298 ELT Journal Volume 56/3 July 2002 © Oxford University Press

Ten questions on the phonology of English as an internationallanguage

Kevin Keys and Robin Walker

This feature o¤ers a chance for readers to contribute to discussion of atopic raised in an article or review published in the Journal. Contributionsshould be no more than 1,250 words and should be sent to the Editor forreview in the normal way.

In his review in issue 55/3 of this Journal of Jennifer Jenkins’ ThePhonology of English as an International Language, Martin Hewingspredicted that the book ‘will generate much-needed debate in the area’.This has proved to be the case, although with such complex issues asthose considered, it is to be assumed, and indeed to be hoped, that thedebate is still in its infancy. The ten questions set out below haveoccurred to us as we have been observing the reaction in our respectiveprofessional contexts to the ideas proposed by Jenkins. Because there isno space to detail the principal objections raised, we have tried toencapsulate what we perceive as the underlying uncertainties in the formof these broad interrogatives.

Clearly, we feel strongly in favour of the general principles that arecontained in Jennifer Jenkins’ work, and are optimistic in our ownattempts to build on the foundation that she has laid for the future ofpronunciation teaching in the field of teaching English as aninternational language. We aim here to stimulate further reasoneddebate about the issues involved, which we summarize as beingfocused on

a the question of ‘intelligibility’ in the evaluation of ‘foreign accent’, or aswe prefer, the speaker-specific phonological form of the target language,and the objective and impartial criteria that underpin such an evaluation;

b the teachable/learnable distinction and its applications in classroomlanguage teaching practice.

c the development of the key elements of the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) inlight of empirical data that emerge from small or large-scaleinvestigations into actual language use, with the focus on two speakerswho use English as an L2;

d the rethinking of the status of the ‘native speaker’, including areassessment of this designation that is capable of encompassing

readers respond

competent users of English who may, or may not, have English as their L1.

1 What will happen Concern as to falling standards is understandable, but before looking at to pronunciation whether or not the LFC is a threat to standards, it is worth reflecting on standards without the e¤ects of prestige accents such as RP or GA as pronunciation normsNS models? or models. In at least one recent study NNS teachers admitted to avoiding

pronunciation teaching because of a sense of inadequacy with respect totheir own accent, and the as yet unattained (and for many unattainable)NS standard. Moreover, negative attitudes towards teachingpronunciation are not limited to NNS teachers. The fact that only one NS

variant is seen as prestigious in the UK or the USA, for example, suggeststo those NS teachers who do not possess that particular accent (a verylarge proportion) that they are not properly equipped to teachpronunciation.

2 Does a ‘strong’ It is true that our accent, whatever it might be, reveals information about accent give a bad ourselves, and it is tempting to liken a strong accent to turning up to a impression? meeting in shabby clothes—it gives entirely the wrong impression.

However, caution needs to be exercised as to exactly what constitutessuch an accent, starting with our determining who is defining ‘strong’,and to what end. Precisely because of the shift in the role of English inthe world, the L1-user of English can no longer be considered the sole orsuperior reference. If ‘strong’ means essentially unintelligible, regardlessof the listener’s background, then we have a problem, although not onecaused by the LFC, which, by definition, presupposes that intelligibility ismaintained. Unfortunately, the term ‘strong’ is all too often used by L1-speakers to justify attitudes and behaviours that are not remotelylinguistic.

3 Is the LFC not a Good teaching has always been about helping learners to explore their justification for limits. There is no attempt with the LFC to prevent teachers from doing mediocrity? this, and if learners were to express interest in acquiring a particular L1

accent, be it one of the prestige options or any of the regional or socialvariants, the teacher would need to respond accordingly. It is worthpointing out that the LFC is not an end-point, but a solid foundation. InJenkins’ book, a five-stage, long-term teaching strategy is proposed thatwill take learners to any chosen goal within an EIL framework.

At the same time, it is probably worth bearing in mind the seldommentioned but certainly pernicious e¤ects of NS targets as a norm, oreven as a model. To some learners, these goals appear so unattainablethat they give up rather than risk failure. In this respect, the goals laid outin the LFC have the multiple advantages of being relatively small innumber, attainable, and based on a clear awareness of the crucialdi¤erence between what is teachable, e.g. nuclear stress placement, andwhat is only learnable, e.g. some pitch changes.

The phonology of English as an international language 299

4 If imposing The LFC does not legislate for language change, and it is not trying to RP/GA on students replace NS accents. Rather, it is an indication of the minimum was wrong, why is requirements for international intelligibility, whether between two L2imposing the LFC users of English, or between an L2 and an L1 user. As such, it is not a right? closed system; further research will fine-tune the key elements of the LFC,

whilst local knowledge will almost certainly generate a far more detailedinterpretation of the system for a given student’s L1. Above all, though,the LFC is the first attempt at describing what is already a reality for themajority of the world’s L2 users of English—successful communicationthrough their respective and diverse interlanguage phonologies As such,it is descriptive rather than prescriptive by its very nature.

5 How do you teach Nobody is born with an EIL accent—but this does not impede its use in an accent that teaching. There are two main considerations:nobody speaks?

a Few teachers genuinely have an RP or an American accent, yet despitethis they still try to teach it, or, worse, get frightened o¤ because theyknow their NS or NNS accent is not one of the prestige options.

b Di¤erent teachers’ di¤erent accents are all suited to the task in handprovided they contain the core features of the LFC. These varied accentswill also possess a number of non-core features which will identify theindividual—i.e. they are themselves as they teach through the LFC, andare not filtering their personal identities through an imposed accent.

6 What suggestion Assuming that there is resistance to the LFC, on whatever grounds, what is made for an alternative way exists of approaching the question of mutual alternative form of intelligibility in the exchanges that take place in English between two approach to the speakers for whom it is a foreign language? Can British/American question of mutual norms honestly be relied on in all the varied teaching conditions that intelligibility in exist around the world? If so, the case has to be made as to why and how international these norms are to be disseminated, maintained, and guaranteed as a English? means of sustaining communicative eªciency, especially in light of the

fact that users of these versions of English are in a minority, and that thenorms themselves are unstable.

Why is it felt that GA or RP are appropriate versions for languagelearners? It cannot be because either ‘accent’ is readily identifiable, bothhaving a range of phonetic settings that indicate complex intralingualvariation. Neither accent is necessarily ‘easy’ to understand: some haveargued the case for Standard Scottish English in this regard. It cannot bebecause we are confident that every EFL teacher around the world isaware of, and competent in, the phonology of both versions, andtherefore reliably transmitting one or both of them to their students. Norcan it be because every Bilingual English Speaker (BES) teacher whosefirst language is other than English has satisfactorily eliminated traces oftheir L1 from their speech. (See 8. below for discussion of the term‘Bilingual English Speaker’.)

We cannot realistically guarantee the homogenous transmission of theseaccents to learners throughout the world. Given the exigencies ofeveryday life, and the reality of many teachers’ professional routines, it

300 Kevin Keys and Robin Walker

would cause no hardship for the interlocutor if the maintenance of animposed phonetic parameter were to be relaxed.

7 How can the The LFC as presented in Jenkins (2000) is provisional and tentative, but robustness of the serious objections on phonological grounds will inevitably lead toLFC be tested and changes in emphasis and focus. How will this be done? Currently, all improved? studies in the acquisition of phonological skills are labouring under the

lack of recorded data from the spontaneous speech of EnglishL2–English L2 interactions taking place over time; everything else ishearsay and anecdote. Clearly, therefore, we require research projectsthat will gather data from these kinds of interactions. Such projects neednot be on a large scale, theoretical, and academic: small-scale, restrictedsubject fieldwork research would also yield data that could be usefulwhen aggregated with the data from other, similar studies. As anexample, given the technology that now exists, why don’t classroomlanguage teachers take digital audio ‘snapshots’ of classroom exchangesbetween students? These could be pooled until recognizable patterns ofperformance begin to emerge.

8 What’s wrong with Jenkins (2000) o¤ers an alternative to the ubiquitous ‘native’/‘non-the terminology? native’ dichotomy, an alternative that e¤ectively conceals whether or not

the speaker’s English is their L1, just as Ms. conceals a woman’s maritalstatus. The concealment acknowledges the irrelevance of theidentification, but whilst reservations about the designation ‘BilingualEnglish Speaker’ (BES) are valid in terms of who makes the judgementsabout bilingual competence, and on what criteria they are based, in ourview, it is misguided reluctance to adopt the terminology is related toconcerns about losing one’s identity as a ‘native speaker’.

9 What are the The EFL/ESL profession is composed of BESs. It also has its share of teaching NBESs in teaching positions, that is, teachers who are only a few steps profession’s ahead of their students. This includes teachers who are well trained and responsibilities in motivated, as well as those who have had less opportunity for training the face of and development, and who are undervalued in their professional inevitable change? context. In some areas English is taught under strict control, indeed, it

might be said, under su¤erance of the local government. Teachingmaterials that are available in some parts of the world are impenetrableto their users in other regions. The list of pitfalls could go on. Ourquestion is, given that the teaching of English is less than ideal underthese conditions, how can an insistence on unrealistic goals trulyrepresent the responsibilities of a hard-working and aware teachingprofession?

10 What is it about Prescriptive attitudes persist in all fields of teaching, and clearly there is a pronunciation? place for normative criteria. The all too familiar rejection of CLT (‘I don’t

want my students to come out with speech that is full of errors.’) is onethat depresses us. Yet it seems to us that pronunciation and the questionof accent provokes a greater storm of non-linguistic arguments thanother aspects of learning teaching. While we can talk with a person fromLiverpool, England, or Atlanta, Georgia, and identify a ‘non-standard’accent, we are told to be much less tolerant of speakers who are

The phonology of English as an international language 301

identifiably Latin American or Asian. Our particular concern is that thisquestion of tolerance is so rarely related in a responsible way to mattersof intelligibility, and all too often allied with preconceptions andprescriptivism that are essentially non-linguistic.

Received December 2001

302 Kevin Keys and Robin Walker

ReferencesHewings, M. 2001. Review of The Phonology ofEnglish as an International Language by J. Jenkins.

ELT Journal 55/3: 327–9.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as anInternational Language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

The authorsKevin Keys teaches graduate and undergraduate

applied linguistics at the Federal University of

Minas Gerais in Brazil, where he has worked for

the past 12 years. His special interests include the

development of L2 phonology and practical

pronunciation teaching. He is currently engaged

in a longitudinal study of the acquisition of

phonological skills by EFL students.

Email: keys@flexis.com.br

Robin Walker has been teaching English in Spain

since 1981, and currently works at the Escuela

Universitaria de Turismo de Asturias in Spain. He

has been involved in teacher education since 1983,

collaborating with the state teacher education

centres, Oviedo University, and Oxford University

Press España. His specialist interests are

pronunciation, ESP, and teacher education.

Email: rwalker@fade.es