Previous studies have shown that native language backgrounds of both talkers and listeners affect speech intelligibility. This study investigated the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit (ISIB) that is also known as the advantage in understanding second language (L2) speech that non-native listeners have over native listeners when both groups listen to speakers with the same first language (L1). More specifically, it looked into the ISIB in relation to the Arabic language spoken by both native Arabic (NA) and English speakers. To this end, 15 NA and 15 native English (NE) subjects listened to Arabic produced by two groups of talkers (5 NA talkers and 5 NE talkers) and were asked to identify the words they heard. Results showed evidence for the interlanguage speech intelligibility for listeners (i.e. NE listeners were more accurate than NA listeners at identifying English-accented Arabic speech). However, no evidence for the ISIB for talkers was found. That is, NE listeners did not find English-accented speech more intelligible than NA speech. By examining L2 learners’ recognition of L2 consonant contrasts, the study contributes to the body of knowledge on L2 sound acquisition as well as the ISIB literature. It also provides some insight into the problem of adult L2 learners’ ability to learn novel L2 consonants.
AbdallaM. (2006). Arabic immersion and summer programs in the United States. In WahbaK.MTahaZ.A.EnglandL. (Eds.), Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century (pp. 317–330). Routledge.
2.
AlbrechtsenD.HenriksenB.FærchC. (1980). Native speaker reactions to learners’ spoken interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 365–396.
3.
AldamenH.Al-DeaibesM. (2023). Perception and production of L2 Arabic emphatic consonants: The role of communicative and traditional form-based approaches. Ampersand, 10, 100–105.
4.
Al MahmoudM.S. (2013). Discrimination of Arabic contrasts by American learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 261–292.
5.
BentT.BradlowA.R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610.
6.
BoersmaP. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. GLOT International, 59, 341–345.
7.
BradlowA. R.BentT. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272–284.
8.
BradlowA.R.PisoniD.B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2074–2085.
9.
BrustadK.E.Al-BatalM.TūnisīA. (2013a). Al-Kitaab fii ta’allum al-’Arabiyya: A textbook for intermediate Arabic. Georgetown University Press.
10.
BrustadK.E.Al-BatalM.TūnisīA. (2013b). Al-Kitaab fii ta’allum al-’Arabiyya: A textbook for advanced Arabic. Georgetown University Press.
11.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J. (2001). What speaking rates do non-native listeners prefer?Applied Linguistics, 22, 324–337.
12.
DokovovaM.ScobbieJ.M.LickleyR. (2022). Matched-accent processing: Bulgarian–English bilinguals do not have a processing advantage with Bulgarian-accented English over native English speech. Laboratory Phonology, 13, 1–40.
13.
FergusonC.A. (1959). Diglossia. Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 15, 325–340.
14.
FieldJ. (2004). An insight into listeners’ problems: Too much bottom-up processing or too much top-down?System, 32, 363–377.
15.
FisheroS.SerenoJ.A.JongmanA. (2023). Perception and production of mandarin-accented English: The effect of degree of accentedness on the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for listeners (ISIB-L) and talkers (ISIB-T). Journal of Phonetics, 99, 1–18.
16.
ForsterK.I.ForsterJ.C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.
17.
GassS.VaronisE.M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language and Learning, 34, 65–89.
18.
GordonJ.DarcyI. (2016). The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners: A classroom study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2, 56–92.
19.
GosselinL.MartinC.D.González MartínA.CaffarraS. (2022). When a nonnative accent lets you spot all the errors: Examining the syntactic interlanguage benefit. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 34, 1650–1669.
20.
GuionS.G.FlegeJ.E.Akahane-YamadaR.PruittJ.C. (2000). An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2711–2724.
21.
Hayes-HarbR.DurhamK. (2016). Native English speakers’ perception of Arabic emphatic consonants and the influence of vowel context. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 557–572.
22.
Hayes-HarbR.SmithB.BentT.BradlowA. (2008). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 664–679.
23.
HirataY. (2004). Training native English speakers to perceive Japanese length contrast in word versus sentence contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2384–2394.
24.
HsiehY.L.TsaoF.M. (2022). The effect of speech familiarity and phonetic similarity on the acquisition of Mandarin Chinese vowels by English-speaking learners. Second Language Research, 38, 111–135.
25.
ImaiS.WalleyA.C.FlegeJ.E. (2005). Lexical frequency and neighbourhood density effects on the recognition of native and Spanish-accented words by native English and Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 896–907.
26.
JenkinsJ. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.
27.
JenkinsJ. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an International Language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.
28.
KangO.ThomsonR.MoranM. (2018). The effects of international accents and shared first language on listening comprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 56–81.
29.
KorpalP.SobkowiakM. (2020). The perception of native vs. nonnative Danish speech: Bent and Bradlow’s matched interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit revisited. Scandinavian Philology, 18, 284–296.
30.
LababidiZ.ParkH. (2017). Perceptual mapping between Arabic and English consonants. In OualiH. (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXIX (pp. 89–126). John Benjamins.
31.
LaeuferC. (1996). The acquisition of a complex phonological contrast: Voice Timing patterns of English initial stops by native French speakers. Phonetica, 53, 86–110.
32.
LeeS.KangJ.NamH. (2022). Identification of English vowels by non-native listeners: Effects of listeners’ experience of the target dialect and talkers’ language background. Second Language Research, 38, 449–475.
MajorR.FitzmauriceS.BuntaF.BalasubramanianC. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 173–190.
35.
MrozA. (2018). Seeing how people hear you: French learners experiencing intelligibility through automatic speech recognition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 617–637.
36.
MunroM. (1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native and foreign-accented speech. Language Learning, 48, 159–182.
37.
MunroM.DerwingT. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.
38.
MunroM.DerwingT.MortonS. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 11–31.
39.
O’BrienM.G. (2014). L2 learners’ assessments of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning, 64, 715–748.
40.
PolitzerR.L. (1976). Linguistic accuracy and intelligibility. In NickelG. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (pp. 505–513). University of California.
41.
RasmussenZ.B. (2007). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit: Arabic-accented English. Unpublished senior honors thesis, University of Utah, UT, USA.
42.
RydingC.K. (2013). Teaching and learning Arabic as a foreign language: A guide for teachers. Georgetown University Press.
43.
SaitoK.TranM.SuzukidaY., et al. (2019). How do L2 listeners perceive the comprehensibility of foreign-accented speech? Roles of L1 profiles, L2 proficiency, age, experience, familiarity and metacognition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1133–1149.
SerenoJ.LammersL.JongmanA. (2016). The relative contribution of segments and intonation to the perception of foreign-accented speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 303–322.
46.
ShehataA. (2015). Problematic Arabic consonants for native English speakers: learners’ perspectives. The International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2, 24–47.
47.
ShehataA. (2018). Native English speakers’ perception and production of Arabic consonants. In AlhawaryM.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Arabic second language acquisition (pp. 56–69). Routledge.
48.
ShehataA. (2021). Short vowels and context effects: The case of English speakers reading Arabic. International Education Studies, 14, 93–103.
49.
ShehataA. (2023). Corrective feedback on Arabic pronunciation: Teacher beliefs and practices. In ThomsonR.I.DerwingT.M.LevisJ.M.HiebertK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference. Available at https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.15714 (accessed February 2024).
50.
SmithL.E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In KachruB.B. (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 75–90). University of Illinois Press.
51.
SoleM.J. (2018). Articulatory adjustments in initial voiced stops in Spanish, French and English. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 217–241.
52.
StibbardR.M.LeeJ.I. (2006). Evidence against the mismatched interlanguage intelligibility benefit hypothesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 433–442.
53.
TahaT.A. (2007). Arabic as ‘a critical-need’ foreign language in the post-9/11 era: A study of students’ attitudes and motivation. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 150–160.
54.
TajimaK.PortR.DalbyJ. (1997). Effects of temporal correction on intelligibility of foreign-accented English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 1–24.
55.
ThomsonR.I. (2018). Measurement of accentedness, intelligibility and comprehensibility. In KangO.GintherA., (Eds.), Assessment in second language pronunciation (pp. 11–29). Routledge.
56.
TrofimovichP.BakerW. (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.
57.
van WijngaardenS.J. (2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech. Speech Communication, 35, 103–113.
58.
van WijngaardenS.J.SteenekenH.J.M.HoutgastT. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1906–1916.
59.
XieX.FowlerC.A. (2013). Listening with a foreign-accent: The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit in Mandarin speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 369–378.
60.
YounusF.A. (1977). Curriculum for teaching of Arabic as a second language at the beginning level. Dar Al Thaqafa Printing and Publishing.
61.
ZouhirA. (2013). Unpacking the teaching and learning practices of Arabic at a major U.S. university. Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition, 1, 1–20.
