Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253



The present study investigates the effect of prosodic feature awareness training on the intelligibility of speech produced by Iranian interpreter trainees. Two groups of student interpreters were formed. All were native speakers of Farsi who studied English translation and interpreting at the BA level. Participants took a pretest of speaking skills before starting the program so that their speech intelligibility level was rated. The control group listened to authentic audio tracks in English and discussed their contents, watched authentic English movies, discussed issues in the movies in pairs in the classroom. The experimental group spent part of the time on theoretical explanation of, and practical exercises with, English prosody. Students then took a posttest in speaking skills so that the effect of treatment on the intelligibility of their speech could be assessed. The results show that the prosody awareness training significantly improved the students’ speech intelligibility.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Abercrombie, D.
    (1956) Problems and principles in language study. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, B.
    (2004) Prosodie beim Simultandolmetschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K.
    (1992) The relationship between native speakers’ judgements of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure, Language Learning, 42, 529–555. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1992.tb01043.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R.
    (2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610. doi:  10.1121/1.1603234
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burns, A.
    (2003) Clearly speaking: Pronunciation in action for teachers. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M.
    (1996) Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Champagne-Muzar, C., Schneiderman, E. I., & Bourdages, J. S.
    (1993) Second language accent: The role of the pedagogical environment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 143–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, D.
    (2003) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2004) The past, present, and future of World English. InA. Gardt, & B. Hüppauf (Eds.), Globalization and the future of German (pp.27–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110197297.27
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197297.27 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cutler, A.
    (2012) Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:  10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cutler, A., & McQueen, J.
    (2014) How prosody is both mandatory and optional. InJ. Caspers, Y. Chen, W. F. L. Heeren, J. Pacilly, N. O. Schiller, & E. van Zanten (Eds.), Above and beyond the segments. Experimental linguistics and phonetics (pp.71–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.189.06cut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.06cut [Google Scholar]
  12. Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A.
    (2012) How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation?TESL Canada Journal, 30, 22–44. doi:  10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1124
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1124 [Google Scholar]
  13. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
    (2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397. doi:  10.2307/3588486
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2010) Limits on bilingualism revisited: Stress ‘deafness’ in simultaneous French-Spanish bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 266–275. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Field, J.
    (2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423. doi:  10.2307/3588487
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588487 [Google Scholar]
  16. Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M.
    (2011) Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1–22. doi:  10.18806/tesl.v29i1.1086
    https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v29i1.1086 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilbert, J. B.
    (1995) Pronunciation practice as an aid to listening comprehension. InD. J. Mendelsohn, & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp.97–112). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press, San Diego, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gooskens, C., & Van Heuven, V. J.
    (2019, to appear). Mutual intelligibility. InM. Zampieri, & P. Nakov (Eds.), Similar languages, varieties, and dialects: A computational perspective. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gooskens, C., Van Heuven, V. J., Van Bezooijen, R., & Pacilly, J. J. A.
    (2010) Is spoken Danish less intelligible than Swedish?Speech Communication, 52, 1020–1037. doi:  10.1016/j.specom.2010.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Graddol, D.
    (2006) English next. London: The British Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haug Hilton, N., Gooskens, C., & Schüppert, A.
    (2013) The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua, 137, 1–18. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Howlader, M. R.
    (2010) Teaching English pronunciation in countries where English is a second language: Bangladesh perspective. ASA University Review, 4, 233–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jenkins, J.
    (1998) Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language?ELT Journal, 52, 119–126. doi:  10.1093/elt/52.2.119
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.119 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2000) The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirical researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103. doi:  10.1093/applin/23.1.83
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kachru, B. B.
    (1985) Standards, codification, and sociolinguitic realism: The English language in the outer circle. InR. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp.11–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Koike, Y.
    (2014) Explicit pronunciation instruction: Teaching suprasegmentals to Japanese learners of English. InN. Sonda, & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp.361–374). Tokyo.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Moedjito
    Moedjito (2015) Factors determining global intelligibility of EFL learners in Asian contexts. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5, 155–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Morley, J.
    (1991) The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481–521. doi:  10.2307/3586981
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586981 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mouri, T., Hirose, K., & Minematsu, N.
    (2003) Consideration on vowel durational modification for Japanese CALL system. Proceedings of Eurospeech 2003, 3153–3156.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T.
    (1997) Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16. doi:  10.1017/S0272263197001010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010 [Google Scholar]
  32. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
    (2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520–531. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2008) Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58, 479–502. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00448.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00448.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Pennington, M. C.
    (1998) The teachability of phonology in adulthood: A re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 323–341. doi:  10.1515/iral.1998.36.4.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1998.36.4.323 [Google Scholar]
  35. Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E.
    (2002) A typological study of stress ‘deafness’. InC. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7 (pp.203–240). Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110197105.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.203 [Google Scholar]
  36. Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Schmidt, R.
    (2012) Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. InS. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.247–267). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Suwartono, S.
    (2014) Enhancing the pronunciation of English suprasegmental features through reflective learning method. TEFLIN Journal, 25, 80–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
    (2006) Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30. doi:  10.1017/S0272263106060013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsurutani, C., & Ishihara, S.
    (2012) Naturalness judgement of prosodic variation of Japanese utterances with prosody modified stimuli. Proceedings of Interspeech 2012, 646–649.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Heuven, V. J.
    (1986) Some acoustic characteristics and perceptual consequences of foreign accent in Dutch spoken by Turkish immigrant workers. InJ. van Oosten, & J. F. Snapper (Eds.), Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley (pp.67–84). Berkeley: The Dutch Studies Program, U. C. Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2, 39–62. doi:  10.3366/E1753854809000305
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000305 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2015) A relative measure of the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit: A meta-analytic exercise. InS. Bátyi, & M. Vígh-Szabó (Eds.), Language – System, Usage, Application (pp.31–52). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2016) An acoustic characterisation of English vowels produced by American, Dutch, Chinese and Hungarian speakers. Hungarian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 1–20. doi:  10.18460/ANY.2016.2.004
    https://doi.org/10.18460/ANY.2016.2.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Heuven, V. J., & Gooskens, C.
    (2017) An acoustic analysis of English vowels produced by speakers of seven different native-language backgounds. InM. Wieling, G. Bouma, & G. van Noort (Eds.), From semantics to dialectometry. Festschrift in honour of John Nerbonne (pp.129–139). Groningen: University of Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Heuven, V. J., & De Vries, J. W.
    (1981) Begrijpelijkheid van buitenlanders: de rol van fonische versus niet fonische factoren [Intelligibility of foreigners: the role of phonic versus non-phonic factors]. Forum der Letteren, 22, 309–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M.
    (2007) Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16, 263–277. doi:  10.2167/la417.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/la417.0 [Google Scholar]
  47. Walker, R.
    (2001) Pronunciation for international intelligibility. English Teaching Professional, 21, 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, Z.
    (2014) Developing accuracy and fluency in spoken English of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 7, 110–118. doi:  10.5539/elt.v7n2p110
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p110 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, H., & Van Heuven, V. J.
    (2015) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit as bias toward native-language phonology. i-Perception, 6(6), 1–13. doi:  10.1177/2041669515613661
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669515613661 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yenkimaleki, M.
    (2016) Why prosody awareness training is necessary for training future interpreters. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5, 256–261. doi:  10.15640/jehd.v5n1a26
    https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n1a26 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2017) Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi (LOT dissertation series 459). Utrecht: LOT.
  52. Yenkimaleki, M., & Van Heuven, V. J.
    (2013) Prosodic feature awareness training in interpreting: An experimental study. InL. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation, November 18th-20th 2013, Seville, Spain, 4179–4188.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2016a) Effect of explicit teaching of prosodic features on the development of listening comprehension by Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4, 32–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2016b) The effect of prosody teaching on developing word recognition skills for interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 7, 1101–1107. doi:  10.24297/jal.v7i1.5158
    https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v7i1.5158 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016c) Prosody teaching matters in developing speaking skills for Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4(5), 82–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2016d) Effect of prosody awareness training on the performance of consecutive interpretation from Farsi into English: An experimental study. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 3(3), 235–251. doi:  10.1080/23306343.2016.1233930
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2016.1233930 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2016e) Explicit teaching of segmentals versus suprasegmentals: which would yield better listening comprehension skills for interpreter trainees? An experimental study. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(6), 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Yenkimaleki, M. & Van Heuven, V. J.
    (2018) The effect of teaching prosody awareness on interpreting performance: an experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives, Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 26(1), 84–99. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error