibility or whether they are hardly perceptible.
The research will demonstrate which of the two selected language families displays a higher occurrence of errors and will analyse what type of mistakes appears more often. Subsequently, conclusions will be drawn based on similarities and contrasts of the pronunciation errors. Based on the listeners' comments and observations on speech performances, the proposed hypothesis that participants from Germanic language family will deliver a better speaking performance than the others will be proved or disproved.
10 2 Theoretical Section
Languages such as Czech, Polish, Dutch and German are all members of the Indo-European language family. The former two belong to Slavic languages, while the latter fall within Germanic group of languages together with English. Therefore, it is naturally assumed that the speakers whose mother tongue is of Germanic origin produce better English than those whose first language comes from Slavic language group. Owing to a different phonetic system of Slavic languages, acquisition of native-like English accent for these speakers tends to be complicated. The first language interferences also have a share in the process of acquiring correct pronunciation. This chapter provides a brief definition of the English phonetic system and deals with sound systems of the remaining four languages in question. Primarily, it aims to give an overview of differences in pronunciation and sound production of each language.
Furthermore, it concentrates on troublesome aspects of pronunciation characteristic of each language.
In order to prevent confusion connected with different phonetic symbols of each language concerned, the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) will be used for all the transcriptions.
2.1 The English Sound System
Firstly, it is essential to point out that there are several varieties of
English pronunciation e.g. Received Pronunciation, General American, Scottish
English, African English, Australian English etc. and, therefore, depending on the accent, there are significant differences in the way the speakers pronounce sounds. This work is, however, primarily concerned with description of the
11 standard variety of English also known as Received Pronunciation (RP). The classification of vowels is based mostly on Gimson (2014) and Rogerson-Revell
(2011).
2.1.1 Vowels
Most languages have significantly more consonants than vowels.
English, on the other hand, "has 24 consonants and up to 20 vowels"
(Rogerson-Revell 2011, p.61). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that English vowels are challenging for speakers of other languages. All vowels are voiced and produced in the oral cavity, however, they can be nasalized if they appear before a nasal consonant. There are many criteria according to which English vowels can be classified. They can be generally divided into three categories according to the length2 of the sound: short vowels III, /eel, ID/, /A/, Id, Ivl, lal, long vowels /a:/, l\l, lo.l, lu.l, /3.I and diphthongs leil, /ai/, /oil, laul, foul, lisl,
/ee/, lusl. AS Rouch (1998) explains, "the five long vowels [..] [are those] which tend to be longer than the short vowels in similar contexts" (p. 18). Vowels can also be classified based on the position of the articulators; meaning the horizontal position of tongue, the level of lip-rounding and the degree of jaw openness.
Taking all these aspects into account, vowels are:
a. depending on the shape of the lips:
neutral
rounded
or spread
2 Rouch (1998) emphasizes that the length of English vowels "varies very much according to context [...] and the presence or absence of stress" (p. 18).
12 b. based on the part of the tongue which is raised:
front
central
or back
c. according to the degree of openness or closeness:
open
or close
2.1.1.1 Monophthongs
Monophthong is a single vowel sound during its production the tongue remains in the same position.
Short vowels
111 lightly spread, between central and front position, close position
Examples? experience, history, improvement [ikspienens, 'histeri, im'pru:vment] lei spread, front, tongue between half-close and half-open position
Examples: bed, envelope, negligee [bed, enveleup, negli:3ei]
/ae/4 neutral, front, between open and half-open position
Examples: and, hand, that [aend, haend, öaet]
3AII examples of words in which the sounds occur have been taken from the recordings unless stated otherwise 4 A.C. Gimson (2014) clarifies that "most people will make a considerable difference of length between the vowels in hat, had, and bad when the words are said in isolation, the vowel in bad being as long as any of the Jong" vowels. Nevertheless, this length is not a constant distinctive feature of the vowel, but is rather dependent upon the context or is characteristic of the pronunciation of particular words" (p. 87).
13 IBI also called the schwa neutral, central, between half-open and half-close position
Examples: bottom, neighbourhood, the [botem, neibehud, cte]
/A/ neutral, central, half-open position
Examples: but, love, up [bAt, IAV, Ap]
ID I rounded, back, open position
Examples: job, on, was [c^Db, Dn, WDZ] lul rounded, back, open position
Examples: should, took, would [fud , tuk, wud]
Long vowels
I'wl
Spread, front, close position
Examples: even, he, migraine [i:ven:, hi:, mi:grein]
/3 :/ neutral, central, between half-close and half-open position
Examples: her, learnt, words [h3:r, b:nt, W3:dz]
/a: / neutral, midway between central and back, open position
Examples: asked, bathtub, last [a:skt, ba:9tAb, la:st] lo : / rounded, back, between half-open and half-close position
Examples: almost, door, for [o:lm9ust,do:,fo:]
14 Iu:l rounded, back, close position
Examples: school, through, to [sku:l, 9ru:, tu:]
2.1.1.2 Diphthongs and triphthongs
English vowels can be divided into monophthongs, as introduced in the previous subchapter, diphthongs and triphthongs. While during speech production of monophthongs the tongue is relatively stable, when it comes to diphthongs, the position of the tongue shifts. Diphthongs consist of two vowels which together create one syllable as during the articulation one vowel glides into the other. Their length is comparable to that of long vowels and the first vowel tends to be more prominent than the other. Based on the ending vowel, diphthongs can be classified into centring to lal or closing to 111 or /u /.
Centring diphthongs
They all glide towards the shwa vowel. lis/
111 in a closer position than the monophthong 111
Examples: idea, experienced,years [die, ikspienenst, jiez] lea/ lei in a more open position that the monothong lei
Examples: prepared, stairs, there [pripeed, steez, dee]
/us/
/u / in a half-close position
Examples: lures, poor, sure5 [ljuez, pue, Jue]
5Example not included in the recordings
15 In current RP pronunciation, there is a tendency to replace /u BI with /o :/, e. g. sure, poor, pronounced as /Jo :/, /po :/ (Cruttenden 2008, p. 122).
Closing diphthongs lei I half-open position of lei
Examples: later, migraine, same [leite, mi:grein, seim]
/ai/ open position, between front and back position
Examples: advice, mind, nice [ed'vais, maind, nais]
/oi/ slightly more open than in the monophthong /o /:
Examples (not to be found in the recordings): boy, foil, soil [boil, foil, soil] iBlil central position of the monophthong IBI
Examples: home, known, own [heum, neun, eun] laul open, between front and back position
Examples: around, house, out [eraund, haus, aut]
Thriphthongs represent the most complex category of vowels in
English. They are made of three vowels where each is interlinked with a glide.
However, one might have a difficulty in distinguishing all the sounds owing to the vowel movement within the triphthongs, which tend to be hardly perceptible
(Rogerson-Revell 2011, p. 85). Therefore, the number of syllables in a thriphthong differs depending on a speaker. Some argue there are two
16 syllables, while others believe there is only one. There are five thripthongs in
English which can be regarded as a composition of five closing diphthongs ending with the ending shwa.
The following examples do not occur in the recordings:
/ei 9/ e.g.: player [pleia]
/ai a/ e.g.: liar ['laia]
/oi a/ e.g.: royal [roial]
/au a/ e.g.: lower [laua]
/au a/ e.g.: power [paua]
2.1.2 Consonants
Consonants can be thought of as sounds produced with a partial or complete closure. They can be classified in terms of the place of articulation - where in the vocal tract the sounds are produced; the manner of articulation - types of narrowing; and the presence or absence of voicing - whether the vocal chords vibrate or not during the articulation. Latin terms lenis and fortis are sometimes used in relation to the degree of articulatory energy one needs to produce in order to develop a particular consonant. Hence fortis consonants e.g. /p/, IM, Ikl, IV, Isl, I J7, / 9/, / tJ7 require a greater amount of energy, while lenis consonants e. g. /b/, 161, /g/, /v/, 161, Izl, I3I, I63I involve lesser energy. Based on the place of articulation, consonants can be:
a) bilabial - articulated with both upper and lower lip
b) labio-dental - articulated with lower lip and upper teeth
c) dental - articulated with tongue tip behind or between teeth
d) alveolar - articulated with tongue tip and alveolar ridge
17 e) post-alveolar - articulated with the tongue blade and back of alveolar
ridge
f) palato-alveolar - articulated with the front of the tongue raised
towards the hard palate
g) palatal - tongue front and hard palate
h) velar - back of tongue and soft palate
i) glottal - glottis; when there is friction caused by obstruction or
narrowing
Depending on the manner of articulation and presence or absence of voicing consonants can be:
a) plosive6 - complete closure of the mouth; air flow released with
plosion
b) affricate - complete closure, the organs slowly separated
c) nasal - complete closure; the soft palate lowers and air flows through
the nasal cavity
d) lateral - partial closure; air escapes along the sides of the mouth
e) fricative - air flows through a narrow passage creating a hissing
sound
f) approximant - the articulators move closer to each other, but do not
touch
6When voiceless plosives /p/, 1X1, IVJ occur at the beginning of a stressed syllable, they are generally aspirated, i. e. "there is a voiceless interval consisting of strongly expelled breath between the release of the plosive and the onset of a following vowel", (Cruttenden 2014, p. 164) e.g. pick, tick, kick. However, when /p/, IXJ, IVJ are followed by the consonants /I/, hi, /w/, the aspiration is demonstrated in the devoicing of the formerly mentioned consonants, e.g. in cry, tray, twin, tuna.
18 As has been mentioned above, English has 24 consonants which are included in the table below on the following page. The examples of words where the consonants occur have been taken from the recordings.
19 Table 1: Description of English consonants; Cruttenden revised, created by the author
Ipl Ibl bilabial, plosive, voiceless, aspirated bilabial, plosive, voiced help, passionate, practically bill, bedroom, breakfast [help, paejenit, ' praektik(a)li] [bil, bedroom, brekfest] l\l Idl alveolar, plosive, voiceless, aspirated alveolar, plosive, voiced route, try, tub door, doctor, satisfied [ru:t, trai, tub] [do:, dokter, saetisfaid]
Ikl /g/ velar, plosive, voiceless, aspirated velar, plosive, voiced could, doctor, soak get, give, glad [get, giv, glaed] [kud, , dokter, seuk]
/tj/ /*/ palate-alveolar, affricate, voiceless palate-alveolar, affricate, voiced catch, check, fortune edge, gently, sponge
7 [kaetj, tjek, fo:tj8n] [ecfc, cfeentli, spAncfe] 111 Nl labio-dental, fricative, voiceless labio-dental, fricative, voiced fine, off, wife advice, envelope, of [fain, of, waif] [ed'vais, enveleup, DV]
IQI Idl dental, fricative, voiceless dental, fricative, voiced fourth, therapy, through this, wheather, with [fo:0, Gerepi, Gru] [dis, wede, wid] Isl Izl alveolar, fricative, voiceless alveolar, fricative, voiced something, screw, special goes, migraines, years [sAm9ir), skru, spejel] [geuz, mi:greinz, jiez]
7Examples not to be found in the recordings
20 m 1*1 palato-alveolar, fricative, voiceless palato-alveolar, fricative, voiced fishing, selection, she negligee [fijirj, si'lekjen, Ji:] [negli^ei]
Ihl /ml glottal, fricative, voiceless - lenis bilabial, nasal, voiced has, head, history mailman, medical, my [haez, hed, histeri] [mailman, medik8l,mai]
/I/ In/ lateral, approximant alveolar, nasal, voiced all, listen, really known, nice, woman [o:l, lisn, neli] [neun, nais, wumen] Ul Inl post-alveolar, approximant velar, nasal, voiced bedroom, breakfast, pouring fishing, long, steaming [bed x u(:)m, b x ekfest, po: x irj] [fijirj, lor], sti:mir]]
IV /w/ palatal, approximant labial-velar, approximant, voiced you, your weeks, well, wonderful [ju, jo:] [wi:ks, wel, WAndeful]
21 2.2 Slavic languages
As mentioned in the introduction, two Slavic languages have been selected for the research of this thesis - Czech and Polish. Both are members of the West Slavonic branch, which means they naturally share some common features. Swan and Smith (2001) further elaborate on the similarities of the languages by claiming that Polish "is most closely related to Czech and Slovak, and more distantly to Russian, Byelorussian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Macedonian,
Serbo-Croatian and Slovene" (p. 162). However, in spite of the mutual relations of the two languages, there are distinctions in their sound systems. It is essential to mention that sound systems of Czech and Polish languages will not be described in full detail, as it was in the previous chapter with the English sound system, since it would make the thesis rather voluminous. Therefore, this chapter will provide only brief descriptions of the sound systems and focus more on the pronunciation errors specific to each language.
2.2.1 Mispronounced Vowels
Polish sound system consists of eight vowels, which Swan and Smith
(2001) divide into three categories according to the degree of openness or closeness i.e. close vowels l\ I, /u/, mid vowels /e /, lol and open vowel /A/
(p. 164). Since there is only one open vowel in Polish, unlike in English which has four open vowels in total, open vowels represent one of the most troublesome aspect for Polish speakers. Furthermore, there is no length recognition in Polish, nor are there diphthongs or triphthongs. Owing to this,
Poles find significant difficulties in both perceiving and producing English vowels. As Swan and Smith state, "none of the English vowels has an exact equivalent in Polish" (p. 164). Therefore, not only do the differences in Polish
22 and English sound systems contribute to Poles' struggle with perception of distinctions between English vowel sounds, but they also have an impact on mastering accurate pronunciation. In comparison with Polish vowel system,
Czech language consists of thirteen vowel sounds, these being ten monophthongs /A/, /a:/, lei, le:l, III, Iv.l, lol, ID:/, Ivl, lu:l and three diphthongs lev/, lavl, lovl. Since Czech sound system distinguishes vowel length in contrast to Polish, perception of English vowels seems to be less troublesome for Czech speakers. It is crucial to point out that although Czech vowels can be classified as short and long vowels, similarly as in English, the length of English vowel sounds differ from those in Czech since the line between the two groups is not that clearly defined. Moreover, Dušan Melen (2010, p. 13) strongly opposes the categorization of English vowels into short and long. According to him, it is the accurate articulation which differentiates English vowels. He supports this argument by providing an example of three various types of vowel lengths. "In words dip [dip] and deep [di:p] the vowel hi is clearly short and long.
In the word dig [dig] the vowel l\l is longer than in the word dip, but not as long as III in the word deep, so there is a third, middle length. From this distinction, it can be concluded that the pronunciation of a vowel is shorter if the vowel is followed by a voiceless consonant, e.g. /p, t, k, f, 9, tf, J, si, and longer if it is followed by a voiced consonant, e.g. lb, d, g, v, Č, cfe, 3, zl" (qtd. in Tichý, 2014, p. 12). When it comes to pronunciation of the vowel las/, it is very much similar.
Underhill (1994, p. 20) considers /as/ a curiosity as regardless of the fact that it is usually reckoned as a short vowel, it is frequently perceived longer, mainly when preceding a voiced consonant, in which case its length is practically comparable to that of the long vowels.
23 It is mainly the difference between 111, hi and I'd mentioned above which appears to be troublesome for both Czech and Polish speakers. Incorrect pronunciation of these sounds very often hinders understanding and causes confusion on the part of the listener. Swan and Smith (2001) state that the
Polish speakers produce English 111 as l\l "rather than the more similar but centralised Polish leading to confusion between the pairs such as feet - fit, sheep - ship" (p. 164). The Czech speakers tend to have the same difficulties.
According to Dušan Melen (2010, p. 71) it is mainly due to the lack of focus on the consonant which comes after the formerly mentioned vowels. Words such as bit and bid tend to be pronounced with the same short duration and the words like beat and bead with the same length despite the fact that the duration of the words bid and bead ought to be longer than their opposites because of the voiced consonants after the vowels. In contrast to this, the length of the vowels is reduced in bit and beat since they precede voiceless consonants.
Other vowels which tend to be mispronounced as a result of not distinguishing the length duration are lul and /u:/. The situation is the same as with the vowels 111 and Iv.l. To explain three lengths of lul lul and /u:/, Gimson
(1967, p. 115) provides an example of three words to show that there is a difference between short lul as in foot, reduced lul as in boot, and long lu:l in the word food. It is, however, essential to bear in mind that use (v.) [ju:z] differs from the use (n.) [jus] more by the length of the vowel than by the quality of the final consonant, and that the difference between the vowels of boot ([u]) and of foot ([u]) lies more in their quality than in their length" (Gimson, 1967, p. 116).
24 2.2.1.1 Mispronunciation of/ae/
Both Czech and Poles have troubles producing this sound mainly due to the fact that there is no equivalent in their languages. While the Czechs tend to substitute this vowel for the Czech lei or possibly lei, which is less open than
English /ae/, the Poles are inclined to pronounce it as /e /, which creates potential confusion in word pairs i.e. man and men, bad and bed, pat and pet
(Swan and Smith, 2001, p. 164).
2.2.1.2 Mispronunciation of lo:l
This incorrectly produced vowel occurs in speeches of Polish speakers who, under the influence of their mother tongue, replace it with the approximate
Polish sound /ow/ (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. 164). This results in misapprehension and misinterpretation especially in the words i.e. law and low, saw and sew, caught and coat.
2.2.1.3 Mispronunciation of lz\l
Last but not least in the list of mispronounced vowels, which is the case only for Poles, is the vowel /3\l. Although Swan and Smith (2001) do not consider this vowel particularly difficult for learners of English, they state that
Polish speakers are likely to pronounce it as lol when they observe it in a written form as e.g. in work, word, and world (p. 164). This confusion stems from the fact that Poles pronounce words as they are written, which eventually interfere in the process of acquiring correct pronunciation.
2.2.1.4 Mispronunciation of lei
This vowel represents one of the typical mistakes made by Czech speakers of English. In the place of the vowel lei, they tend to use different
25 vowel sounds. Dušan Melen (2010, p. 71) provides further clarification; he argues that it is mainly in the initial or final positions of words such as about
[e1 bau t], ability [e1 bi li ti ], affection [e1 fekj en], that the Czechs incorrectly substitute the sound Isl for Czech lei, which eventually changes it into
[e1 ba u t], [e1 bi li ti ], [e1 fekj en]. Similarly, at the end of words i.e. China
[' tj ai ne], genre [3 a: nre], fauna [' fo : ne], Czech speakers frequently pronounce /A / in place of Isl, which makes alteration to the words [' tj ai nA],
[3 a: nrA], [' fo : nA].
2.2.1.5 Mispronunciation of IBXSI
The diphthong Isul is the last frequently mispronounced vowel among
Czech speakers. They have a tendency to replace it with the Czech /ou/ or lol e.g. cold [keuld] produced as [kould] or [kold] or, in extreme cases, it can be pronounced as [ko:ld], which completely changes the word's meaning into called. Another example of this error includes sold [seuld] produced as [sould] or [sold].
2.2.2 Mispronounced Consonants
As far as consonants are concerned, Polish language has as many as
23 consonants. In contrast to English and Czech, Polish sound system consists of a great number of sounds which for foreigners are difficult to produce. Polish consonants can be divided into hard and soft. Hardness and softness of the sounds is dependent on the position of the central part of tongue (Karpowicz,
2008, p. 16). They are perceivable during speech and are significant for differentiating words. Polish fricatives c, cz, č, dz, dž and dž are in IPA transcribed as l\sl, /ts/, Itel, /dz/, /da/, /dz/, however, these phonetic symbols do not correspond with the quality of the Polish sounds precisely. It is also crucial
26 to point out the fact that Polish t is an equivalent to English /w/ in its pronunciation. On the other hand, Polish w corresponds with a symbol /v/.
Consequently, certain IPA symbols might be confusing for Polish speakers since they differ both in their written form as well as in sounds they represent in
Polish sound system.
To draw a comparison with Polish language, Czech has 36 consonants, however, the quantity of phonetic symbols and sounds varies since
"the pronunciation of certain letters (x for example) can be described by already existing symbols /ks/ and some sounds do not have their own written representatives e. g. /e/" (Palátová, 2016, p. 16). Similarly, as in Polish alphabet, there are distinctions between Czech symbols and the IPA transcription e.g. Czech fricatives c, č, 1^1, lfr>l and their IPA phonetic characters do not sound identical. Moreover, certain symbols in IPA are assigned a completely different sound in the Czech transcription for letter c as in leckdo
[le3gdo] is iy which in the IPA represents a symbol for postalveolar fricative as in the word usually /ju: 3U eli/ (Krčmová, 2010, p. 23).
To provide an overview and comparison of the consonants in Czech,
English and Polish, the table on the next page has been created. The first column includes consonants which can be found in all three languages.
The second and the third column list English consonants which do not occur in the Czech and Polish sounds systems. The remaining columns consist of
Czech and Polish consonants which do not exist in the English sound system.
For the last two, examples are given in order to show the words in which the specific sounds occur.
27 Table 2: Table 2: Comparison of consonants in English, Czech and Polish
(Karas & Madejowa, 1977), (Karczmarczuk, 2012), (Krčmová, 2010), (Palátová,
2016), (lnternationalPhoneticAlphabet.org)
Consonants English English Czech Polish
present in consonants consonants consonants Examples consonants8 Examples
English, Czech not present in not present in not present in not present
and Polish Czech Polish English in English
IPA transcription
P s e tj C ťuhýk ts caty
b z ô d3 ďábel te cicho
t j j e JI ňadra dz chodzQ
d I w ô dz leckdo dz. dzisiaj
k J x chaluha ts CZQStO
g 3 r ruka dz. džem
m h P nisko
n j r re>a
D w w otówek
f £ ktoš
v z- póžno
s szal
~k žaba
X herbata
8 Pronunciation of each consonant specific to Polish language can be found at International Phonetic Alphabet http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with- sounds/
28 Pronunciation of English consonants also seems to cause significant difficulties for speakers of both Czech and Polish. Some of the most common errors typical of both languages include devoicing of final consonants /b/, /g/,
Nl, Izl, lack of aspiration of /p/, /t/, IVJ, mispronunciation of dental fricatives 151 and IQI, confusion between /w/ and Nl and incorrect pronunciation of /rj/.
Another category is the consonant Ihl which is troublesome solely for Poles.
2.2.2.1 Devoicing of final consonants
The consonants Ibl, 161, Igl, Nl and Izl are lenis consonants. In other words, they are weak since during their articulation, less articulatory energy and breath force is involved in contrast to their fortis counterparts /p/, IV, IVJ, IV and
Is/. Both Czech and Polish speakers frequently omit this fact and thus incorrectly substitute the lenis consonants for the fortis ones in the final positions of words, which consequently create ambiguity in twosomes such as rat - red, lab - lap, log - lock, his - hiss. Moreover, not only do Czech and
Poles wrongly replace the final consonants, but they also reduce duration of the vowels which precede them. To clarify this even more, Tichy provides an example of the word lab: "Czech speakers do not keep to the character of the final lenis Ibl and shorten the preceding vowel las/ with the outcome that can be perceived as [laep]9. This incorrect pronunciation results in the complete change of the word meaning since [laep] is the correct pronunciation of the word lap"
(Tichy, 2014, p. 21). This can be applicable also to the other consonants. Swan and Smith (2001) advise that in order to achieve improvement in the
9 In the most extreme case, when the devoicing is paired with insufficient openness of the vowel /eel, e.g. the word flag can be perceived as [flek].
29 pronunciation of the final consonants, the speakers should drill "linking final consonants to initial vowels e.g. in his uncle, is a man, was at home" (p. 165).
2.2.2.2 Lack of aspiration
Both Czech and Polish speakers neglect aspiration of the plosives /p/,
/t/, IVJ. Despite the fact that the absence of aspiration may be perceived as insignificant, it does pose certain difficulties in comprehension for native speakers. Roach (2009) clarifies that when the initial plosives are produced as fully voiced, they are perceived as /b/, 161, /g/ which is relatively unnatural.
However, native speakers will hear the same sounds /b/, /d/, /g/ if the unvoiced plosives lack aspiration since it is only when the plosives are aspirated that the difference between initial /p/, /t/, IVJ and /b/, 161, /g/ can be recognized (p.32-33).
2.2.2.3 Dental fricatives
Pronunciation of these dental fricatives 161 and IQI represents another troublesome area for Czech and Polish speakers. It is mainly due to the fact that there are no such sounds of this sort in the sound systems of the languages. While both groups have an inclination to replace 161 with 161 and Izl, in the case of IQI, they pronounce /t/, l\l or Is/. Additionally, as stated by Swan and Smith (2001), the Poles may produce lis/ and /dz/ in place of the dental fricatives (p.165). As a result, a potential confusion arises especially in the following pairs: day and they, dare and there as for the sound 161, and tree and three, mouse and mouth, sink and think in the case of IQI.
2.2.2.4 Confusion between /w/ and Nl
Czech and Polish speakers tend to confuse pronunciation of /w/ and
Nl. However, both groups make this mistake because of a different reason.
30 While the Czech sound system has no equivalent sound for English /w/ and thus the Czechs wrongly pronounce their Nl instead of /w/, Polish alphabet contains this phoneme, however, it corresponds with Polish ///, not the letter w which is identical with Czech letter v. Thus Polish speakers pronounce the sound /w/ as Nl much like speakers of Czech. Consequently, the words like vet and wet, west and vest, whale and veil, wine and vine cause misunderstanding
(Baker, 2006, p. 136).
2.2.2.5 Mispronunciation of /rj/
Roach (2009) states that "the place of articulation of /rj/ is the same as that of Ikl, Igl", yet he also emphasizes that it is essential for the speakers to avoid producing IVJ or Igl in place of velar /rj/ (p.56). Roach describes the mistake characteristic of both Czech and Polish speakers. According to Swan and Smith (2001), the Poles tend to "mispronounce ng as Ingl [when preceding a vowel] or Ink/ [in final position]" (p. 165). Other authors argue that they may also pronounce In/ instead of /rj/, causing difficulties in distinguishing words thin and thing (Avery and Ehrlich 2012, p.152). Similarly, Czech speakers produce
Igl as in singer[ sirje] => [singe] in contrast to words where Igl is supposed to be produced, as in finger [' fi rjge]. They also mispronounce /rj/ as [rjk], particularly in -ing forms of English verbs such as swimming [swimirj] =>
[swimink], but also in word pairs which can be easily confused, e.g. sing and sink, sting and stink, ring and rink, thing and think. Omission of the final [rj] and pronunciation of nasal [n] instead is also the case for the Czechs as well as for the Poles.
31 2.2.2.6 Mispronunciation of Ihl
Since the phoneme Ihl does not occur in the Polish sound system, its pronunciation tends to be troublesome for the Poles who mispronounce it as Ixl.
Swan and Smith (2001) claim that "the Polish equivalent of English Ihl is not a voiceless vowel, but a [fortis] fricative, similar to the final sound in loch", and hence this sound is produced in place of English Ihl (p. 165). Moreover, another error concerned with this sound is its pronunciation in all words where it is spelled regardless of the fact that in some expressions, e. g. give him the book or take her out, it should be omitted10 (p.165).
2.3 Germanic languages
As has been said in the introduction, German and Dutch fall under West
Germanic branch likewise English. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the languages share many common features related to their sound systems. This means that German and Dutch speakers of English do not face considerable difficulties connected with mastering English sounds (Swan and Smith, 2001, p.
37).
Many of the German and Dutch vowels look familiar since they are similar to those in English. Wiese (2000, p. 20) states that German has seventeen monophthongs which he classifies into:
front vowels I'd, 111, /y:/, hi, le:l, Id , /e :/, 10:1, ICEI
central vowels /a/, /a:/, IBI
and back vowels /u:/,/u/, /o:/, /o /
10 Cruttenden (2008) adds that in some words /h/ is silent and omitted, e. g. hour, honest, honour, heir, exhaust, vehicle; Ihl remains silent also "in unaccented, non-initial situations in connected speech, e.g. he pushed him on his backlh'v. pujtimoniz' bask/, / could have hit her /ai kad av 1 hi t a/" (p. 205).
32 There are also three diphthongs in German, these being tail, toil, and /ay/.
As far as the Dutch vowel system goes, Booji (1995, p. 5) states that there are three diphthongs /ei/, /c=y/, /au/ and thirteen monophthongs which can be likewise as the German ones divided into:
front vowels III, l\l, lyl, hi, lei, Id, I0I
central vowel IQI
and back vowels Id, lal, /a/, lol, lol
As for the consonants, Fagan (2009, pp. 18-19) argues, German has twenty four consonant phonemes which can be split into:
stops /p/, IV, Ikl including aspirated /ph/, /th/, /kh/
affricates /pf/,/ts/,/tJ7, A3/11
fricatives IV, Is/, l\l, Ixl, /hi, Nl, Izl, iy, l\l
nasals Ixnl, In/, In)
liquids /I/, Ixl
Booij (1995, p. 7) defines Dutch consonants as:
plosives lol, Ibl, IV, 161, Ikl, /(g)12/
fricatives IV, /v13/, Is/, Izl, Ixl, /y/, Ihl
nasals Iml, In/, In)
liquids /I/, Ixl
glides /u14/, l\l
11 For more detailed description of the individual sounds, see Fagan (2009, p. 18-19). 12 Booij (1995) explains reason for putting the [g] into parentheses and says that it [...] only occurs in non-native words such as goal[...] and as the contextual allophone of Ikl before a voiced plosive, as in zakdoek [zagduk] 'handkerchief'" (p. 7). 13 Collins and Mees (2003) define the phoneme IV in place of Nl; they argue that "in initial position, IV has greater breath effort than English Nl, and considerable friction; in addition it may have voicing throughout. In medial position, the articulation is weaker, and always fully voiced" (p. 190).
33 To provide an overview and compare the consonants in Dutch, English and German, the table below has been created. The first column includes consonants which can be found in all three languages. The second and the third column list English consonants which occur neither in the Dutch nor German sound systems. The remaining columns consist of Dutch and German consonants which do not exist in the English sound system. For the last two, examples are given in order to show the words in which the specific sounds occur.
14 For a definition of this sound, see Collins and Mees (2003, p. 198).
34 Table 3: Comparison of consonants in Dutch, English and German.
(Collins & Mees, 2003, (Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language, 2016,
2014),(Swan and Smith, 2001)
Consonants English English Dutch German
present in consonants consonants consonants Examples consonants Examples
English, not present in not present not present not present
Dutch or Dutch in German in English in English
German
IPA transcription
P I J d3 £ chips Pf Pfeil
b j 3 e jus ts Zahl
f m e ô h hamer R Ratte
v n ô j + mol X Bach
t D g w X chloor c Licht
tj w w r15 raam
16 J h R raam
d s j17 boer
k v 0 wortel
3 z Y saga
15 The trilled [r] can be used at the beginnings or at the ends of words, however, it tends to be frequently replaced with the American [J] in the final positions of words (Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language, 2016). 16 The uvular trill [R] occurs especially at the beginnings or in the middle of words and is always combined with the American [J] at the ends of words (Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language, 2016). 17 Use of the consonant [J] varies from speaker to speaker thus it is dependent on the region which the speaker comes from (Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language, 2016).
35 2.3.1 Mispronounced vowels
Given the fact that Dutch and German are closely related to each other, the pronunciation mistakes which the speakers of these languages make are very much the same. Some of the common errors which this subchapter deals with include the open vowel las/, the diphthong /eu/ followed by the diphthong
/ei/, which German speakers tend to struggle with, and /ai/ which is troublesome among Dutch speakers. Other pronunciation errors of the Dutch introduced are the vowel length in /u:/ and lul, and Iv.l and 111.
2.3.1.1 Mispronunciation of la&l
Both Dutch and German experience difficulties with pronunciation of this vowel, mainly because it does not exist in either of the sound systems.
According to both Kenworthy (1987, p. 137) and Swan and Smith (2001, p. 2),
Dutch and German speakers often produce Dutch or German lei in place of
English las/. This consequently leads to ambiguity, especially in the words such as bad, which may be easily misunderstood as bed or even bet, sat as set, than as then.
2.3.1.2 Mispronunciation of /au/
Swan and Smith (2001, p. 2, 38) together with Collins and Mees (2003, p. 288) share the same opinion on mispronunciation of the English diphthong
IBUI. They claim that it tends to be produced as long monophthong /o:/ which occurs in both Dutch and German sound systems. As a result, words such as saw and sew may be hard to distinguish for the listener, both produced as saw.
36 2.3.1.3 Mispronunciation of leil
Swan and Smith (2001, p. 38) and O'Connor (1998, p. 143) believe that mispronunciation of this diphthong is characteristic of German speakers. 18They frequently replace English IBII with German diphthong /e:/. Cruttenden (2014) provides advice for the learners of English who experience difficulties with this sound and claims that in order to achieve its correct pronunciation one should
"give sufficient length to the first element of this diphthong, making the correct reduction of quantity in the appropriate contexts" and he also emphasizes "that the second part of the diphthong should be only lightly touched on and should never reach the region of fully close [i]" (p. 135).
2.3.1.4 Incorrect vowel length
This troublesome aspect of pronunciation has already been dealt with in previous subchapter on mispronounced vowels of Czech and Polish speakers who find significantly difficult to distinguish between the vowels I'd and 111, /u:/ and lul. As far as Dutch speakers are concerned, they seem to have the very same problem. Hence, for more detailed description of this issue, see subchapter 2. 2. 1. With regards to the issue of incorrect vowel length, Collins and Mees (2003) add that production of the English diphthong /ai/ causes problems for the Dutch since they tend to prolong it when preceding fortis consonant, which is consequently perceived as lenis, e.g. twice [twaiz], light
[laid], quite [kwaid]" (p. 289).
18 Collins and Mees (2003) note that this mistake can also be found in speech of Dutch learners, however, it is not as frequent.
37 2.3.2 Mispronounced consonants
Not only do Dutch and German have many consonant phonemes in common, but both groups also tend to make practically same mistakes in pronunciation of English consonants. Frequently mispronounced consonants include dental fricatives 161 and /67, the English /r/, devoicing of final consonants and incorrect production of /w/. Dutch have also difficulties with producing aspiration in plosives /p, t, k/19 as well as with pronunciation of /g/. The last problematic area specific to German speakers is production of l?>l and lfr>l.
2.3.2.1 Devoicing of final consonants
This pronunciation issue is also typical of Czech and Polish learners and it has already been previously discussed. For more detailed explanation of the aspect, see subchapter 2.2.2.1.
Neither Dutch nor German speakers produce English lenis fricatives /b/,
/d/, /g/, Nl, Izl, lfr>l when they appear at the ends of words (Swan and Smith, pp.3, 39). In fact, they tend to replace them by fortis consonants /p/, /t/, /k/, /f/,
Isl, /J7, /tJ7, which causes difficulties in comprehension especially when words such as rise/rice, leave/ leaf, publpup, dog/dock, said/set, large/larch are concerned. Furthermore, Collins and Mees (2003) note that the lenis consonant
Igl and its fortis counterpart IVJ are troublesome mainly for Dutch speakers due to the fact that the phoneme Igl occurs only in loanwords, therefore IVJ is pronounced instead of Igl (p.285).
19 This pronunciation error has been introduced and explained in previous section 2.2.2.2 so it will not be further elaborated on.
38 2.3.2.2 Mispronunciation of 161 and IBI
Dental fricatives 161 and IQI do not exist in either sound system of the languages concerned. As far as the pronunciation of German speakers goes,
161 is very often replaced with Izl and I si is produced in place of IQI. Due to this incorrect pronunciation, confusion arises when it comes to words like youthful perceived as useful or withered produced as wizard (Swan and Smith, 2001, p.
39), (Kensworthy, 1987, p. 137). Similarly, Dutch speakers mispronounce IQI as
Is/ or IV and 161 as 161 when 161 is at the beginning of the word; 161 or Izl when 161 occurs in the middle of the word and IV or Is/ when 161 comes at the end of the word (Collins and Mees, 2003, p. 286).
2.3.2.3 Mispronunciation of /w/
There is no equivalent sound for English consonant /w/ in Dutch or
German. Therefore, both groups of speakers tend to produce hi instead, which results in wine being perceived as vine. Moreover, the Dutch sometimes mispronounce English /w/ as Dutch lol and "in clusters /tw, kw/ (e.g. twice, queen), it may sound like English IV to an English ear" (Collins and Mees, 2003, p. 287).
2.3.2.4 Mispronunciation of Ixl
The phoneme Ixl occurs in sound systems of both languages, nevertheless, the nature of this sound in Dutch and German is not comparable with the English hi. Both Dutch and German speakers incorrectly substitute their IRI for the English one. As Kenworthy (1987) argues, German IRI is "either too far back or too forward" (p. 137). It can be described as "either a weak, voiced uvular friction or a tongue-tip trill" (O'Connor, 1998, p. 142). As far as the
Dutch Ixl is concerned, it can be produced either "by the uvula against the back
39 of the tongue" or "by the tongue-tip against the alveolar ridge" (Collins and
Mees, 2003, p. 199).
2.3.2.5 Mispronunciation of 1^1 and /dj/
This pronunciation issue is characteristic of German speakers. It is particularly owing to the fact that neither of these sounds exist in the German sound system, except in loanwords. Hence Germans tend to substitute I3I and
/cfe/ for /[/ and /tJ7 and thus make joke sound as choke or jeer as cheer
(O'Connor, 1998, p. 142), (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. 39).
2.4 Suprasegmentals
Suprasegmental features, also known as prosodic features, represent elements of speech which are related to a syllable, a single word, or a sentence. Among the aspects which the thesis primarily focuses on belong stress, rhythm and intonation.20 All these units are troublesome for each language group in question.
2.4.1 Stress in English
Stress represents an emphasis assigned to a syllable. According to
Cruttenden (2014), stressed syllables are those which are more prominent in comparison with the rest (p. 235). Position of the stress in English is variable and is dependent on a particular word. Moreover, the placement of the stress also has a role in distinguishing meaning of many words, e. g. record which can be produced [reko:d] as a noun or [ri'ko:d] as a verb. An incorrect position of
20 In order to avoid making the thesis excessively voluminous, only the most significant aspects of suprasegmental features necessary for the practical research are included in this subchapter.
40 stress may result in a complete change of meaning of a word, e. g. the word unique meaning "one of its kind" provided it is pronounced as [ju:'ni:k]; however, it may be easily perceived as eunuch if the stress is placed on the first syllable, which totally alters the word's meaning to "a man who has had his testicles removed". Therefore, in order to avoid making such a mistake, Roach (2009) advises that since word stress in English is so unpredictable "it is best to treat stress placement as a property of the individual word" which should be acquired simultaneously with the pronunciation of the word itself (p. 88). The importance of mastering a correct word stress is also emphasized by O'Connor (1998), who states that placing stress on the wrong syllable results in spoiling the word's shape for the listener, who consequently may not be capable of deciphering the word (p. 91). The factors which determine a stressed syllable are primarily pitch and loudness. Not only does it depend on whether the sound of a syllable changes to a lower or a higher tone, which signifies the stress, but also it depends on the degree of loudness of the stressed syllable in contrast to the remaining unaccented syllables.
2.4.1.1 Reduction
It is crucial to point out that pronunciation of syllables also depends on variable length and strength which they are produced with. Based on context, some syllables become shorter and weaker than the others despite the fact that in other contexts they may be pronounced in their full quality. This applies to unstressed syllables which are in the middle of a sentence. The process of reduction involves mainly grammatical words, meaning words which indicate grammatical relationship and bear only a little lexical meaning in a sentence such as articles, auxiliary verbs and pronouns. When it comes to reduction of
41 these words, the vowel sound shortens and becomes more central, as far as the position of the tongue is concerned. As a result, the vowel changes its shape into the schwa sound and thus e. g. the word "that" is pronounced [čet] in
"I like that" provided it is not stressed (Žákovská, 2017, p. 52, 53).
2.4.1.2 Liaison
As Žákovská (2017) explains, liaison represents a process during which words are connected to one another (p. 54). To put it differently, words are not produced individually but rather they are linked together as a unit.
There are three ways in which linking can be accomplished in English. The first is when a final consonant of preceding word blends into an initial vowel of the following word e. g. "this is an envelope" [či s^iz^en^enveleup].
Another way of linking words in English is with Ixl. When a word ends in
Ixl, the sound is smoothly linked to the initial vowel of the other word as e.g. in
"there are" [čer^a:]. However, Ixl can also occur when there is a vowel at the end of one word and also at the beginning of another word, even though the Ixl is absent in spelling as in "China and Russia" which is produced as
[tJaine^endrAje]. This is an intrusive Ixl (Žákovská, 2017, p. 54).
There are other linking sounds which sometimes come between two vowels such as l\l and /w/. While the former is usually preceded by i or i, e.g. in
"we are" [wi:ja], the latter comes after a back vowel like lul in "you are" \]u wa:]
(Žákovská, 2017, p. 55).
42 2.4.2 Stress in Czech and Polish
In comparison with English, Czech has a regular word stress, always placed on the first syllable. Owing to this fact, the stress in Czech is significantly less prominent than in English. To a non-native speaker, it may even be hardly noticeable. What is more, Czech speakers tend to follow the same stress pattern as in their native language when speaking English and hence put an emphasis always on the first syllable of a word, which creates obscurity and confusion.
Similarly, Polish speakers also find significant difficulties in acquiring
English irregular stress patterns. This can primarily be put down to the fact that their mother tongue has a "regular penultimate-syllable stress" (Swan and Smith
2001, p. 162). As a result, Polish speakers tend to exaggerate weak forms instead of reducing them.
2.4.3 Stress in Dutch and German
Stress seems to pose no great difficulties to Dutch or German speakers since in both languages, word stress patterns are free and stress placement is variable depending on a particular word just like in English (Swan and Smith,
2001, p.39). In comparison with Slavic languages, both Dutch and German recognize weak and strong forms. Nevertheless, there are not as many weak forms in Dutch and German as in English and, therefore, both groups have a tendency to put an unnecessary emphasis on words which are usually reduced in English such as "and, but, than, that, were" no matter the context (Swan and
Smith, 2001, p. 39). Collins and Mees (2003) also remind that in Dutch "vowel length is less influenced by following consonants" (p. 243) unlike in English, where vowel length is dependent on lenis or fortis consonant in the final position
43 of the syllable. Dutch do not distinguish the contrast between lenis and fortis and instead neutralise it (p. 243).
2.4.4 Rhythm in English
Roach (2009) defines rhythm as a "noticeable event happening at regular intervals of time" (p. 120). As far as English is concerned, rhythm accounts for a crucial element in the language and is closely related to stress.
Hence it is argued that English rhythmical structure is "stress-timed" (p. 120).
Roach further elaborates on this and explains that "stressed syllables [...] tend to occur at relatively regular intervals" regardless of the number of unstressed syllables surrounding them (p. 120). In other words, the duration of the stressed syllables is not comparable to that of the unstressed syllables and, therefore, these are reduced.
A foot represents a unit of rhythm; it consists of a stressed syllable followed by unstressed syllables excluding stressed syllable of the following word (Roach, 2009, p. 121). Since the time interval for every unit of rhythm has approximate duration, when it comes to a great number of unstressed syllables in relation to the stressed ones, their length is shortened and they are produced at much faster pace. This feature of English rhythm is unusual especially for non-native speakers whose first language has, in contrast to English, a syllable- timed rhythm as e.g. Czech and Polish.
2.4.5 Rhythm in Czech and Polish
Since both languages have a syllable-timed rhythm, it means that regardless of whether the syllables are stressed or not, they all come at equal time intervals (Roach, 2009, p. 121). Moreover, neither Czech nor Polish distinguish weak forms thus all syllables are produced in their full quality at all
44 times. Owing to the lack of reduction, the stressed syllables are not prominent and thus the speech is perceived rather monotonous. Nevertheless, there is a difference between Czech and Polish rhythm. Palátová (2016, p. 28) explains that while in Czech "the stressed syllable comes first and unstressed syllables follow, all within one bar [meaning a group of syllables which fall into one stress]," in Polish "it is only when the bar has two syllables that the stressed syllable comes as the first one" (p. 30).
2.4.6 Rhythm in Dutch and German
Similarly as in English, stressed syllables in Dutch are pronounced at approximately regular intervals while the neighbouring unstressed ones can be either shortened or lengthened depending on their quantity (Collins and Mees,
2003, p. 241). The same rule applies to German rhythmical pattern: "a stressed syllable, together with the unstressed syllables that follow it, forms a foot, and each foot takes up roughly the same amount of time" (Fagan, 2009, p. 44).
Therefore, since rhythm in Dutch and German seems to have comparable nature to English, it is not as challenging for the Germanic speakers to master it as for the speakers of Slavic languages.
2.4.7 Intonation in English
Intonation represents the melody of speech made by variable pitch of the voice. Apart from the changeable pitch, other aspects which are also part of intonation such as pauses, pace and degree of loudness should be taken into consideration.
There are different levels of pitch in which utterances can be expressed.
Roach (2009) describes these as tones, which can be either level - remains on a steady note; falling - moves from a higher to a lower pitch; or rising -
45 changes from a lower to a higher pitch (p. 134, 135). Besides these, there is also fall-rise and rise-fall; the former means the pitch descends and then rises whereas during the latter, it is the other way around. Generally, the pitch change can be observed on the stressed syllable, from where it can rise, fall or remain steady e. g. in "particularly" the intonation change falls on the stressed syllable "-ti-". When it comes to a group of words, it is on the most distinct syllable of a word of the group where the pitch change occurs. It is often a word which conveys the necessary information. However, it is up to the speaker to consider which of the stressed words carries the most significant piece of information and to which he intends to assign the stress.
2.4.8 Intonation in Czech and Polish
As Palátová (2016) argues, Czech and Polish intonation is, in comparison with English, far less melodic and thus it is often perceived as rather dull and monotonous mainly owing to different stress and rhythmical patterns in both languages. The reason behind this may also be, as suggested by Swan and Smith (2001), the fact that a large number of Polish [but most likely even Czech] speakers consider English intonation "exaggerated, affected, or overdone" (p. 166) and, therefore, they refuse to adapt to English features of stress and rhythm in order to avoid sounding unnatural and odd. In both languages there are three situations based on which different type of intonation can be used:
Rising - occurs primarily in yes/no questions and in wh-questions in
Polish
46 Falling - in imperative and affirmative sentences in both Czech and
Polish; wh-questions in Czech; exclamatory and interrogative sentences in
Polish
Unfinished statement - finishes in medium pitch and gives a hint that
something more will be added to the utterance
2.4.9 Intonation in Dutch and German
The intonation of Dutch, German and English is closely related (Collins and Mees, 2003), (Fagan, 2009). Nevertheless, Dutch intonation has "a much narrower range than English" (Swan and Smith, 2001, p. 5). Its scale is rather high and does not go into such a low pitch as English.
As far as German intonation goes, in spite of the falling tone being very comparable with English, it is "much steeper" (Fagan, 2009, p. 45). Swan and
Smith (2001) also emphasize that German speakers should be careful about wh-questions, where they normally use a rising intonation, which may consequently be perceived rather imperative to native speakers of English (p.
40).
47 3 Practical Research
3.1 Methodology
The aim of the practical research is to find out how native speakers of
English perceive speech of Germanic and Slavic speakers. Furthermore, it compares and contrasts segmental and suprasegmental mistakes made by both groups. While the theoretical section introduces the most troublesome aspects of pronunciation of the formerly mentioned language groups, the practical research analyzes whether these elements occur in practice or whether the reality varies in any way.
For the purpose of the research, four non-native speakers of English, namely Dutch, Czech, German and Polish were asked to record themselves while reading a short text. Each speaker was assigned a number so the participants' anonymity would be maintained. To help draw a better comparison and contrast between the two groups as well as not to bore the listeners, each one was assigned a different text. The main criteria for selecting the texts were their level of comprehensibility, suitable length and an undemanding but rather entertaining topic which would amuse the listeners. Therefore, the selected texts are jokes retrieved from websites http://kickasshumor.com/ and https://unijokes.com/. Some of the words in the texts were slightly altered, e.g. the word does was substituted for examines, especially for particularly, strikingly for exceptionally and fixed for prepared. These alterations have been done in order to see how the speakers would deal with trickier and more diverse words in terms of suprasegmental features.
The four recordings were played to two native speakers of English, one being American and the other British. The assessors of a different nationality
48 were recruited in order to show whether their variety of English plays any role in their preference for a particular accent. It is essential to point out that none of the native speakers is an expert in phonetics and phonology or a teacher of
English and thus they are not familiar with any phonetic rules. The listeners were deliberately chosen according to these criteria in order to provide a non• professional viewpoint regardless of phonetic terminology. The assessors were asked to listen to the recordings in a random order and then they filled in a questionnaire, which evaluates each speaker in terms of aesthetic quality, level of intelligibility, degree of comparability to a native-like accent, segmental and suprasegmental mistakes and country of origin.
The questionnaire is to be found below:
49 Table 4: Questionnaire Template; (created by the author)
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is your nationality?
a) American
b) British
2. Which of the speakers sounds most pleasant to your ear?
A) speaker 1
B) speaker 2
C) speaker 3
D) speaker 4
3. On scale 1 -5, rate the speakers' intelligibility.
1 2 3 4 5 very easy easy to ok difficult to very to understand understand difficult to understand understand Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Speaker 3
Speaker 4
3.1. Can you explain why?
4. Rate the speakers' accents' comparability to a native speaker's.
Give each one a score from 1 to 5 (1= closest to a native-like accent, 5=
furthest from a native speaker's accent)
1 2 3 4 5 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
50 5. Which of the speakers has made most mistakes in their pronunciation of
sounds and in their stress, rhythm and intonation?
A) speaker 1
B) speaker 2
C) speaker 3
D) speaker 4
5.1. Can you be more specific about the mistakes?
6. If you were to give advice to each of the speakers, what would you
recommend to work on to improve their pronunciation?
A) speaker 1
B) speaker 2
C) speaker 3
D) speaker 4
7. Based on the speakers' accents and the table below, can you guess their
countries of origin?
Poland Germany the the Czech Netherlands Republic Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
THANK YOU!
51 3.2 Analysis of the recordings Table 5: Model transcription of text 1 in GenAm
|'it wez 5e meilmaenz laest dei a:n 5e d3a:b aefter 03-: ri faiv jirz
ev khaenJir) 5e meil 9ru: a+ khaindz ev wecter te 5e seim
neiberhud |'wen hi e'raivd et 5e fe:st haus an iz raut | hi wez
'gri:red bai 5e hou+ faemeli Qer | hu: ken'graetjeleited im end sent im
a:n iz wei wi9 e big gift enveloup | et Qe sekend haus Qei
pn'zened im wi9 e ba:ks ev fain si'ga:rz |5e fouks et de '9^:d haus
haended im e se'lekjn ev te'nfik fijirj lurz |et Qe fo:r9 haus hi wez
met et de do:r bai en ik'sepjeneli bju:ref! wumen in e ri'vNin,
negli3ei |Ji thuk im bai Qe haend | d3entli led im 9ru: Qe do:r | end
led im Ap Qe sterz te Qe bedru:m wer Ji blu: iz maind wi9 Qe moust
phaejenet lev i ed ever ik'spirienst |'wen hi hed hed e'nAf Qei went
dauwn'sterz | wer Ji pri'pherd e d3aient brekfest | wen hi wez tru:li
saetesfaid | Ji pho:rd im e khAp ev sti:mir) kha:fi |ez Ji wez 'pho:nn, | hi
nourist e da:ler bi+ stikirj autfrem AndrQe khAps ba:tem ed3 | D+
SIS wez d3est tu: wAnderfet fer wc^dz | hi 'sed | bet wets Qe da:ler
fo:r |'we+ | Ji sed | laest nait | ai tould mai hAzbend Qet te'dei wud
bi jer laest dei | end Qet wi Jed du 'sAm9in, spej+ fer ju | ai aeskt im
wet te giv ju |hi sed | skru: im | giv im e da:ler |Ji Qen aeded |
Se'brekfest wez mai ai'di:e|
52 Table 6: Speaker 1 - speech transcription
löl & IQI sound lack of aspiration - /p/, M, Ikl devoiced final consonants -
/w/ sound - fluctuating with Nl Ibl, Nl, Igl, 161, Izl, /3/, /d3/ /eel sound - not open enough wrong placement of stress /a/ sound - replaced by lol /hi - weak form not reduced,
lal sound - reduction not dropped
/&/ sound - replaced by lol
I'it w|z öe meilm^nz l|st dei |:n öe d3|:b aefter 03- ri faiv jirz |v
khaeriJir) öe meil 0ru: |+ khaindz ev weöer te öe seim neiberhud |'wen hi
e'raivd et öe fe:st haus an [h]iz raüt | hi w|z gri:red bai öe hou+ 'flineN öer
I hu: lel'grBtJeJeited [h]im end sent [h]im |:n [h]iz wei wi9 e big gift
enveloup | et öe sekend haüs öei pn'zened [h]im wiG e b|:ks ev fain
si'garz |öe foüks |t öe '03^:d haus hjnded [h]im e se'lekjn |v B'nfik fijirj
lurz ||t öe fo:r0 'haus hi w|z met |t öe do:r bai en ik'sepjeneli 'bju:ref|
wumen in e n vilirj negli3ei |Ji thuk [h]im bai öe 'h|nd | d3entli led [h]im
0ru: öe do:r | end led [h]im Ap öe sterz te öe bedru:m wer Ji blu: [h]iz
maind wi0 öe moust phHfenet lev [h]i ed ever ik'spirienst |'wen hi hed hed
e'nAf öei went dauwn'sterz | wer Ji pri'pherd e d3aient brekfest | wen hi
w|z tru:Ii 'sjtes.faid | |i pho:rd [h]im e khAp ev sti:mi| kh|:fi |ez Ji wez
pho:n|| hi nounste d|:ler bi+ stiki| autfr|m Andröe khAps b|:tem ed3
I |+ öis wez d3est tu: wAnderfe+ fer wa-:dz | hi sed | bet wets öe da:ler fo:r
|'we+1 Ji sed | l|st nait | ai tould mai hAzbend öet te'dei wud bi jer l|st
dei I |nd ö|t wi Jed du SAm0ir) spej+ f|r ju | ai Jskt im wet t| giv ju |hi
sed I skru: [h]im | giv [h]im e d|:ler |Ji öen Jded | öe'brekfest w|z mai
ai'di:e|
53 3.2.1 Speaker 1 21
The first participant is a speaker of Slavic language - Czech. As can be seen from the transcription, the speech contains following mistakes on the segmental level:
- dental fricatives 151 and IBI are mispronounced; the former is replaced
with /d/ as in the [da], that [det], then [den]; the latter is substituted for
IM or IV: thirty [f3:ti], through [tru:], fourth [fo:rf]
- /irj/ ending is wrongly substituted for /ink/, e.g. steaming [sti:mink],
sticking [stikink], pouring [po:nnk]
- aspiration on /p/, HI, Ikl sounds is omitted, e. g. caring [kaenJink],
kinds [kaindz], cup's [kAps], prepared [priperd]
- /w/ is fluctuates with hi in weather [vede]
- the vowel las/ has insufficient openness and sounds rather as lei or as
an open /a/, e.g. mailman's [meilmenz], family [femeli] , last [la:st]
- /a/ sound is replaced by ID/, e.g. job [d3D:b], on [D:n], dollar [dD:ler]
- insufficient reduction of /e/ sound and Is-I sound in weak forms - the
former is mispronounced as full quality vowel /A/, lei, ID/ or lul e.g. but
[bAt], at [et], of [DV], was [WDZ], to [tu]; the latter is replaced by lo:l in
words [wo:dz]
Apart from these segmental errors, devoicing of final consonants is noticeable in the recording. This pronunciation issue falls under the suprasegmental category. Devoicing of lenis consonants Idzl, 161, hi and Izl, which are incorrectly replaced with their fortis counterparts /tj/, HI, IM and Is/ in
21 Since pronunciation of all speakers is closer to American variety of English, the recorded texts have been transcribed in General American accent.
54 their final positions, occur in the following words: edge [etj], said [set], of [of], lures [lurs], stairs [sters] and years \\irs]. Another suprasegmental feature, which can be spotted in the speech, is a full pronunciation of the consonant Ihl in all its contexts irrespective of weak forms, where it should be dropped, e. g. sent him on his way [sent him a:n hiz wei] or give him a dollar [giv him e
da:ler].
As far as the stress and rhythm are concerned, the speaker incorrectly places the primary stress in the word congratulated and emphasizes its first syllable [ kDn graetjeleited] instead of stressing the second one. Similarly, the speaker stresses the first syllable of the word terrific [tenfik] instead of putting an emphasis on the following one. On the whole, the most troublesome aspect in terms of suprasegmental features seems to be intonation, which is either insufficient or exaggerated, making the speech sound unnatural and difficult to comprehend.
55 Table 7: Model transcription of text 2 in GenAm
|e rnaen gouz te öe da:kter wi9 e \a:r\ histri ev 'maigrein hedeiks |
wen 09 'dakter ig'zaemenz iz medekl- histri | hi di'skAverz öet öe 'pur
gai hez thraid phraektekN evri 'Oerepi noun te maen fer iz maigreinz
end sti+ nou imphru:vm9nt |' lisn | sez öe da: k | ai hev maigreinz |
tu: end öi ed'vais aim goüirj te giv ju izent rili eniOirj ai 'la-:nd in
medek+ sku:+1 bents ed'vais öet aiv ga: rn frem mai oun ik'spiriens
I'wen ai hev e maigrein | ai goü houm | get in e nais ha:t baeOtAb |
end soük fer e wai+ | öen ai hev mai waif spAnd3 mi: af wi9 öe
ha: rest 'warer ai ken staend | per'tikjelerli e'raund öe fo:rhed | öis
helps e lir+ ľ öen ai ger aut ev öe theb | theik her in'tu: öe
bedru:m | end i:vn if mai hed z khilir) mi: | ai fo:rs mai'self te hev
seks wi9 her | a:lmoüst alweiz | öe hedeik s , i midietli gan | nau |
giv ire thrai | kern baekend si: mi: in siks wi:ks |'siks wi:ks leire-
I öe pheijent re'th3^:nz wi9 e big grin | da:k| ai tuk jer ed'vais end it
W3^:ks I it rili w^ks | aiv hed maigreinz fer sev9nti:n jirz end öis
iz öe fest thaim eniwAn hez ever helpt mi: |'we+ | sez öe fe'zijn |
aim glaed ai ked help |bai öe wei | da:k | öe pheijent aedz | ju hev e
rili nais haüs|
56 Table 8: Speaker 2 - speech transcription
IQI sound Igl sound - devoiced as Iks/ /as/ sound - not open enough leil diphthong - monophthongized lack of aspiration - /p/, IV, Ikl devoiced final consonants - Ibl, hi,
lal sound - replaced by lol Igl, 161, Izl, /3/, /d3/
|e maen gouz te öe d|:kter wi9 e 'l|:rj histri ev mai,^^| 'he.djks | wen
09 da:kter ig'zasmenz iz medekf- histri | hi di'skAverz öet öe 'pur gai hez
thraid |r|ktek{i evri 'Gerepi noun te maen far iz mai.^^B end strf
nou im'phru:vment |'lisn | sez öe da:k | ai hev maigreinz | tu: end öi
ed'vais aim gouir) te givju izent rili eniGirj ai 'ls-:nd in medekf- sku:+1
bar its ed'vais öet aiv g|: rn frem mai oun ik'spiriens |'wen ai hev e
mai,^^| I ai gou houm | get in e nais ha:t bjGtAb | end souk far e
'warf I öen ai hev mai waif spAnd3 mi: of wi9 öe ha: rest 'warer ai
ken staend | per'tikjelerli e'raund öe fo:rhed | öis helps e lir+ |'öen ai ger
aut ev öe theb | theik her in'tu: öe bedru:m | end i:vn if mai hed z
khilirj mi: | ai fo:rs mai'self te hev seks wi9 her | |:lmoust |lweiz | öe
he.deik s imi dietli gan | nau | giv ir e thrai | kern b|k end si: mi: in
siks wi:ks |'siks wi:ks leire-1 öe pheijent re'th3-:nz wi9 e big grin | da:k |
ai tuk jar ed'vais end it 'ws-:ks | it rili 'ws-:ks | aiv hed maigreinz far
seventi:n jirz end öis iz öe farst thaim eniwAn hez ever helpt mi: |'we+1
sez öe fe'zijn | aim glaed ai ked help |bai öe wei | da:k | öe pheijent
aedz I ju hev e rili nais haus|
57 3.2.2 Speaker 2
The second participant is a speaker of Dutch. The speech contains following mistakes on the segmental level:
- dental voiceless fricative IBI is replaced with IV, e.g. therapy [terepi],
anything [enitirj], with [wit]
- vowel /ae/ is not produced with sufficient degree of openness and thus
sounds rather as an open-mid l&l or as an open lal, e.g. practically
[phrektekN], bathtub [ba9tAb], back [bek]
- vowel lal is replaced by lol, e.g. always [Dlweiz], doctor [dD:kter],
long [ID:Q]
- the diphthong leil is monophthongized and changes its shape into the
vowel lei, e.g. headaches [hedeks]
- aspiration on /p/, HI, Ikl is omitted throughout the recording, e.g.
improvement [impruivment], killing [kilirj], tried [traid], tub [teb]
As far as the mistakes on the suprasegmental level are concerned, devoicing of final consonants occurs relatively frequently in the speech.
Especially final voiced 161, Nl, Izl, which tend to be substituted for the voiceless
It/, Is/, e.g. stand [staent], have [hef], adds [aets], discovers [diskAvers], goes [gous]. However, the speaker devoices consonants not only in their final positions, but also in the middle of a word. Hence lenis consonants 161, Igl and
Nl are devoiced as fortis It/, Ikl and IM, e.g. bedroom [be,tru:m], examines
[ik'saemens] and advice [etfais].
The speech has relatively natural sounding stress, rhythm and intonation with occasional slips in rhythmical pattern and a wrong placement of stress on
58 the word migrane which should be on the first syllable [mai.grein] rather than on the second.
59 Table 9: Speaker 3 - speech transcription
soun| - not open enough devoiced final consonants - Izl
/a/ sound - pronounced as /D/ Irl sound - replaced with IV lack of aspiration - Ipl, IV, IYJ /hi - weak form not reduced, not
dropped
|e maen gouz te öe da:kter wi9 e l|:r) histri ev 'maigrein hedeiks | wen
öe da:kter ig'zaemenz iz medekr histri | hi di'skAverz öet öe pur gai hez
thraid phrBktekN evri '9erepi noun te maen fer [h]iz maigreinz end sti+
nou imphru:vment | lisn | sez öe da:k | ai hev maigreinz | tu: end öi
ed'vais aim gouin, te givju izent rili eniOirj ai k^nd in medek+ sku:+1
ber its ed'vais öet aiv ga: rn frem mai oün ikspiriens |wen ai hev e
maigrein | ai goü hoüm | get in e nais h|:t bJOtAb | end soük fer e wai+
I öen ai hev mai waif spAnd3 mi: af wi9 öe ha: rest 'warer ai ken
staend | per'tikjelerli e'raünd öe fo:rhed | öis helps e lir+ |'öen ai ger aut
ev öe theb | theik her in'tu: öe bedru:m | end i:vn if mai hed z 'khilirj
mi: I ai fo:rs mai'self te hev seks wi9 her | |:lmoüst |lweiz | öe hedeik
s ,i midietli g|n | 'nau | giv i| e thrai | kern baek end si: mi: in siks
wi:ks |'siks wi:ks leire- | öe pheijent re'th3^:nz wi9 e big grin | da:k | ai
tuk jer ed'vais end it 'w^:ks | it rili W3^:ks | aiv hed maigreinz fer
seventi:n jirz end öis iz öe fest thaim eniwAn hez ever helpt mi: |we+1
sez öe fe'zijn | aim glaed ai ked help |bai öe wei | da:k | öe pheijent
aedz I ju hev e rili nais haüs|
60 3.2.3 Speaker 3
The third participant is a speaker whose native language is German. As can be seen in the transcription, the speech contains only a small number of mistakes on the segmental level:
- vowel /ae/ is sometimes produced with insufficient openness and has a
shape of the open central vowel /a/ , e.g. practically [phraktek|i],
bathtub [ba:9tAb]
- vowel /a/ is, on the other hand, replaced with Id, e.g. doc [dD:k], long
[lD:r]], hot [hD:t], almost [D:lmoust], gone [gDn]
- aspiration is generally produced suffieciently throughout the speech
except in the word patient [peijent], where it could have been
performed with a greater breath force
Due to a very small number of pronunciation issues related to segmental features, the author has included flapped Irl in the analysis of the speech.
Although the speaker effortlessly produces the sound throughout the recording, she occasionally replaces it with IXJ or even pronounces it as a glottal stop 111, e.g. gotten [ga:?n], get out [get out], give it a try [giv it e thrai].
Regarding the suprasegmental mistakes, there are occasional slips in devoicing of final consonants, particularly /dz/ and Izl which are devoiced as /ts/ and Is/, e.g. adds [aets], goes [gous], migranes [mai.greins] and years [jirs].
Lastly, the consonant /h/ is not reduced in its weak form and instead is fully pronounced, e.g. for his migranes [far hiz maigreins].
Overall, however, the speech performance is easily comprehensible because it is fluent, rhythmical, expressive and accurately stressed.
61 Table 10: Speaker 4 - speech transcript 16/ & IQI sound lack of aspiration - lol, III, IVJ devoiced final consonants -
/as/ sound - not open enough Ibl, Nl, Igl, 161, Izl, /3/, /d3/ III sound - substituted for front close incorrect pronunciation l\l loul sound - pronounced as lol | - weak form not reduced, lal sound - replaced by lol not dropped IQI sound - reduction
I'it w|z öe meilmHnz l|st dei |n öe d3|:b Jfter '03-:ri faiv jirz ev
khBnJir) öe meil Gru: a-r khaindz |v weöer t| öe seim neiberhud |'wen hi e'raivd |t öe fa-:st haus an [h]iz raut | hi wez grired bai öe h|+ fBmeli
öer I hu: k|n'grHtJeleited [|]|m end sent [h]|m a:n [h]|z wei wiG e big
gift enveloüp | |t öe sekend haüs öei pri'zened [h]im wiG e b|:ks |v
fain Hgarz |öe fHks at öe '93-:d haus handed [|]|m e se'lekjn ev B'rifik
fiji| lürz ||t öe 'fo:r0 haüs hi wez met at öe do:r bai en ik'sepjeneli
bju:ref! women in e n'vi:li| negli3ei |Ji thuk [h]im bai öe haend | d3entli
led [h]|m Gru: öe do:r | end led [h]|m Ap öe sterz te öe bedru:m wer Ji
blu: [h]iz maind wiG öe moust phBfenet lev [|]i |d ever ik'spirienst |'wen hi had had e'nAf öei went ,dauwn'sterz | wer Ji pri'pherd e d3aient
brekfest | wen hi w|z tru:Ii s|tes,^| | Ji pho:rd [h]im e khAp |v sti:mir)
kha:fi |a|z Ji w|z pho:ri| | hi noünst e d|:l|r bi+ stiki| aüt fr|m Andr öe
khAps ba:tem ed3 | D+ ÖIS waz d3ast tu: wAnderfe+ far w3-:dz | hi sed | b|t w|ts öe d|:l|r fo:r |'we+ | Ji sed | l|st nait | ai tould mai hAzbend
öat te'dei wüd bi j|r l|st dei | |nd ö|t wi j|d du SAm9ir) spejr f|r ju | ai
Bskt [h]im wat t| giv ju |hi sed | skru:[|]im | giv [h]im e d|:l|r |Ji öen
aeded | öe'brekfest w|z mai ai'di:e |
62 3.2.4 Speaker 4
The last speaker belongs to the Slavic group of languages - Polish. As far as the segmental features are concerned, the following mistakes occur in the speech:
- dental fricatives 151 and IBI are incorrectly substituted for 161 and IM,
respectively, e.g. the [de], that [det], then [den], thirty [f3:ti], fourth
[fo:rf] , through [fru:]
- /irj/ ending is replaced with /ink/, e.g. fishing [fijink], revealing
[n'vi:link], pouring [pho:rink], sticking [stikink]
- the vowel /ae/ is pronounced with insufficient openness and thus
sounds rather as a close-mid lei or as an open /a/, e.g. mailman's
[meil.menz], after [after], last [la:st], passionate [pajenet], satisfied
[sates faid]
- the vowel 111 is sometimes substituted for a front close l\l, particularly
in pronouns, e.g. his [his] , him [him]
- the diphthong /ou/ is monothphongized and produced as lol, e.g.
whole [ho+], folks [folks]
- the vowel /a/ is frequently replaced by lol, e..g. on [D:n], job [d3D:b],
bottom [bD:tem], dollar [dD:ler]
- the schwa sound lal is not appropriately reduced in weak forms and
instead full quality vowels /A/, lei, lol or lul are produced, e.g. dollar
[dD:lAr], just [d3ASt], at [et], of [DV], was [WDZ], to [tu]
- aspiration on Ipl, HI, Ikl in initial positions of words e.g. cup [kAp],
kinds [kaindz], took [tuk]
63 Besides these mistakes, the speaker omits the diphthong leil in the word negligee and mispronounces it as [negli3] rather than [negli3ei]. Another mispronounced word is blew, which is produced as [blou].
As for the suprasegmental features, final lenis consonants 161, Idzl, /v/ and Izl are devoiced as fortis /tj/, /f/ and Isl, e.g. had [het], said [set], edge
[etj], of [of], cigars [siga:rs] and lures [lurs].
Furthermore, the consonant /h/ is fully pronounced instead of being dropped in its weak form, e.g. he had ever experienced [hi hed ever ik'spirienst] or took him by the hand [fi tuk him bai 5e haend]. Moreover, the speaker often pronounces the /h/ sound as velar /x/, which confirms Swan and
Smith's argument about mispronunciation of this sound by Polish speakers.
As far as the placement of stress is concerned, the words cigars, terrific and satisfied are wrongly emphasized. The first two are with stresses on the first syllable [siga:rs], [tenfik] instead of the second and the last one is with stress on the last syllable [sates1 faid] in place of the first.
The most troublesome aspect of the speech is intonation, similarly as in the speech of the Czech speaker. It lacks rhythm, weak forms are not reduced efficiently and intonation pitch moves unnecessarily high in the middle of a sentence which makes the speech inconsistent and difficult to comprehend.
64 3.3 Comparison
The analyses of the speeches have dealt with the pronunciation mistakes made by Germanic and Slavic speakers. This subchapter compares and contrasts the speakers within appropriate language group and aims to find out whether the most common pronunciation errors discussed in the theoretical part correspond with those occuring in the recordings.
The first speakers to be compared are Slavic. According to the analyses, the most troublesome aspects related to suprasegmental features are misplacement of stress and odd rhythm as a result of insufficient reduction of weak forms, which hinders natural flow and smoothness of the speeches.
Moreover, both speakers struggle with intonation. Although they try to change pitch of their voice, sometimes it sounds either a bit exaggerated or affected, especially in the middle of sentences, or rather flat and inexpressive.
As far as the segmental mistakes are concerned, the open vowel /as/ is frequently mispronounced by both speakers as either lei or /a/ and /a/ is replaced with lol. Furthermore, the schwa sound lei is substituted for /A/, lei, lot or lul and in the speech of the Czech speaker ID:/ is pronounced in place of /a-/.
The Polish speaker also experiences difficulties with the diphthong loul, which is monophthongized and sounds as lol. Moreover, the vowel 111 is, in number of cases, pronounced as l\l by the Polish speaker.
Another common error spotted in both speeches is the /irj/ ending which is frequently replaced by /ink/. Furthermore, the Czech speaker produces, although only once, Nl in place of /w/. Both the Czech and the Polish speaker struggle with dental fricatives 161 and IQI and put 161 and l\l or IV instead of them.
Additionally, the aspiration on /p/, IV, Ikl is often neglected by both speakers.
65 As far as the suprasegmental mistakes are concerned, devoicing of final consonants 161, AJ3/, hi and Izl which are replaced with HI, /tJ7, IM and Isl frequently occurs in both speeches. Besides this, the consonant Ihl has proved to be challenging for the Polish speaker who pronounces it as Ixl several times.
Lastly, both speakers fail to reduce the consonant Ihl in its weak form and thus the words are not efficiently linked, but are pronounced separately.
Although a number of pronunciation mistakes mentioned above correspond with the mistakes which have been introduced earlier in the theoretical part, there are certain discrepencies when it comes to comparing the facts suggested by various linguists and the results which the research has shown. Some of these include the schwa sound l&l, which has suprisingly been troublesome for the Czech speaker, but not for the Polish. On the other hand, the vowel Isl has proved to be difficult for both speakers, not solely for the
Czech. The diphthong loul, which has not been listed in the mispronounced vowels, has posed a difficulty for the Polish speaker. The last difference includes the consonant /w/ which has not proved to be challenging for the
Polish, but only for the Czech speaker.
The analyses of the speeches recorded by Germanic speakers have confirmed the fact stated in the theory that they have a relatively good command of stress, rhythm and intonation except an incorrectly placed stress by the Dutch speaker in one case. However, both Dutch and German speaker tend to omit weak forms similarly as their Slavic counterparts, although the occurance is far less frequent.
As for the mispronounced vowels and consonants, the open vowel /as/ is replaced with lei or /a/ by both speakers and /a/ is pronounced as lol several
66 times. The Dutch speaker monophthongizes the diphthong leil as lei at one point. Dental fricatives pose difficulties only for the Dutch speaker, who repeatedly pronounces it as IXI. The Dutch speaker also omits aspiration of plosives /p/, IV, Ikl throughout the recording whereas in the speech of the
German speaker, aspiration is generally efficiently performed apart from one case.
Regarding the mistakes made on the suprasegmental level, devoicing of final consonant occurs in both speeches, particularly 161, hi, Izl substituted for
IV, IV and Is/. In comparison with the German speaker, however, the Dutch seems to struggle considerably more with final devoicing. Not only does he devoice consonants in their final positions, but he also devoices 161, Igl and hi in their mid positions and replaces them with IV, Ikl and IV. Last but not least, the consonant Ihl is not reduced and fully pronounced by the German speaker, however, this happens only one time.
It can be concluded that the common pronunciation errors stated in the theory have generally been confirmed. Nevertheless, there are a few exceptions which disprove the arguments of some linguists, e.g. that the diphthong leil is mispronounced by German speakers only, however, the analyses have shown that, remarkably, it was the Dutch speaker, who has experienced difficulties with this sound unlike the German counterpart.
67 3.4 Assessors' evaluation of the recordings
As has been previously mentioned, two native speakers have been selected to evaluate the speech performances of the speakers of Germanic and
Slavic languages. One of them is of British descent, the other is American. This subchapter is meant to summarize the collected answers from the questionnaire. For a clear arrangement and comparison, the answers have been put in the tables.
Table 11: Q1 - Which of the speakers sounds most pleasant to your ear?
American British
Speaker 2 Speaker 3
Table 12: Q2 - On scale 1-5, rate the speakers' intelligibility.
American British
Speaker 1 2 (easy to understand) 2 (easy to understand)
Speaker 2 1 (very easy to 1 (very easy to
Speaker 3 understand) understand)
Speaker 4 1 (very easy to 1 (very easy to
understand) understand)
2 (easy to understand) 2 (easy to understand)
Table 13: Q2.1. - Can you explain why?
American British
I think mostly because of the Speaker 2 and 3 had really good emphasis on the correct or pronunciation and quite natural incorrect syllables, and the sounding stress, rhythm and intonation pronunciation of the vowel sounds. (although speaker 2 stressed migraine wrong at the start). They both sound a bit Irish. Speaker 1 and 4's rhythm and intonation were a bit more difficult to understand - but still fine.
68 Table 14: Q3 - Rate the speakers' accents' comparability to a native speaker's; Give each one a score from 1 to 5 (1 = closest to a native-like accent, 5 = furthest from a native speaker's accent)
American British Speaker 1 3 4
Speaker 2 2 2
Speaker 3 1 1
Speaker 4 3 4
Table 15: Q4 - Which of the speakers has made most mistakes in their pronunciation of sounds and in their stress, rhythm and intonation?
American British
Speaker 1 Speaker 4
Table 16: Q4.1. - Can you be more specific about the mistakes?
American British "th" sound, stress on the Fishing lures' in Speaker 1's Speaker wrong syllable, e.g. "terrific", recording was difficult to make 1 "exceptionally" out at first.
"mi-GRANES" rather than "Ml- th sounds - 'therapy' 'anything'; D Speaker granes," "th"/"d"/"t" sounds in the middle of words 'bedroom' 2 e.g. "bedroom" Speaker very few mistakes the a in 'man' 3 mispronounces "negligee", The first sentence around 35 "terrific" has wrong emphasis, years has awkward rhythm and "th" sound, I" sound in "him" intonation. Pronunciation of 'folks' and stress of 'terrific fishing lures' makes it Speaker slightly hard to understand. 4 Pronunciation of neglige. 'Blew his mind' sounds like blow. And 'he had ever' sounds like 'he have ever'. Intonation generally - goes up too much mid sentence - though English people do this too now.
69 Table 17: Q5 - If you were to give advice to each of the speakers, what would you recommend to work on to improve their pronunciation?
American British Speaker 1 practice "th" sound and vowel th sounds - 'through', sounds, general intonation 'weather'. The 'oo' in Door and room. Open the Y sounds at ends of words - dollar, stairs, lure. Speaker 2 practice "th" sound and o, u, a th sounds - 'therapy' vowels 'anything', oo sounds 'too', 'you'. D in the middle of words 'bedroom' Speaker 3 — open the a in 'man', r in 'improvement' Speaker 4 practice vowel sounds d (rather than t sound) at the end of 'neighbourhood'. Open the h sound on 'him' 'hand' 'had', th - 'third' 'this'
Table 18: Q6 - Based on the speakers' accents and the table below, can you guess their countries of origin?
American British
Speaker 1 Poland Poland
Speaker 2 the Netherlands22 the Netherlands Speaker 3 Germany Germany
Speaker 4 the Czech Republic the Czech Republic
The countries in bold have been correctly assigned to the speakers.
70 3.5 Research Results
The answers to the first question show that the assessors' opinions about aesthetic aspect of the recordings differ. While American assessor considers the Dutch speaker's performance the most aesthetic, British respondent regards speech of the German speaker as the most pleasant.
Suprisingly enough, despite the difference of opinion on the first question, both
American and British assessor find the German speaker's accent the most comparable to that of a native speaker. This suggests that native-like sounding speech does not necessarily have to be the most pleasant to one's ear.
As far as the evaluation in terms of the speakers' intelligibility is concerned, the assessors have assigned the same points to the Czech and
Polish speaker as well as to the Dutch and German speaker, the Slavic speakers being rated as slightly less comprehensible than the Germanic. Both assessors explain that mainly stress, rhythm and intonation is a decisive factor in comprehensibility of the speakers. Unnatural rhythm and intonation combined with incorrectly stressed syllables naturally hinders understandibility of speech performance.
Concerning the question about the speakers' accents' comparability to native speech performance, the German speaker has been given the highest score by both assessors. The Dutch speaker's performance being evaluated as the second most comparable accent and the Czech and Polish have been given score "3" by American and "4" by British assessor, which shows that the Slavic speakers' pronunciation is on a comparable level.
The answers of the respondents to the fourth question differ. According to
American assessor, the Czech speaker has made most mistakes, however,
71 British assessor belives that most errors can be found in the speech of the
Polish speaker. The mistakes which respondents have been able to name include mainly dental fricatives, vowel sounds, devoicing of final consonants, unnatural intonation and wrong placement of stress. This shows that to a native speaker's ear, every aspect of pronunciation is noticeable and interfering.
Suprisingly, none of the assessors has noticed lack of aspiration or mispronunciation of /in/, which suggests that either these pronunciation mistakes do not pose major difficulties in understanding or perhaps they have not attracted the assessors' attention as much as the other mistakes.
Overall, it can be concluded that native speakers notice both segmental and suprasegmental mistakes, which shows that it is not only correct pronunciation of vowels and consonants which plays a crucial role in speaker's intelligibility, but it is also dependent on accurate stress, rhythm and intonation.
Therefore, it is essential to practice all elements of pronunciation since they are equally significant. As both assessors recommend, the Czech and Polish speaker should work primarily on pronunciation of dental fricatives, open vowels, final devoicing and intonation. As for the Germanic speakers, they are advised to practice dental voiceless fricatives, open vowels and pronunciation of
161 in the middle of words.
Regarding the last question, where the respondents were supposed to guesstimate the speakers' countries of origin, both assessors have managed to successfully assign the Germanic speakers to their appropriate countries. This can be because of the respondents' familiarity with the foreign accents and their characterisitic features. However, both American and British assessor has failed to match the Slavic speakers with their correct countries. The reason behind
72 this can be the fact that the assessors have never encountered any Slavic speaker and, therefore, are not aware of what the accent sounds like.
Moreover, the mistakes which the Czech and Polish speakers make are, except few exceptions, practically identical and thus the speakers can be easily confused.
73 4 Conclusion
This thesis deals with pronunciation mistakes in English made by speakers of two language groups, these being Germanic and Slavic speakers in particular. It aims to compare and contrast the most common mistakes of these speakers as well as to find out how native speakers of English perceive
Germanic and Slavic accents. Primarily, the thesis tries to prove or disprove the hypothesis set in the introduction that the members of Germanic language group are capable of delivering better speech performance than the speakers of
Slavic languages.
The theory is based on works of well-known phoneticians, among them
Cruttenden, Roach, Krčmová, Karczmarczuk, Skalíčková, Collins and Mees,
Fagan and Wiese. With the help of these, the sound systems of English, Czech,
Polish, Dutch and German are defined. Furthermore, using works by Collins and Mees, Kensworthy, O'Conner, Melen and Swan and Smith, the most common pronunciation mistakes of Germanic and Slavic speakers made under the influence of their mother tongue are discussed in the theoretical part. Lastly, suprasegmental features, mainly stress, rhythm and intonation, of the languages in question are briefly desribed and compared to those of English.
The practical part consists of two parts. The first includes four recordings made by Czech, Polish, Dutch and German speakers. The speeches have subsequently been analysed and phonetically transcribed. The pronunciation mistakes discussed in the theoretical part have been compared to those occuring in the recordings which have been highlighted in the transcriptions.
Interestingly enough, the comparison has demonstrated that not all the pronunciation errors explained in the works of previously mentioned authors
74 correspond with the mistakes spotted in the research. What the analysis has shown, however, is that some pronunciation errors are characterisitic of both
Germanic and Slavic languges, mainly the open vowel /as/, dental fricatives, insufficient reduction of weak forms, devocing of final consonants and lack of aspiration. As far as the other segmental mistakes are concerned, the occurance and frequency varies depending on the speaker, however, the speech of the German speaker contains the fewest errors.
The second part consists of a questionnaire survey. Two assessors have been involved in the survey, one being American and the other British. They have been asked to listen to the recordings and assess the speeches according to their aesthetic quality, intelligibility and comparability to a native speaker's speech. Beside this, the assessors have also been asked to focus on the mistakes made in the recordings and to advise the speakers on which aspect of the pronunciation they should work on. Lastly, the respondents have guesstimated the speakers' countries of origin. The results of the research has shown that the German speaker has been rated by both assessors as having the most comparable native-like accent as well as having made the lowest number of mistakes, followed by the Dutch speaker. Both speakers have also been perceived as the most intelligible.
The findings collected from the practical research confirm the hypothesis set in the introduction, claiming that the speakers of Germanic languages have a better pronunciation than those whose first languge belongs to the Slavic language group. Since the speech of the Dutch and the German speaker has been evaluated as being the most intelligible, the closest to a native speaker's performance and containing the fewest erros in pronunciation, it proves the
75 hypothesis true. Moreover, since the assessors have been able to name both segmental and suprasegmental mistakes in the speeches, it suggests that all pronunciation mistakes are noticeable and influence both the aesthetic quality of the speech performance as well as its intelligibility. Therefore, this thesis can serve as a reminder for non-native speakers of English that every pronunciation feature should be devoted equal amount of attention.
76 5 Bibliography
Sources
(n. d.) A man goes to the doctor with a long history.... [text of a joke]. Kickass Humor. Retrieved from: http://kickasshumor.com/.
(n. d.) It was the mailman's last day on the job... [text of a joke]. Unijokes. Retrived from: https://unijokes.com/.
Works Cited
Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. L. (2012). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, A. (2006). Ship or Sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Booij, G. E. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brooks, M. Z. (1975). Polish reference grammar. The Hague: Mouton.
Collins, B., Mees, I. M. (2003). The phonetics of English and Dutch. 5th ed. Leiden: Brill.
Cruttenden, Allan. (2014). Gimson's Pronunciation Of English. (8th Ed.) Routledge.
Crystal, David. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. (6th Ed.) Maiden: Blackwell.
EF EPI 2017 - Netherlands, (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from http://www.ef-australia.com.au/epi/regions/europe/netherlands/
Full IPA Chart. (2005). Retrieved October 18, 2015, from International Phonetic Association:https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/full- ipa-chart
Fagan, S. M. (2009). German: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.
Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language. (2016, December 11). Dutch Pronunciation, Video 1: Dutch Phonetics and Spelling [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THM0x-DI9yc
Fluent Forever - Learn Any Language. (2014, October 17) German Pronunciation Video 1: The German Consonants and the IPA [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrLZi6fipA
77 Gimson, A. C. (1967). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: E. Arnold.
Karas, M., & Madejowa, M. (1977). Stownik wymowy polskiej PWN [Dictionary of Polish Phonetics]. Kraków: Paňstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Warszawa.
Karczmarczuk, B. (2012). Wymowa Polska z Čwiczeniami [Polish Phonetics with Excercises]. Lublin: Asocjacja LOGOPEDIC.
Krčmová, Marie. (1984). Fonetika a fonologie českého jazyka. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Krčmová, Marie. (2008). Úvod do fonetiky a fonologie pro bohemisty. (3rd Ed.) Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě.
Melen, Dušan. (2010). Výslovnost angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Praha: Big Ben Bookshop Prague.
O'Connor, J. D. (1998). Better English Pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palátová, Zuzana. (2016). Polish and Czech Pronunciation of English (Bachelor's thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
Pálková, Zdena. (1994) Fonetika a fonologie češtiny s obecným úvodem do problematiky oboru. Praha: Karolinum.
Roach, Peter. (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. (4th Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2013). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. London: Bloomsbury.
Skaličková, Alena. (1987). Fonetika současné angličtiny: Učebnice Pro Vysoké Školy. (2nd Ed.) Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Swan, M., Smith, B. (2001). Learner English: A Teacher's Guide to Interference and Other Problems. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tichý, T. (2016). Pronunciation of English by Politicians of Three Language Groups (Master's Diploma Thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
Wiese, R. (2000). The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Žákovská, I. (2017). Segmental and Suprasegmental Mistakes in Czech Speakers' English Pronunciation (Bachelor's Dimploma Thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
78 Summary
The thesis deals with pronunciation mistakes made by speakers of
English whose first language is Dutch, German, Czech and Polish. It compares the mistakes and strives to find out how native speakers of English perceive accents of these speakers. It aims to prove the hypothesis that the speakers whose first language is of Germanic origin have better pronunciation than the speakers of Slavic languages.
The theoretical part includes definitions of sound systems of all the languages concerned based on the works of various phoneticians, e.g.
Cruttenden, Collins and Meese, Krčmová, Roach and Wiese. It also deals with the most common pronunciation errors as well as explication of suprasegmental features of the languages.
The practical research involves two parts. The first is concerned with the analysis of the speeches recorded by the speakers. The speeches are phonetically transcribed and the mistakes highlighted. Subsequently, a comparison is drawn between the pronunciation errors explained in the theory and those occurring in the recordings. The second part consists of a questionnaire survey which has been answered by two native speakers of
English. They have assessed the speeches according to aesthetic quality, level of intelligibility and comparability to a native speaker's accent. Both parts of the practical research confirm the hypothesis that the speakers from the
Netherlands and Germany have better pronunciation than those coming from the Czech Republic and Poland.
79 Shrnutí
Tato práce se zabývá výslovnostními chybami, kterých se dopouštějí mluvčí angličtiny, jejichž mateřským jazykem je nizozemština, němčina, čeština a polština. Práce porovnává tyto chyby a snaží se zjistit, jak rodilí mluvčí angličtiny vnímají akcenty těchto mluvčích. Snaží se dokázat hypotézu, že mluvčí, jejichž rodilý jazyk je germánského původu, mají lepší výslovnost než ti, kteří mluví jazykem slovanským.
Teoretická část zahrnuje definice hláskových systémů všech zkoumaných jazyků na základě prací různých fonetiků, např. Cruttenden,
Collins a Meese, Krčmová, Roach a Wiese. Zabývá se též nejbežnějšími výslovnostními chybami a vysvětlením suprasegmentálních jevů.
Praktický výzkum zahrnuje dvě části. První se zabývá analýzou čtených projevů, které nahráli mluvčí všech čtyř jazyků. Mluvní projevy jsou foneticky přepsány a chyby zvýrazněny. Výslovnostní chyby vysvětlené v teoretické části jsou následně porovnány s těmi, které se objevují v nahrávkách. Druhá část se skládá z dotazníkového výzkumu, na který odpovídali dva rodilí mluvčí angličtiny. Rodilí mluvčí posuzovali mluvní projevy z hlediska estetické kvality a také podle míry srozumitelnosti a přirovnatelnosti k akcentu rodilého mluvčího.
Obě části praktického výzkumu potvrzují hypotézu, že mluvčí z Nizozemí a
Německa mají lepší výslovnost než ti, kteří pocházejí z České republiky a
Polska.
80 Appendix
A Compact Disc including all the recordings "SpeakeM", "Speaker_2",
"Speaker_3", "Speaker_4", "Filled_ln_Questionnaires" by native speakers and
"lnformed_Consent_Forms" filled in by the participants
Joke transcript 1
It was the mailman's last day on the job after 35 years of carrying the mail through all kinds of weather to the same neighbourhood.
When he arrived at the first house on his route, he was greeted by the whole family there, who congratulated him and sent him on his way with a big gift envelope. At the second house they presented him with a box of fine cigars. The folks at the third house handed him a selection of terrific fishing lures. At the fourth house he was met at the door by an exceptionally beautiful woman in a revealing negligee. She took him by the hand, gently led him through the door, and led him up the stairs to the bedroom where she blew his mind with the most passionate love he had ever experienced.
When he had had enough they went downstairs, where she prepared a giant breakfast. When he was truly satisfied, she poured him a cup of steaming coffee. As she was pouring, he noticed a dollar bill sticking out from under the cup's bottom edge. "All this was just too wonderful for words he said, "but what's the dollar for?" "Well," she said, "last night, I told my husband that today would be your last day, and that we should do something special for you. I asked him what to give you." He said, "Screw him, give him a dollar." She then added, "The breakfast was my idea."
81 Joke transcript 2
A man goes to the doctor with a long history of migraine headaches.
When the doctor examines his medical history, he discovers that the poor guy has tried practically every therapy known to man for his migraines and
STILL no improvement. "Listen," says the doc, "I have migraines, too and the advice I'm going to give you isn't really anything I learned in medical school, but it's advice that I've gotten from my own experience. When
I have a migraine, I go home, get in a nice hot bathtub, and soak for a while. Then I have my wife sponge me off with the hottest water I can stand, particularly around the forehead. This helps a little. Then I get out of the tub, take her into the bedroom, and even if my head is killing me, I force myself to have sex with her. Almost always, the headache is immediately gone. Now, give it a try, come back and see me in six weeks."
Six weeks later, the patient returns with a big grin. "Doc! I took your advice and it works! It REALLY WORKS! I've had migraines for 17 years and this is the FIRST time anyone has ever helped me!" "Well," says the physician, "I'm glad I could help."
"By the way, Doc," the patient adds, "You have a REALLY nice house."
82