By Jennie Parker

​So, just how important are rhythm and intonational patterns to the intelligibility of English? In today’s literature on the subject, linguists are divided. Some claim that suprasegmental elements of speech (that is, features of speech that extend beyond individual sounds, such as word stress, rhythm, and intonation) are more important than the correct articulation of consonants and vowels. Others, however, claim that segmentals – these consonant and vowel sounds - are most important.  A third, more holistic perspective, and one that I embrace, is emerging. It suggests that the debate between suprasegmentals and segmentals is perpetuating a false dichotomy; the interaction between the two affects intelligibility, and they cannot always be separated.

​The first perspective points to studies that suggest that suprasegmentals, or prosody, play the most vital role in the overall intelligibility of speech. For example, English rhythm and intonation patterns provide information about what is important to a speaker’s message. Use of correct rhythm and intonation patterns is correlated with better intelligibility, higher proficiency ratings by native speakers, and better listener comprehension and recall. In contrast, nonnative rhythm and intonation patterns, including misplaced focus or stressing all words in an utterance equally, may elicit negative evaluations of the speaker and make sentence processing more difficult for the listener.

In contrast, other studies suggest that the correct articulation of phonemes has a larger impact on intelligibility than suprasegmentals. This may be especially true with regard to interactions between nonnative speakers of English. Because there are more nonnative speakers of English in the world than native speakers, some argue that more studies should assess the intelligibility of the speech of nonnative speakers speaking to other nonnative speakers (most studies involve nonnative speakers speaking to native speakers). Some studies suggest that when nonnative speakers employ correct elements of prosody, nonnative listeners actually have a more difficult time understanding what is said.

I tend to agree with a third, emerging perspective, however. In my experience, the interaction between segmental and suprasegmental elements of speech affect intelligibility, and sometimes, the two cannot be separated. For example, for native speakers of Mandarin and Japanese, a common communication problem in English is the insertion of a vowel sound between consonants in consonant clusters or after consonant clusters. So, while the vowel insertion is of a segmental nature, it involves syllables and word stress, as well. Thus, it is important for pronunciation instruction to address both segmental and suprasegmental elements. Furthermore, because language transfer issues differ depending on a learner’s first language, it is imperative for language educators to be able to shift instruction to address elements of speech that are most significantly impacting intelligibility for individual learners.

So what does all of this mean for the English language learner? It's important to address both segmentals (i.e., consonant and vowel production), as well as suprasegmentals (including word stress, rhythm, and intonation) in your English language instruction. An effective language instructor will research or have experience with common transfer issues from your first language and be able to assess your own speech for what is interfering most significantly with intelligibility. He or she will then help you to address those issues first in controlled language exercises and then in spontaneous speech.

​I also think of “schwa” as lazy because we turn many unstressed syllables into the “schwa” sound. In fact, roughly 20% of words in English contain a “schwa.” The sound can be spelled with any vowel, as in relative, elephant, mistake, today, and difficult, and a few vowel combinations, as in motion. So, within a word, unstressed syllables are often shortened to “schwa;” in addition, within a sentence, unstressed words (i.e., function words) are often shortened to “schwa,” as well. (See “Understanding the Rhythm of English” for more on rhythm and function words).

In these examples, the vowels in many of the function words are reduced to “schwa.” Remember, function words include articles, prepositions, pronouns, and positive auxiliaries.

For some fun facts about “schwa,” see language blogger and linguist Arika Okrent’s post, which describes “schwa” as the laziest sound there is! https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/56821/9-fun-facts-about-schwa
​
*the same sound is also sometimes represented as /ʌ/ when the syllable is stressed, as in under and Doug.

This blog post first appeared in English Unraveled on the Service Speak, LLC site on October 11, 2017.

First, it is useful to understand that English is generally considered a stress-timed language, whereas many languages are considered syllable-timed (though some would argue that all languages are stress-timed but to varying degrees). To the English language learner, however, I think that understanding the concept of stress-timed is helpful; it is not necessary to debate the degree to which English rhythm is similar or dissimilar to the rhythm of other languages.

In each of these sentences, only three syllables are prominently stressed. I have highlighted the stressed syllables in all caps. A stressed syllable is louder, longer, and higher in pitch than the other syllables. Because English is a stress-timed language, it should take the speaker roughly the same amount of time to say each sentence because each sentence has three stressed syllables, despite the fact that the sixth sentence, for example, has nine syllables, and the first has only five.

As a result, many of the unstressed syllables get smooshed (my very scientific way of describing the phenomenon).  Take, for example, the fourth sentence. A native speaker does not clearly articulate "should have" but says, "should-ə"  or "should-əv." In the fifth sentence, "children will" becomes "children'll."  In the sixth, "playing" becomes "playin'."  In general, the unstressed syllables are shortened and weakened. This may explain why many non-native English speakers complain that when they first arrive in the U.S., they feel that Americans slur their speech or speak too quickly.

As I mentioned above, luckily, the stressed words are somewhat predictable.  We call the stressed words content words and the unstressed words function words.  Content words carry most of the meaning of an utterance. They generally include nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and negative auxiliaries, such as "won't," "didn't," "shouldn't," etc. Function words include most other words, such as articles, prepositions, and positive auxiliaries. As with most aspects of English, there are always exceptions to these rules, but this is a general framework that is useful to understand.

As you might have guessed, rhythm in English is more complex than the difference between content and function words. Other major concepts include thought groups and focus words, as well as reasons to break these general rules. However, the distinction between content words and function words is the best place to start, and future blog posts will address some of these other concepts.

Now what? So, hopefully, you understand what a stress-timed language is and how to distinguish between content and function words. But how do you apply this knowledge? It is not something that will come quickly to you at a dinner party, for example, as you are talking with your friends. However, it is something that you can start to be aware of as you listen to native speakers around you, listen to the radio, and watch television. Start to hone in on the strong and weak elements of their speech.  When you practice rhythm at home, I suggest that you download transcripts of audio material and mark the content words (NPR.org is a good resource for this). Then listen to the audio several times and check to see whether your markings were correct.  Then practice the transcripts. And practice. And practice. You might want to record yourself. You will be surprised by what you catch in your speech when you listen to a recording of it. Slowly, with time and practice, this rhythm pattern will become part of your natural speech.

In 2005, when I was training to be an English instructor at the British Council in Istanbul, our trainer, who was a native English speaker from Tasmania, always teased me and another Midwestern American classmate about the way we referred to "you" in plural form: "you guys." He'd say, there's no "guys" in the grammar books! And years later, when I started teaching English in Atlanta, Georgia, my "you guys" gradually changed to "y'all." This is one example of dialectical variation within the United States.  Some estimate there are over 24 different English dialects in the United States alone. Dialect includes not only word choice and grammar, but pronunciation, as well.

Therefore, I am always amused when English language learners say their goal is to speak English without an accent.  While I applaud such learners for their ambition and motivation, it would be impossible for anyone - even native speakers - to speak without an accent.  A more realistic goal would be to speak English with a clear accent.  In the United States, when English language learners refer to "English without an accent," they may be referring to General American, the dialect of English that they often hear in media, particularly national radio or television broadcasts. This dialect is often found in the central region of the United States though it is worth noting that even within this area, variations of speech exist (see map below).
​
​So, what makes an accent clear?  The short answer is that a clear accent is easily understood by others.  This may seem simple, but if you've learned English in your home country and re-located to the United States, you may be surprised by how UNCLEAR native English speakers seem to you.  That's probably because the textbook English that you learned is very different from how native speakers actually talk.