英語の音声に関する雑記帳

(This is the enlarged version of my former post https://englishphonetics.jp/2022/01/04/%e7%99%ba%e9%9f%b3%e5%ad%a6%e7%bf%92%e3%81%ab%e3%81%8a%e3%81%91%e3%82%8b-lingua-franca-core-%e7%9a%84%e3%81%aa%e5%a6%a5%e5%8d%94%e3%81%ab%e3%81%a4%e3%81%84%e3%81%a6/ translated into English. )

As mentioned in a previous article, My book Thorough English Pronunciation Training at the Sentence Level (2021) sets the pronunciation learning model to Western American pronunciation. Of course, this is the ultimate goal that is mostly unattainable for learners, and unless you are very talented at learning pronunciation, the reality is that your Japanese accent will remain to a greater or lesser extent. (And such a talented person probably doesn’t need phonetics for learning pronunciation.)

A British linguist Jennifer Jenkins, in her book The Phonology of English as an International Language (Oxford University Press, 2000), proposed the Lingua Franca Core (hereafter abbreviated to LFC) of the pronunciation as a kind of “compromise” from the perspective of English as an international language, arguing that perfect pronunciation is neither achievable nor desirable as a model for non-native speakers. LFC was proposed as a realistic goal for pronunciation learning. (Lingua Franca literally means “Frankish language”. It is a name that refers to a mixed language used for trade in the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the Crusades to the 18th century, and is now more commonly used as a common noun meaning “a common language”. )

When I first learned about LFC, my impression was that it was self-contradictory and an act of overreach for a researcher who was also a native English speaker to propose the minimum characteristics that should be adhered to while pointing out that uses of English are now dominated by those between non-native speakers worldwide. Not surprisingly, LFC has sparked a debate in academia. But I have not followed how that debate settled.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the specifics of such a “compromise”. Also, Thorough English Pronunciation Training at the Sentence Level does not mention this at all. The reason for this is that I believe it increases the burden on the part of the learners.

LFC does not present as its model the detailed phonetic characteristics of native speech, so naively it may seem like it will reduce the learning burden. However, I don’t think that will happen.

For example, in LFC, the consonants /θ/ and /ð/ are not deemed necessary for learners. Because these are relatively rare sounds in the world’s languages, there is some justification for removing them from the essentials, since the total burden on the learner would be greater if they were required of everyone.

However, in order to teach that these sounds are not necessary, we must teach that they exist. In other words, learners have to learn the fact that /θ, ð/ exist, as well as the notion that these sounds do not necessarily have to be mastered. This is obviously an increase in the number of learning points. Of course, the effort spent on learning the articulation is reduced, but intellectually it is an increased burden. If you write about it in a book, the amount of text will only increase.

Also, provided that we accept that you don’t have to learn the precise sounds native speakers use, what specific sounds are acceptable as a compromise? I don’t think the answer is obvious. Are [t, d] acceptable, how about [s, z], and if these are good, how about [ts, dz]?

If the learners share the same L1, they tend to have similar difficulties, but because there are variations even among the speakers of the same language, it is not easy to settle on a single set of compromises. It should be even more impractical to propose a specific compromise for nonnative speakers in general. It is undesirable to decide on one recommendation when the evidence is weak. I think vague guidelines can even get in the way of learning.

And what about instructors? Of course, even highly qualified nonnative teachers are unlikely to have completely mastered the pronunciation modeled after native speakers.  Is it all right if the compromise for teachers is the same as that for learners?

Native speaker instructors can tell their students that some of their own characteristics are not absolutely necessary for them. But nonnative teachers may have to tell their students that they should learn what the teachers themselves cannot do while doing away with something they have learned to produce. That is a contradiction, to say the least.

It is much simpler if we present the whole system to our students and tell them to learn it even if we cannot perform some part of it ourselves.

In addition, the reality is that it is difficult enough for teachers to fully prepare themselves with knowledge of English pronunciation itself. Again, knowledge about LFC is an additional burden, and the hurdle will be raised if they have to learn it.

If you can afford to add that kind of effort, wouldn’t it be better to spend more time and energy on devising ways to get closer to a clearly defined model pronunciation?

My impression is that discourses about pronunciation have become unnecessarily complicated both in academia and society at large. I think this is a barrier to the dissemination of knowledge of pronunciation. I have always been thinking about how I can lower the hurdle by making the discussion as clean and clear as possible. I wrote both of my two books (2005 and 2021) with that in mind.