Cover not available
Part of
The Evolution of Pronunciation Teaching and Research: 25 years of intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness
Edited by John M. Levis, Tracey M. Derwing and Murray J. Munro
[Benjamins Current Topics 121] 2022
► pp. 75–101

Comprehensibility and everyday English use

An exploration of individual trajectories over time

ORCID logo | Macquarie University, Australia
| Holmesglen Institute, Australia
In this longitudinal study we tracked change in comprehensibility and English use over a 10-month period in 14 L2 English learners (8 beginner, 6 intermediate) settling in Australia. They were interviewed 4 times during the 10 months as part of a larger longitudinal study. English use was reported at each interview using a language map and excerpts from recordings of Interviews 1 and 4 were rated for comprehensibility. Intermediate participants tended to be more comprehensible and maintain a higher level of English use over time than the beginners. Exploration of individual variation revealed a range of comprehensibility outcomes, the variable and non-linear nature of English use trajectories, and a possible relationship between comprehensibility change and English use for some participants. Important methodological implications for future studies relate to the measurement of comprehensibility and English use, the speech samples used for comprehensibility ratings, and the importance of individual variation.
Keywords: longitudinal, comprehensibility, English use, individual variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Measuring English use over time
    • 1.2Speech samples used for comprehensibility ratings
    • 1.3Comprehensibility and English proficiency
    • 1.4The importance of individual variation
    • 1.5Study design and research question
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Speech samples
    • 2.3Reported English use
    • 2.4Raters
    • 2.5Rating procedure
    • 2.6Interrater reliability
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Change in comprehensibility over time
    • 3.2Change in English use over time
    • 3.3The relationship between change in comprehensibility and English use
    • 3.4Contexts of English use
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Comprehensibility ratings
    • 4.2Measuring English use
    • 4.3The relationship between English proficiency and comprehensibility
    • 4.4Speech samples
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.121.05zie
References (39)
References
Australian Council of TESOL Associations. (2019). Submission to the evaluation of the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) “new business model”. Retrieved from: [URL]
Cerreta, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2018). Engaging the senses: A sensory-based approach to L2 pronunciation instruction for actors. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4(1), 46–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chick, A., Benson, P., & Moloney, R. (Eds.). (2019). Multilingual Sydney. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crowther, D. (2020). Rating L2 speaker comprehensibility on monologic vs. interactive tasks. What is the effect of speaking task type? Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(1), 96–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7‐year study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54(4), 655–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, D. P. (2017). Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges. System, 71, 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galante, A., & Thomson, R. I. (2017). The effectiveness of drama as an instructional approach for the development of second language oral fluency, comprehensibility, and accentedness. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 115–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. I. (2013). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 135–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P., & Foote, J. A. (2018). Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility scale for English-medium universities. Language Testing, 35(2), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P., Yu, G., & Chereau, B. M. (2015). Examining the linguistic aspects of speech that most efficiently discriminate between upper levels of the revised IELTS pronunciation scale. IELTS Research Report Series, 4. Retrieved from [URL]
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38(2), 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, S., Foote, J. A., & Buss, L. K. (2015). Second language speakers at university: Longitudinal development and rater behaviour. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 199–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J. (2018). Dimensions of pronunciation. In O. Kang, R. I. Thomson, & J. M. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation. (pp. 413–431). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native and foreign-accented speech. Language Learning, 48(2), 159–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). A prospectus for pronunciation research in the 21st century. A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 11–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Morton, S. L. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagle, C., Trofimovich, P., & Bergeron, A. (2019). Toward a dynamic view of second language comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 647–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67(1), 43–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Dewaele, J. M., & Hanzawa, K. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between motivation and late second language speech learning in classroom settings. Language and Speech, 60(4), 614–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 217–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 439–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical profiles of comprehensible second language speech. The role of appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 677–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The State of Victoria Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2018). Population diversity in Victoria: 2016 census. Local government areas. Retrieved from: [URL]
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yates, L., Terraschke, A., Zielinski, B., Pryor, E., Wang, J., Major, G., … Williams Tetteh, V. (2015). Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) Longitudinal Study 2011–2014: Final report. Sydney: Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University.Google Scholar