Scholars have argued for the inclusion of different spoken varieties of English in high-stakes listening tests to better represent the global use of English. However, doing so may introduce additional construct-irrelevant variance due to accent familiarity and the shared first language (L1) advantage, which could threaten test fairness. However, it is unclear to what extent accent familiarity and a shared L1 are related to or conflated with each other. The present study investigates the relationship between accent familiarity, a shared L1, and comprehensibility. Results from descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney U test based on 302 second language (L2) English listeners’ responses to an online questionnaire suggested that a shared L1 meant high accent familiarity, but not vice versa. A path analysis revealed a complex relationship between accent familiarity, a shared L1, and comprehensibility. While a shared L1 had a direct effect on accent familiarity, and accent familiarity had a direct effect on comprehensibility, a shared L1 did not predict comprehensibility when accent familiarity was controlled for. These results disentangle accent familiarity from a shared L1. Researchers should consider both constructs when investigating fairness in relation to World Englishes for listening assessment.
AbeywickramaP. (2013). Why not non-native varieties of English as listening comprehension test input?RELC Journal, 44(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473270
2.
ArndtH. L.WooreR. (2018). Vocabulary learning from watching YouTube videos and reading blog posts. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 124–142. https://doi.org/10125/44660
3.
BachmanL.PalmerA. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
4.
BentT.BradlowA. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234
5.
BogorevichV. (2018). Native and non-native raters of L2 speaking performance: Accent familiarity and cognitive processes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northern Arizona University.
6.
BrowneK.FulcherG. (2017). Pronunciation and intelligibility in assessing spoken fluency. In IsaacsT.TrofimovichP. (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 37–53). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/ISAACS6848
ByrneB. M. (2016). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
9.
CrowtherD.TrofimovichP.SaitoK.IsaacsT. (2018). Linguistic dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311700016X
10.
DaiD. W.RoeverC. (2019). Including L2-English varieties in listening tests for adolescent ESL learners: L1 effects and learner perceptions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1601198
HardingL. (2012). Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing, 29(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211421161
20.
HardingL.McNamaraT. (2018). Language assessment: The challenge of ELF. In JenkinsJ.BakerW.DeweyM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 570–582). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717173-46
21.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
22.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
23.
HuangB. H. (2013). The effects of accent familiarity and language teaching experience on raters’ judgments of non-native speech. System, 41(3), 770–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.009
IsaacsT.TrofimovichP. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263112000150
27.
JenkinsJ.LeungC. (2019). From mythical “standard” to standard reality: The need for alternatives to standardized English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000307
28.
KangO.ThomsonR.MoranM. (2018). Empirical approaches to measuring intelligibility of different varieties of English. Language Learning, 68(1), 115–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12270
29.
KangO.ThomsonR.MoranM. (2019). The effects of international accents and shared L1 on listening comprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.463
30.
KennedyS.TrofimovichP. (2008). Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
31.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
32.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
33.
MajorR.FitzmauriceS.BuntaF.BalasubramanianC. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588329
MatsuuraH.ChibaR.FujiedaM. (1999). Intelligibility and comprehensibility of American and Irish Englishes in Japan. World Englishes, 18(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00121
36.
MiaoY. (2020). Exploring the role of speaker and listener variables in comprehensibility [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Oxford.
37.
MunroM. J. (2018). Dimensions of pronunciation. In KangO.ThomsonT.MurphyJ. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 413–431). Routledge.
38.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800305
39.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M. (2020). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility, redux. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(3), 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20038.mun
40.
MunroM. J.DerwingT. M.MortonS. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060049
OckeyG. J.FrenchR. (2016). From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu060
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://10.18637/jss.v048.i02
45.
RubinD. L. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973770
46.
SaitoK. (2021). What characterizes comprehensible and native-like pronunciation among English-as-a-second-language speakers? Meta-analyses of phonological, rater, and instructional factors. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 866–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3027
47.
SaitoK.ShintaniN. (2016). Do native speakers of north American and Singapore English differentially perceive comprehensibility in second language speech?TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.234
48.
SaitoK.TranM.SuzukidaY.SunH.MagneV.IlkanM. (2019). How do second language listeners perceive the comprehensibility of foreign-accented speech: Roles of first language profiles, second language proficiency, age, experience, familiarity, and metacognition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 1133–1149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000226
49.
SchmidgallJ. (2013). Modeling speaker proficiency, comprehensibility, and perceived competence in a language use domain [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.
50.
ShinS.-Y.LeeS.LidsterR. (2021). Examining the effects of different English speech varieties on an L2 academic listening comprehension test at the item level. Language Testing, 38(4), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220985432
51.
SmithL. E.RafiqzadK. (1979). English for cross-cultural communication: The question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13(3), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585884
52.
StibbardR.LeeJ. (2006). Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit hypothesis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(1), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2203595
53.
TaylorL.GeranpayehA. (2011). Assessing listening for academic purposes: Defining and operationalising the test construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.002
54.
WinkeP.GassS.MyfordC. (2013). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212456968
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
