Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of English
Bachelor Degree Project
English Linguistics
Spring 2021
Supervisor: Peter Sundkvist
World Englishes:
Attitude in the
Expanding Circle Towards East and
Southeast Asian Varieties of English
Laura Ortu
World Englishes: Attitude in the
Expanding Circle Towards East and Southeast Asian Varieties of English
Laura Ortu
Abstract
English has become an essential part in our lives. It is inevitable to formulate
an opinion when we meet a new person, and in particular we tend to focus our
attention on the way this person speaks. The present research aims to answer
the questions on how a European audience (Italian audience) perceives
different varieties of English to which it is exposed. Four different speakers
from four different Southeast and East Asian countries were selected and
recorded while reading a short text. These recordings were submitted to the
audience, which was asked to answer a set of questions about
comprehensibility and likability. Results show that the audience elected as
their favourite speaker the clearest accent to hear, thus suggesting that the
members of the audience might have been influenced by comprehensibility
and accentedness in the first place. Other variables, such as expressiveness,
were not significantly considered by the participants.
Keywords
Attitude, Asian accented English, comprehensibility, likability, accentedness.
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................... 2
1.1 Similar researches and gaps .............................................................. 3
1.2 The goal of the present research ........................................................ 3
1.3 Main features of the varieties of English analyzed................................. 4
1.1.1 Singaporean English ............................................................. 5
1.1.2 Japanese English .................................................................. 5
1.1.3 Vietnamese English ............................................................... 6
1.1.4 Chinese English .................................................................... 7
2.Methodology ................................................................................... 7
2.1 Matched Guise Technique ................................................................. 8
2.2 Speakers ........................................................................................ 8
2.3 Italian audience ............................................................................... 9
2.4 Set of questions .............................................................................. 9
3. Results .......................................................................................... 9
3.1 Part I ............................................................................................ 10
3.2. Part II .......................................................................................... 13
4. Discussion ..................................................................................... 16
4.1 Hypotheses .................................................................................... 16
4.2 The first thesis statement ................................................................ 17
4.3 Flows of the project ........................................................................ 18
5. Conclusion .................................................................................... 18
References ........................................................................................ 20
Appendix A ....................................................................................... 22
Appendix B ....................................................................................... 23
Appendix C ....................................................................................... 28
Appendix D ....................................................................................... 29
Appendix E ....................................................................................... 30
2
1. Introduction
English has become a fundamental tool in our lives. This language is used in several
fields, with specific vocabulary and various registers. However, it is important to
remember that there are numerous varieties of English. British English, American
English, Canadian English, Australian English: these are just some of the most
widespread varieties of World Englishes. It may also be interesting to consider how
these different accents are perceived: generally, British English sounds “snobbish”,
American English sounds “cool” (Kaur, 2014, p. 6), and so on. However, English has
different varieties outside the “Inner Circle”, or “the ‘owners’ of this language” as
Canagarajah (2013), while citing Kachru (1986) defines them (p. 58). It is important to
remember that the ownership of English is not only in the hands of the Inner Circle
users. The definition of “variety” is not straightforward, because even within the Inner
Circle there are local varieties. As Canagarajah states, “[a]ttitudes of ownership and
purity may inhibit NES engagement with other languages and communities, but cannot
leave their competence or norms unscathed from the results of such contact” (p. 60).
The “Expanding Circle”, which is formed by people who “didn’t come under British
colonization, but are using English as a foreign language for contact with other similar
countries” (Canagarajah, p. 58), is a solid reality that has to be considered while
studying features of English. Therefore, it is appealing to consider how these accents are
perceived.
As stated before, English is spoken in other communities whose speakers are not
considered “native”. In order to be economically competitive, some East Asian
countries have reached a high level of English and in some of them it has even become
a second language. Singaporean English, Chinese English, Vietnamese English or
Japanese English are just four new varieties of English that captured the interest of
phoneticians around the world. However, it is important to remember that some
phoneticians would accept Singaporean English as a variety of English, whereas some
others would refuse, for instance, Vietnamese English. This can be connected to the fact
that Vietnamese English is a “recent” variety of English; however, as stated in
Canagarajah, these “definitions of what is or isn’t a ‘variety’ shouldn’t prevent us from
acknowledging significant communicative practices” (p. 60). One of the main aspects
considered is accentedness, i.e. “a judgment of accent strength” (Lochland, 2020, p. 23).
Therefore, scholars have decided to discover how these accents were perceived inside
the countries where they were spoken. Tan and Tan (2008), for instance, determined
that Singaporean English is valued by its speakers, albeit not considered “fashionable”
(p. 476). Moreover, Tokumoto and Shibata (2011) affirm that the Japanese group
analyzed preferred the British or American accents (more intelligent and confident),
rather than the Japanese accented English (ranked as funny and modest) (p. 393).
3
1.1 Similar researches and gaps
Several studies have been conducted on how East Asian English accentedness is
considered by other East Asian speakers of English. In their aforementioned article, Tan
and Tan (2008) highlighted how Singaporean English and Singaporean English accent
were perceived in Singapore. A man from Singapore who used to live in the U.S.A. read
two texts – one written in Standard English and the other one written in Singlish (i.e.
broader form of Singaporean English) – and two more speakers from Indonesia and
Hong Kong were asked to do the same. The recordings were played in several schools
in Singapore and the pupils answered some attitudinal questions. Tan and Tan’s
research underlined that a text written in Standard English and read with a Singaporean
English accent was not recognized as proper Singlish, even though it was considered as
intelligent. A further research is presented by Kalra and Thanavisuth (2018), where
different accents from five different East Asian speakers of English are submitted to
Thai students and then analyzed. Japanese English was perceived as “unfriendly, boring
and lazy” (p. 288), whereas Chinese English was classified as “friendly and smart” (p.
289), even though the comprehension was high in both cases. In a similar research
project, led by Sangnok and Jaturapitakkul (2019), undergraduate Thai students were
asked to express their preference towards Singaporean, Filipino and Indian English. The
students ranked Singaporean English accent as a more “difficult accent to understand”
compared to the Indian one (p. 35). Kang, Vo and Moran (2016) present results on how
Vietnamese accented English is evaluated by native and non-native speakers of English
(American, Vietnamese and Arabic students), in terms of accentedness and
comprehensibility. Participants found Vietnamese accented English difficult to
understand, and Vietnamese L1 speakers were more severe while judging the
pronunciation of this variety of English, because of their familiarity with it (p. 11).
Moreover, Arabic and American speakers of English ranked the Vietnamese accent as
“more accented than their own Vietnamese listeners” (p. 12).
There are several researches on how East Asian varieties of English are perceived by
Asian or native speakers of English. However, it was not possible to find projects on
attitudes from a European audience (with English as their L2) towards the
aforementioned varieties of Asian English.
1.2 The goal of the present research
The aim of this research is to discover how a European audience reacts to both
accentedness and comprehensibility related to four different East Asian English
varieties (Singaporean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese). Given the fact that both
Europe and Asia are in the “Expanding Circle” – excluding English speaking countries
and former colonies – it would be interesting to test Europeans’ reaction to their Asian
peers. A further reason is related to the fact that, as stated in the previous paragraph, it
was not possible to find previous researches on this matter. This project will develop a
similar study to the one proposed by Tan and Tan (2008), although there will be some
4
modifications. The readers will come from four different East Asian countries and the
audience will be exclusively formed by European speakers of English, namely Italians.
This research aims to answer the following questions:
1) How are East Asian varieties of English perceived by an Italian audience?
2) Which variety of East Asian accented English is the most likable?
3) Which variety of English is the most understandable?
It will be interesting to see if the audience will be influenced by stereotypes. Trudgill
(2000) states that “we rely on stereotypes when we first meet and interact with people
[…] and use the way they speak to build up a picture of what sort of person we think
they are (p. 195).
It is complicated to predict some results due to a lack of previous similar researches in a
European context. However, since there are analogous projects with Asian or native
speakers audience, it may be possible to formulate several hypotheses:
a possible outcome could be connected to comprehensibility: the audience may
agree on the fact that a comprehensible accent could be elected as their favourite
one;
another result can be influenced by the accent and the expressiveness of the
speakers. The audience can be deceived by the interpretation of the text from the
speaker while reading, and rate their favourite accent based on this aspect;
a further hypothesis can be connected to the chosen set of adjectives. The
participants could rank with higher votes positive adjectives or lower votes
negative adjectives based on comprehensibility. This aspect was also analyzed in
the aforementioned article by Kalra and Thanavisuth (2018), where
comprehensibility did not influence the ranking process of adjectives by the
participants.
In order to test these hypotheses, a modified Indirect Methodology will be applied
(matched-guise or MG), which “involves presenting study participants with recordings
of one bilingual or bi-dialect speaker reading passages that are identical in all aspects
except for the variable under investigation” (in this case, different East Asian English
accents) (Cavallaro et al., 2014, p. 379). However, minor changes have been brought to
this technique, as explained in section 2.1.
1.3 Main features of the varieties of English analyzed
In this section will be briefly described the main features of the East Asian varieties of
English examined. The four East and Southeast Asian varieties of English chosen are:
Singaporean English, Japanese English, Vietnamese English and Chinese English.
These varieties were chosen because of their position in Kachru’s circles, which is
similar to the Italian one (except for Singapore).
5
In her article, Kobayashi (2011), using Kachru’s model of three circles of English,
considers Singapore as an “Outer Circle” country, where rich families from East Asia
(mostly from China and Japan) send their children to study English (p. 236). Moreover,
she includes both China and Japan in the “Expanding Circle”, with China’s example
that “might soon challenge Kachru’s three-categorisation and the integral notion of
‘English speakers’” (p. 237). Kirkpatrick (2020) agrees with Kobayashi on the position
inside the circles of China, Japan, and Singapore; he also inserts Vietnam in the
“Expanding Circle”, since it was “some form of colony but not of English-speaking
empires” (p. 553). Their main phonetic and phonological features of these Asian
accented varieties of English are briefly described in the following paragraphs. These
characteristics are compared to Received Pronunciation (RP), in order to better explain
thanks to a more familiar variety of English.
1.1.1 Singaporean English
English is one of the four official languages spoken in Singapore, together with Malay,
Mandarin and Tamil. As defined in Leimgruber (2011), Singaporean English, or
Standard Singapore English (SSE), has the “vernacular, Colloquial Singapore English
(CSE), often called ‘Singlish’ by speakers, government language planners, and, indeed,
linguists” (p. 47). The main features of Singlish, according to Leimgruber (2011, pp.
48–49) are:
1. long vowels merge into a single phoneme. This variation does not affect minimal
pairs;
2. vowels [ɛ] and [æ] collapse into one phoneme /ɛ/;
3. CSE has only six vowels: /i/, /ɛ/, /a/, /ə/, /ɔ/ and /u/ (according to Bao, 1998, as
cited in Leimgruber);
4. the diphthongs listed by Bao (1998), as cited in Leimgruber, are /ɔi/, /ai/, /au/, /iə/
and /uə/;
5. the consonants are identical to RP ones. The only exceptions are /θ/ and /ð/,
replaced by /t/ and /d/ respectively. /θ/ is uttered as a [t] or [θ] when it occurs in the
beginning or middle of a word, whereas it is pronounced as [f] in word-final
position ([θ] can occur as well).
1.1.2 Japanese English
English was not considered important in Japan until the Meiji Restoration in 1868,
when “new enlightened leaders came to realize that English would be essential for the
country’s modernization and development” (Honna, 2020, p. 253). English was then
taught in secondary schools and its teaching was strengthened after World War II.
However, the relationship between Japan and English did not seem auspicious. Several
English words were substituted with Japanese words because the concepts expressed by
English words were “not easy to express in Japanese” (Honna, p. 255). English is now
the official language used in many Japanese companies. As stated in Yamaguchi and
6
Chiew (2019, pp. 44–48), and Hazan et al. (2005, p. 364), vowels and consonants
features commonly associated with a Japanese accent of English include the following:
1. /æ/, /ə/, /ʌ/, /ɜ/ and /ɑ/ are frequently substituted by a centralized vowel [ɐ];
2. /ɔ/ and /ʌ/ are uttered as a more close and centralized vowel. The first one as [o]
and the second one as [a] or [o];
3. Japanese speakers of English can pronounce dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/,
although there are minimal variations in uttering them as [s] or [z];
4. In Japanese there are no lateral approximants. Therefore, /l/ is replaced by the
alveolar flap [ɾ];
5. Labiodentals /v/ and /f/ and bilabials /b/ and /p/ are difficult to pronounce for
Japanese speakers of English, because these sounds do not appear in the Japanese
consonant inventory.
1.1.3 Vietnamese English
Low (2020) states that English arrived in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. It was
introduced by the Americans and was later banned after the end of the war as the
language of the enemy (p. 141). Nowadays, English is a compulsory subject in schools,
even though outside school context an insignificant percentage of the population can
speak fluent English (p. 141). Sundkvist and Nguyen (2020) describe the main features
of this variety of English as follows (pp. 690–691):
1. Large set of monophthongs /i, e, ɛ, a, ɔ, o, u, ɤ, ɯ/, and three diphthongs /iə, ɯə,
uə/. There is no contrast between tense and lax vowels;
2. In word-initial position orthographic <b, d> are pronounced as voiced implosives
/ɓ, ɗ/;
3. Voiced <th> is normally pronounced as a dental stop or an alveolar fricative; a
voiceless <th> is pronounced as a dental fricative [θ] or a dental stop;
4. /dʒ/ is replaced by /dz/ or /ʒ/ in initial position, and in other positions as /g/ or /z/;
5. A glottal stop is inserted before vowels, word-initially and sometimes word-
internally;
6. Final stops /p, t, k/ are pronounced with glottalization [Ɂp˺, Ɂt˺, Ɂk˺];
7. English codas are usually modified with consonant omission, consonant
replacement, or vowel insertion;
8. Single consonants of all manners are often omitted after diphthongs and less
commonly after other vowels;
9. Voiced stops are often substituted with their counterparts (i.e. /d/ is substituted with
/t/, /g/ with /k/, etcetera). Fricatives are commonly replaced by a stop (e.g. /s, z/
with /t/, /ʃ/ with /k/);
10. /l/ is often replaced by /n/ in Hanoi speakers, and he contrary was also found. It is
less common that /l/ is substituted with /r/;
11. In final position, /st/ is reduced to either /t/ or /s/.
12. Three-consonant clusters, such as /kst/ (next), was reduced to /k/, /kt/, or /t/.
7
1.1.4 Chinese English
Honna (2020) states that English arrived in China in 1637, when British ships arrived in
Macau and Canton. After 100 years, “Chinese Pidgin English” developed and it was
used as a lingua franca for trades. Nowadays, English is recognized as an important
language and it is used in international communication. Moreover, English is a
compulsory subject in schools and it is taught from the first grade onward (pp. 248–
250). Deterding (2006a) lists the main features of pronunciation as follows (pp. 178–
193):
1. Chinese English has an extra final vowel (or epenthetic vowel), especially when the
word ends with a plosive. Usually, this vowel is a schwa /ə/. This peculiarity
occurs because Standard Chinese does not allow final plosives;
2. The pronunciation of English by Chinese speakers tends to have a syllable–
based rhythm;
3. Vowels are usually nasalized in specific contexts (i.e. when they occur in a
final position before a final nasal consonant);
4. Voiceless dental fricative /θ/ is pronounced in two ways. If this phoneme occurs in
the beginning of the word, it is uttered as [θ]; in the middle or at the end of a word
it is pronounced as [s];
5. Voiced dental fricative /ð/ is substituted by both [d] or [z]. However, [d] is more
common and occurs especially in medial positions in a word;
6. Voiceless glottal fricative /h/ is pronounced as [x], due to a transference from
Standard Chinese.
7. Voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ is usually pronounced as /ɹ/. Many Chinese
speakers have difficulties articulating this sound, which is realized as a retroflex
approximant similar to English /r/ even though the lips are not rounded;
8. Voiced fricatives /v/ and /z/ are substituted respectively by [w] and [dz];
9. Initial lateral approximant /l/ is substituted by [n] (central China only). Sometimes,
/l/ is uttered as a [ə] or [ʊ] (vocalized /l/);
2.Methodology
The method applied in this research project is a listening test. Twenty-nine Italian
speakers of English were selected as audience and they were asked to listen to four
recordings from four East and Southeast Asian male speakers, and answer a set of
questions. The speakers read the short text “The boy who Cried Wolf” (Appendix A),
which was taken from Deterding (2006b, p. 193). The participants were asked to answer
the questions based on their impressions about accentedness and comprehensibility. The
set of adjectives utilized are, as Cavallaro and Chin (2009) defines them, a “battery of
semantic scales” (p. 144), such as “friendly”, “reserved”, “trustworthy”, and so on. The
aforementioned list of adjectives was inspired by the one applied in Kalra and
Thanavisuth’s research project (2018, p. 287).
8
2.1 Matched Guise Technique
Cavallaro and Chin (2009) define the Matched Guise technique (MG) as a “more
indirect methodological approach to investigating language attitudes [which] is the
measurement of more subjective reactions to variations in languages” (p. 144). This
technique was first introduced by Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum (1960),
and it was presented as an “experimental investigation of the extent to which peoples'
judgments about a speaker are determined by his voice” (p. 44). This technique involves
speakers reading the same paragraph, even though one of them reads the text with
diverse accents. This approach aims to obtain a reliable outcome on how the audience
perceives the accents, without knowing that some of the voices they are hearing actually
belong to the same speaker. However, the validity of MG was harshly criticized by
several scholars. Cavallaro and Chin (2009) state that
MG test uses one speaker to produce the desired number of speech samples.
While it is normally possible to find a speaker who can successfully mimic a
small number of different accents, this is not possible in the case of larger
studies when larger numbers of dialects are being tested. The belief is that it is
difficult (or impossible) to find one speaker who can speak or mimic all the
dialectal varieties being investigated (p. 145).
To avoid this problem, the present research applied a variation of the MG technique
known as the “verbal guise test”, in which “different speakers are used for the different
varieties tested” (Cavallaro and Chin, 2009, p. 145).
2.2 Speakers
Four East and Southeast Asian speakers of English from four different countries in the
aforementioned area were selected (Singapore, Japan, Vietnam and China). Three of the
speakers were enlisted because of their friendship with the author of this paper; the last
speaker was recruited by the supervisor of this project. All of them were asked to read
the aforementioned brief text, “The boy who Cried Wolf”. This text was chosen because
some of the main features of the RP British English within the text were compared to
Singaporean (p. 189) and Standard Chinese (p. 190) English pronunciation. Therefore,
the author of this paper wanted to extend the aforementioned text to other Asian
accented English and see whether they share some similarities in the pronunciation or
not. All speakers are male, between 20 and 60 years of age, and all of them are able to
speak English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The four speakers are fluent in English,
since they speak this language at work and at university on a daily basis. One of the
speakers is an undergraduate student, one is a neuroscientist, and another one is a paper
processor. However, for one speaker this piece of information is not available. The
speakers were asked to familiarize with the text before recording themselves. Moreover,
they were asked to read with their native accents.
9
2.3 Italian audience
29 Italian speakers of EFL were selected in order to participate to this project. The
majority of them have been studying English for at least ten years. Only a restricted
percentage was exposed to different accents than British English and American English
(mostly European accented English varieties or Indian accented English). The choice of
selecting only Italian speakers of English was mostly due to the current Covid-19
situation. This decision represented the only solution possible to interview a sufficient
number of people while observing the Covid-19 restrictions established by the Italian
government. Therefore, the collection of the questionnaires requested a significant
period of time. A further reason why only Italian speakers of English were selected is
that the aim was to understand how they perceived an unknown variety of the language
they study or studied, since the majority were exposed only to British English or
American English. This is an important feature of the audience, since their unfamiliarity
with these accents may help the participants avoiding prejudices. Moreover, Italians
were chosen because they have difficulties speaking foreign languages: according to the
Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), in 2015 a 48,1% of the population was
able to speak English (2017, p. 9). It could be interesting to understand how these 29
participants perceive a non-familiar variety of English.
The majority of the members from the audience is composed by undergraduate students.
Two of them have a degree in English. Five of them are undergraduate students of
English and the rest studied English in school and have different backgrounds
(engineering students, psychology students, law students, philosophy students,
employees). The age range of the interviewees is between 20s and 40s. The audience
was asked to complete the questionnaire after listening to the recordings; moreover,
they were instructed to focus on the likability and comprehensibility of the
aforementioned varieties.
2.4 Set of questions
The questionnaire (Appendix B) is divided into two parts. In the first part the
participants were requested to express how they perceived the accent submitted through
a set of semantic scales (e.g. “posh”, “rural”, “reserved”, and so on). Furthermore, they
were asked to guess the nationality of the speaker. In the second part were presented
three open–ended questions and the audience answered with their personal opinion
about likability and comprehensibility, after rehearing the recordings a second time. The
audience read the questions in part I, before completing the questionnaire. The same
procedure was followed for part II. Part I and part II were separated by a blank page, in
order to prevent the audience from reading the questions in the second part before it was
requested.
3. Results
10
In the following sections are presented the main result of this project. It is important to
clarify that the definition “speaker 1” always refers to the Singaporean speaker;
“speaker 2” identifies with the Japanese speaker; “speaker 3” indicates the speaker from
Vietnam and “speaker 4” is used to refer to the Chinese speaker.
3.1 Part I
In the next tables, which follow the same procedure, the median value was calculated
for each speaker. The 15th
of the 29 participants was considered and this gave the
median value for “low”, “medium” and “high”. These three groups include the ranking
scale from 1 to 5 the audience utilized to express their preferences. “Low” includes the
votes from 1 to 2; “medium” represents 3; “high” 4 and 5. In the columns, the “N”
represents the total number of participants, i.e. 29, and the number between round
brackets indicates the number of participants, but in percentage.
Table 1: comprehensibility (median)
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
N - (%) N - (%) N - (%) N - (%)
Low (1-2) 11 (38%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 9 (31 %)
Medium (3) 10 (34%) 4 (14%) 2 (6%) 7 (24%)
High (4-5) 8 (28%) 25 (86%) 26 (91%) 13 (45%)
Median Medium High High Medium
Total N=29 (100%)
Table 1 presents a median value of the comprehensibility for each speaker. The
audience ranked with highly comprehensible the accents from speakers 2 (86%) and 3
(91%). On the contrary, the first speaker obtained “low” from the 38% of the audience
and speaker 4 was ranked in the same way by the 31% of the participants.
Table 2: median adjectives speaker 1
Adjectives Low Medium High Median
% % %
Friendly 38% 38% 24% Medium
Reserved 17% 31% 52% High
Trustworthy 14% 28% 59% High
Unreliable 76% 21% 3% Low
Posh 59% 14% 27% Low
Rural 72% 10% 17% Low
Cool 45% 21% 34% Medium
Well Educated 10% 31% 59% High
Poor Formal
Education 72% 17% 10% Low
11
Table 2 presents the percentage of the median value for each adjective for speaker 1.
The median resulted high for “reserved”, “trustworthy”, and “well educated”. The
“medium” value was attributed to “friendly” and “cool”; “unreliable”, “posh”, “rural,
and “poor formal education” were ranked as “low”.
Table 3: median adjectives speaker 2
Adjectives Low Medium High Median
% % %
Friendly 38% 17% 45% Medium
Reserved 79% 17% 3% Low
Trustworthy 21% 31% 48% Medium
Unreliable 90% 7% 3% Low
Posh 79% 7% 14% Low
Rural 48% 21% 31% Medium
Cool 41% 21% 37% Medium
Well Educated 28% 24% 48% Medium
Poor Formal Education 48% 31% 21% Medium
The same procedure in table 2 was applied to table 3 for speaker 2. In this case, there
are no “high” median. “Reserved”, “unreliable” and “posh” were ranked as “low”, and
the rest of the set was considered as “medium”.
Table 4: median adjectives speaker 3
Adjectives Low Medium High Median
% % %
Friendly 28% 34% 38% Medium
Reserved 55% 34% 10% Low
Trustworthy 21% 48% 31% Medium
Unreliable 86% 3% 10% Low
Posh 59% 17% 24% Low
Rural 59% 31% 10% Low
Cool 28% 41% 31% Medium
Well Educated 17% 31% 52% High
Poor Formal Education 69% 14% 17% Low
Table 4 collects the median values of the adjectives for speaker 3. “High” was attributed
only to “well educated”; “medium” to “friendly”, “trustworthy” and “cool”. The rest
was considered as “low”.
12
Table 5: median adjectives speaker 4
Adjectives Low Medium High Median
% % %
Friendly 41% 35% 24% Medium
Reserved 17% 17% 66% High
Trustworthy 21% 52% 27% Medium
Unreliable 72% 21% 7% Low
Posh 59% 24% 17% Low
Rural 66% 10% 24% Low
Cool 62% 21% 17% Low
Well Educated 24% 31% 45% Medium
Poor Formal Education 55% 21% 24% Low
Table 5 presents the median value for the adjectives for speaker 4. In this case, only the
adjective “reserved” was considered as “high”; “friendly”, “trustworthy” and “well
educated” obtained “medium” and the rest was ranked as “low”.
Table 6: median adjectives four speakers
Adjectives Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
Friendly Medium Medium Medium Medium
Reserved High Low Low High
Trustworthy High Medium Medium Medium
Unreliable Low Low Low Low
Posh Low Low Low Low
Rural Low Medium Low Low
Cool Medium Medium Medium Low
Well Educated High Medium High Medium
Poor Formal
Education Low Medium Low Low
Table 6 collects all the median for all the speakers. The most reserved were judged
speakers 1 and 4; speaker 1 was also considered as the most trustworthy. Speakers 1 and
3 were resulted the most “well educated”, since they obtained “high” in this quality; on
the contrary, speakers 2 and 4 were given “medium” from the audience. All the speakers
were judged as “low” in “unreliable” and “posh”, and “medium” in “friendly”. Speaker
2 was the only one to obtain “medium” in “rural” and “poor formal education”, whereas
13
the others got “low”. Speaker 4 was the only one who was ranked “low” in “cool” (the
others were judged as “medium”).
3.2. Part II
Figure 1: most pleasant accent
Figure 1 presents the data regarding the most pleasant accent to listen to. 45% of the
audience agreed on electing the Vietnamese speaker’s accent (number 3) as the most
pleasant one to listen to. The second most pleasant one is the Japanese speaker’s
(number 2) with a 31% of preferences from the audience. The accents belonging to the
Singaporean speaker (number 1) and the Chinese speaker (number 4) were ranked as the
least pleasant. Speaker 1 was judged as the most pleasant accent to listen to by the 14%
of the audience, whereas speaker 4 obtained only 10% of the preferences.
Table 7: motivations for most pleasant accent
Motivation Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
No problems understanding it 3% 7% 3% 0%
Clear, easy, expressive 7% 24% 40% 10%
Down to Earth, approachable 3% 0% 0% 0%
Peaceful and harmonious 0% 0% 0% 3%
Total for each speaker 13% 31% 43% 13%
Total 100%
Table 7 collects the audience’s explanations regarding their decisions on the most
pleasant accent to hear. Speaker 3 (Vietnam) collected a 43% of preferences from the
audience, which agreed on describing it as the “clearest, easiest and most expressive
accent” (40%); moreover, the audience had “no problems understanding it” (3%). For
the same reason, speaker 2 (who was considered the second most pleasant accent)
14
obtained 24% of votes. Both speaker 1 and 4 obtained 13% of votes as the most pleasant
accent. One member of the audience considered speaker 1’s accent as “down to Earth
and approachable”. Another participant labelled the accent of speaker 4 as “peaceful
and harmonious”. Moreover, 3% of the audience considered speaker 1 easy to
understand and 7% depicted speaker 2 as such.
Figure 2: favourite accent
Figure 2 reports the percentages of the favourite accent among the four speakers. 41%
of the audience considered speaker 3 from Vietnam as their favourite speaker, whereas
the 38% preferred speaker 2 from Japan. Speaker 1 from Singapore and speaker 4 from
China were ranked as least favourite from 14% and 7% of the audience, respectively.
Table 8: motivations for favourite accents
Motivation Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
Most fluent speaker 7% 0% 0% 0%
Clear, easy, expressive 7% 28% 31% 0%
Fascinating and/or interesting
(linguistically) 0% 0% 10% 7%
Calming, friendly, funny 0% 10% 0% 0%
Total for each speaker 14% 38% 41% 7%
Total 100%
Table 8 shows the motivations behind the ranking of the favourite accent from the
audience. 31% suggested that speaker 3 was their favourite because he possesses the
“clearest, easiest and most expressive accent”. With the same explanation, 28% of the
participants labelled speaker 2 with the same definition. 10% of the audience considers
speakers 2 accent as “calming, friendly and funny”; another 10% for both speakers 3
and 4 states that these accents are fascinating or interesting from a linguistic point of
view. 7% preferred speaker 1 accent because it sounded as the “most fluent” and
15
another 7% affirms that this accent is the “clearest, easiest, most expressive accent”
among the four.
Figure 3: least favourite accent
In figure 3 is possible to read that nearly half of the participants (48%) ranked speaker 1
as their least favourite accent to hear. The second least favourite belongs to speaker 4
(35%) and the third most voted as least favourite is speaker 2 (17%). Surprisingly, not a
single member in the audience considered the Vietnamese speaker as their least
favourite speaker (0%).
Table 9: least favourite accent motivations
Motivation Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
Not easy to understand 28% 7% 0% 21%
Too marked accent 0% 3% 0% 7%
Harsh, intimidating 7% 7% 0% 0%
His accent annoyed/bored me 7% 0% 0% 7%
He does not seem fluent in
English 3% 0% 0% 0%
I do not know why 3% 0% 0% 0%
Total for each speaker 48% 17% 0% 35%
Total 100%
In table 9 are collected the motivations the members of the audience provided for their
“least favourite accent” ranking. Since speaker 3 accent was the only one which did not
receive a vote as least favourite, there are no percentages for this speaker in the chart.
48% of the audience judged the accent from speaker 1 as their least favourite, because
“not easily understandable” (28%). A further 7% depicted the accents from both
speakers 1 and 2 as “harsh, intimidating”. The accent belonging to speaker 4 was judged
as “too marked” (7%) and “annoying/boring” (7%). One participant judged speaker 1 as
“not fluent in English”; moreover, another member of the audience was not able to
16
define the reason behind the decision and stated “I do not know”. Another participant
affirmed that speaker 2 possessed a “marked accent” and another 3% did not like his
voice.
It is important to state that the motivations collected were expressed in open-ended
questions, and that the labels in the charts result from the collection of all the similar
answers within the closest definition. For example, several members from the audience
stated that an accent was clear and easy to understand, while some others stated only
that the accent was expressive and/or clear to understand. The decision was made to
unify these two types of answers under the label “clear, easy, most expressive accent”
(as in tables 7, 8, and 9).
4. Discussion
4.1 Hypotheses
The outcomes of the questionnaires partially confirm the hypotheses formulated in
subdivision 1.2. The first hypothesis developed concerned the comprehensibility of the
accents from the four speakers. It was affirmed that the more comprehensible the
accent, the higher the possibility for it to be chosen as the audience’s favourite. This
hypothesis was confirmed by the results of the questionnaires. As shown in table 1, the
most comprehensible speakers were ranked the Japanese (number 2) and the
Vietnamese (number 3), both of them with “high” as median value. As presented in
figures 1 and 2, speaker 3 was elected as the participants’ most pleasant accent to hear
(45%) and their favourite accent among the four (41%). The reason behind the decision
of electing this accent as the most pleasant was justified from the 40% with “clear, easy,
expressive” (table 7) and from the 31% with the same reasons for their favourite accent
(table 8). Moreover, 0% of the participants voted for the speaker as their least favourite
accent, as fig. 3 exemplifies. The same line of reasoning can be followed for the
opposite, i.e. the participants’ least favourite accent. 48% of the audience agreed on
electing the accent of speaker 1 as their least favourite (fig.3), with the main motivation
being “not easy understandable” for the 28% of them (table 9). This hypothesis helped
answering the thesis statements numbered 2 and 3 in section 1.2. The most likable
accent was rated the one belonging to speaker 3, which was also the easiest and clearest
accent to understand.
The second theory proposed in subdivision 1.2 concerned the expressiveness of the
speaker reading the text and the chance to prefer that accent among the others. This
hypothesis was only partially confirmed by the results obtained from the questionnaires.
Speaker 2 was the only one who interpreted the text, and it was a personal choice.
However, as reported in fig.1, only 31% of the participants voted this accent as the most
pleasant one, with the explanation that it was “clear, easy to understand and expressive”
(24%). Moreover, 38% of the speakers expressed their preference for this accent as their
favourite among the four, as reported in fig.2. Their motivation, taken from table 8, was
17
that this was a clear and easy accent to understand (28%). This demonstrates that the
audience preferred the accents only based on a comprehensibility scale, and paid nearly
no attention to the interpretation of the speaker while reading the text.
The third proposal stated in section 1.2 involved the ranking of the adjectives. It was
supposed that the participants would have attributed higher votes to positive adjectives
and lower votes to negative ones based on their preferences on comprehensibility. This
hypothesis is true for some speakers and false for some others. For example, the thesis
is true for the accent belonging to speaker 3 (voted as the audience’s favourite), and
false for the accent of speaker 1 (the least favourite of the participants), but it also
applies to the other two speakers. As shown in tables 2 (speaker 1) and 4 (speaker 3),
good rankings were attributed to positive accents and negative adjectives were judged
with low grades, even though speaker 1 was the least favourite accent among the four.
The least and most favourite accents have similar results. As shown in fig. 1, both
speaker 1 and 3 got “medium” in “friendly” and “cool”; they both obtained “high” in
“well educated” and “low” in “unreliable”, “posh”, “rural”, and “poor formal
education”. The only different results concern “reserved” and “trustworthy”: speaker 1
obtained “high” in both, whereas speaker 3 got “low” and “medium” respectively.
The failure of the second hypothesis, as stated before, could reside in the fact that the
participants based their vote exclusively on the comprehensibility of the accent and not
on the way the text was read by the speakers. Moreover, the partial confirmation of the
third hypothesis may be related to two different variables. The first one could be that the
audience was influenced by their integrity and did not want to rank negative adjectives
with high grades. The second one may be related to the fact that, even though the first
speaker was elected as the least favourite because it was hard to understand, the
members of the audience based their decision only on the accent and not on the speaker
himself. This last affirmation is reinforce by the fact that, even though speaker 1 was the
least favourite of the audience, he was the only one among the 4 speakers to get “high”
in trustworthy (fig.1).
4.2 The first thesis statement
However, whereas thesis statements 2 and 3 were easily answered thanks to the
questionnaire’s outcomes, the first thesis statement in section 1.2, “How are East Asian
varieties of English perceived by an Italian audience?”, has a more vague answer. After
the end of the project, a substantial percentage of the audience was shocked to discover
the real nationalities of the speakers after their guesses (Appendix C), stating that they
did not sound as if they were from that country. This is a peculiar explanation, given the
fact that only a restricted number of the participants affirmed to be in contact with Asian
accented English (Appendix D). However, it was not possible to find a valid answer to
the question aforementioned. It seems that the audience did not pay much attention to
the nationality of the speakers, and that their opinions were not influenced by the
geographical origin of the four speakers. The stereotypes were not included in the
18
ranking process, because the majority of the members of the audience were not familiar
with these accents.
4.3 Limitations of the project
Two main problems emerged at the end of the research project. The first one is related
to the fact that it was not possible to meet every participant in person. As mentioned
before in section 2.3, the pandemic complicated the situation and it was necessary to
follow the restrictions the Italian government has issued in order to stem the virus from
spreading. A considerable number of members from the audience, therefore, were
provided with a set of instructions (Appendix E), in order to explain how to properly
complete the questionnaire.
The second issue regards the geographical origin of the speakers, because the majority
of the participants was not aware of the composition of Southeast Asia and East Asia.
This lack of knowledge influenced the guessing of the country of origin of the speakers
which, however, was not a strictly fundamental piece of information for the final
outcome.
5. Conclusion
As a conclusion, this research project aimed to find an answer to the three statement
thesis cited in subsection 1.2 and provided a perspective on how varieties of English
from the Expanding Circle are perceived from members of the same community. In fact,
there were no researches on how Asian accented English was perceived from a
European audience (Italian audience, in this case).
In the previous section the main findings were discussed, and it emerged that the first
hypothesis in section 1.2 was confirmed and that the audience tended to elect as their
favourite accent the most comprehensible one, which is the accent belonging to the third
speaker (Vietnam). Moreover, the second and third hypotheses were partially
confirmed. The results obtained for the former one highlight the fact that the
expressiveness of the readers while reading the text was not included in the ranking
process, but the participants only considered the comprehensibility of the speaker. The
outcomes from the latter underline that the audience did not base their preferences on
their least or most favourite of the accents. In fact, high votes and low votes were given
to both positive and negative adjectives respectively. This demonstrates that the
members of the audience considered the mere accents, and not the speaker as a person.
Furthermore, it was difficult to find a concise answer to the first thesis statement
regarding the audience attitude towards these Asian accented varieties of English. It was
clear that the audience was not influenced by stereotypes. However, it is also true that
there were no stereotypes available in this case, simply because the majority of the
participants was not accustomed with these varieties of English.
19
In order to test the questions on a larger sample, this project could be used as a starting
point to expand this kind of research to a broader audience. It would be possible, for
example, to include members from different European countries, or participants who
share similarities in their L1s or cultures (e.g. Italians and Spanish, or Swedish,
Norwegian, and Danish). Additionally, in order to acquire a more thorough answer as to
whether or not stereotypes influence the results, it may be possible to add some
questions regarding this aspect. The audience can be divided into two groups with two
different questionnaires. To one group could be submitted the questionnaire from this
research, and the other group could be provided with a questionnaire in which the
nationalities are stated. The final step would include the comparison of the outcomes
from the two groups. It would be interesting to study whether the stereotypes, which did
not play a relevant role in this experiment, would influence the participants in this
hypothetical project.
20
References
Canagarajah, S. (2013). English as translingual. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and
cosmopolitan relations (pp. 56–75). London and New York: Routledge.
Cavallaro, F., & Chin, N.B. (2009). Between status and solidarity in Singapore. World
Englishes, 28 (2), 143–159. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01580.x
Cavallaro, F., Ching Ng, B., and Fifer Seilhamer, M. (2014). Singapore colloquial English:
Issues of prestige and identity. World Englishes, 33 (3), 378–397.
https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12096
Deterding, D. (2006a). The pronunciation of English by speakers from China. English World–
Wide, 27 (2), 175 –198.
http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&gathStatTab=tr
ue&ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCRN190886668&indx=1&recIds=ETOCRN19088666
8
Deterding, D. (2006b). The North Wind versus a Wolf: short texts for the description and
measurement of English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association,
36 (2), 187–196. http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0025100306002544
Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Iba, M., and Faulkner, A. (2005). Effect of audiovisual perceptual
training on the perception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English.
Speech Communication, 47 (3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.04.007
Honna, N. (2020). East Asian Englishes. In Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C.L. (eds.)
(2006). The handbook of world Englishes. (pp. 248–265). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) (2017). L’uso della lingua italiana, dei dialetti e
delle lingue straniere. Retrieved and translated from http://www.istat.it
Kalra, R. & Thanavisuth, C. (2018). Do you like my English? Thai students’ attitudes towards
five different Asian accents. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 9 (4), 281–294.
https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.21
Kang, O., Vo, S.C.T., and Moran, M.K. (2016). Perceptual judgments of accented speech by
listeners from different first language backgrounds. The Electronic Journal for English as a
Second Language, 20 (1), 1–24.
https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1103316
Kaur, P. (2014). Accent attitudes: Reactions to English as a lingua franca. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 134 (3–12).
https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.218
Kirkpatrick, A. (2020). Englishes in the Expanding Circle: Focus on Asia. Russian Journal of
Linguistics, 24 (3), 551–568. DOI: 10.22363/2687‐0088‐2020‐24‐3‐551‐568
Kobayashi, Y. (2011). Expanding-circle students learning ‘standard English’ in the outer-circle
Asia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32 (3), 235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.536239
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C., and Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational
21
reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (1), 44–
51.
Leimgruber, J.R.E. (2011). Singapore English. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5 (1), 47–
62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00262.x
Lochland, P. (2020). The accentedness of English as an additional language (EAL):
A nonnative speaker’s perspective. Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS), 8
(23–56). https://doaj.org/article/24e22d23886440db8fec81ab9b20807f
Low, E.L. (2020). English in Southeast Asia. In Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C.L. (eds.)
(2006). The handbook of world Englishes. (pp. 135–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Sangnok, P. & Jaturapitakkul, N. (2019). Perceptions of Thai undergraduate students toward the
Asian English accents on listening comprehension. rEFLections, 26 (2), 24–50.
https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1267677
Sundkvist, P. & Nguyen, X.N.C.M. (2020). English in Vietnam. In Bolton, K., Botha, W.,
& Kirkpatrick, A. (eds.) (2020). The Handbook of Asian Englishes. (pp. 683–703). John
Wiley & Sons, INC. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791882.ch30
Tan, P.K.W. & Tan, D.K.H. (2008). Attitudes towards non-standard English in Singapore.
World Englishes, 27 (3-4), 465–479.
https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2008.00578.x
Tokumoto, M., & Shibata, M. (2011). Asian varieties of English: Attitudes towards
pronunciation. World Englishes, 30 (3), 392–408.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01710.x
Trudgill, P. (2000). Language and humanity. In Trudgill, P. (ed.) (2000). Sociolinguistics: an
introduction to language and society. (4. ed.) (pp.183–203). London: Penguin.
Yamaguchi, T., & Chiew, P.S. (2020) Is there conflation? An acoustic analysis of vowels in
Japanese English. Asian Englishes, 22 (1), 35–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1563665
22
Appendix A
The Boy who Cried Wolf (Deterding 2006b, 193)
There was once a poor shepherd boy who used to watch his flocks in the fields next to a
dark forest near the foot of a mountain. One hot afternoon, he thought up a good plan to
get some company for himself and also have a little fun. Raising his fist in the air, he
ran down to the village shouting ‘Wolf, Wolf.’ As soon as they heard him, the villagers
all rushed from their homes, full of concern for his safety, and two of his cousins even
stayed with him for a short while. This gave the boy so much pleasure that a few days
later he tried exactly the same trick again, and once more he was successful. However,
not long after, a wolf that had just escaped from the zoo was looking for a change from
its usual diet of chicken and duck. So, overcoming its fear of being shot, it actually did
come out from the forest and began to threaten the sheep. Racing down to the village,
the boy of course cried out even louder than before. Unfortunately, as all the villagers
were convinced that he was trying to fool them a third time, they told him, ‘Go away
and don’t bother us again.’ And so the wolf had a feast.
23
Appendix B
Questionnaire for an Italian audience on attitude towards Asian English accents
Four people from four different Asian countries will read a short text, “The Boy who Cried
Wolf”. They will read the passage one at a time. Please provide your answers to the questions
below.
PART I
Speaker 1
1. Which country do you think the speaker is from? __________________________
2. Did you understand the speaker well? Rate from 1 to 5. 1 5
3. How do you rate the following qualities when you hear this accent? Rate from 1 to 5.
Speaker 2
4. Which country do you think the speaker is from? __________________________
5. Did you understand the speaker well? Rate from 1 to 5. 1 5
1 2 3 4 5
Friendly
Reserved
Trustworthy
Unreliable
Posh
Rural
Cool
Well educated
Poor Formal Education
24
6. How do you rate the following qualities when you hear this accent? Rate from 1 to 5.
Speaker 3
7. Which country do you think the speaker is from? __________________________
8. Did you understand the speaker well? Rate from 1 to 5. 1 5
9. How do you rate the following qualities when you hear this accent? Rate from 1 to 5.
Speaker 4
1 2 3 4 5
Friendly
Reserved
Trustworthy
Unreliable
Posh
Rural
Cool
Well educated
Poor Formal Education
1 2 3 4 5
Friendly
Reserved
Trustworthy
Unreliable
Posh
Rural
Cool
Well educated
Poor Formal Education
25
10. Which country do you think the speaker is from? __________________________
11. Did you understand the speaker well? Rate from 1 to 5. 1 5
12. How do you rate the following qualities when you hear this accent? Rate from 1 to 5.
1 2 3 4 5
Friendly
Reserved
Trustworthy
Unreliable
Posh
Rural
Cool
Well educated
Poor Formal Education
27
PART II
The recordings will be played once more. Please pay attention to the different accents and
answer the questions below.
13. Which accent is most pleasant to listen to? Please choose between speaker 1, 2, 3 or 4 and
motivate your answer.
14. Which accent do you prefer among the four different ones you have been listening to? Why?
15. Which accent is your least favoured? Why?
Please answer the following questions with your personal data (for practical reasons only).
16. Age:
17: Sex:
18. Occupation:
19. How long have you been studying English?
20. Are you exposed to different English accents, including different varieties (i.e. Indian
English, Singaporean English etc...)?
This is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your help!
28
Appendix C
Guess the country
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4
Guess Japan 21% Russia 31% S. Korea 17% China 31%
Total 100%
29
Appendix D
Other accents exposed to (beside RP and GenAm)
Accent Percentage
None 45%
Indian 10%
Russian 3%
Japanese 3%
European-accented English 8%
Several different accent (Asia) 3%
Several different accent (world) 28%
Total 100%
30
Appendix E
World Englishes: Attitude in the Expanding Circle Towards Asian
Varieties of English
Laura Ortu
BA student
Department of English, Stockholm University
Email: [email protected]
Supervisor: Dr. Peter Sundkvist
Research conducted as part of the BA degree project
Set of Instructions
Hi! First of all, I would like to thank you helping me in this project. Here below will follow a
brief set of instructions on how to complete this questionnaire. The whole procedure will take
roughly 20/25 minutes. However, you can take all the time that you need.
The questionnaire is divided into two parts. Please take a few minutes to read the whole part
I. Do not read the questions in part II until you get there. You will notice that the two parts
are divided from a blank page in order to prevent the participant from reading part II ahead of
schedule.
In part I you are asked to listen to the whole recording from each speaker and to answer all
three questions from section “Speaker 1” while listening to “track 1” from speaker 1, and
repeat the same procedure for each speaker.
Once you are finished with part I you can proceed with part II. Please take a few minutes to
read the whole part II. While completing this section you do not have to listen to the whole
recording again, but feel free to do so whether if you do not feel sure about your decision.
Answer the questions that follow and motivate your answers.
The last 5 questions of the set are asked directly to you. I cannot communicate this
sensitive content to others and please remind that you are free to withdraw from the
experiment whenever you want.
If you need to contact me, please send me an email to [email protected]
Please return the questionnaire with your answers not later than January 31st, 2021. Thank
you for your availability and comprehension!