1

Accommodation Theory in Interlanguage Talk:

Convergence across Different Levels of English

A Thesis Presented to

The Faculty of Foreign Studies

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

by Misaki TANI

2

Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Chapter 1: Previous Studies on Accommodation Theory

1.1. Accommodation Theory

1.1.1. Speech Accommodation Theory and Communication Accommodation Theory ....... 8

1.1.2. Motivations ............................................................................................................. 10

1.1.3. Communicative Efficiency Motivation and Accommodation Theory ..................... 11

1.2. Jenkins

1.2.1. Lingua Franca Core and Non-Core ........................................................................ 11

1.2.2. Accommodation in Interlanguage Talk .................................................................. 11

1.2.3. Foreigner Talk ........................................................................................................ 13

1.3. Studies on Speech Rate................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 2: Method of Experiment

2.1. Subjects ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.2. Method .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.3. Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 3: Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of Japanese Subjects’ English ............................................................. 20

3

3.2. Native Speaker ............................................................................................................. 23

3.3. Japanese Speaker: Advanced Level of English ............................................................ 25

3.4. Japanese Speaker: Intermediate Level of English ...................................................... 26

3.5. Three Speakers ............................................................................................................. 28

Chapter 4: Conclusion

4.1. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….31

References ............................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix

1. Questionnaire to a Native Speaker about English Levels of Two Japanese Subjects and

their Answers ....................................................................................................................... 38

2. Transcriptions from Recordings ...................................................................................... 39

3. List of Sentences .............................................................................................................. 58

4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the three unnamed individuals who willingly consented to my request

to take part in the experiments conducted for this research.

My thanks also go to Tas Ching Kin Min who read through and corrected the English of this

thesis.

5

Introduction

Nowadays, a large number of people in the world use English as a Lingua Franca for

global communication. According to Crystal (2003, 60) and Dewey (2007, 333), there are

over 1.8 billion people who use English worldwide, and only 320-380 million of them are

native speakers. Therefore, it can be said that non-native speakers of English have hugely

outnumbered native speakers on a global scale. Taking this situation into consideration, the

skills necessary for successful ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) communication have

become extremely important. One of the strategies used for successful communication in an

ELF environment is called “accommodation”, which means that speakers adjust their style

6

of speaking to suit their interlocutors.

The phenomenon of accommodation has been studied by researchers since the 1970s.

The majority of the researches carried out in the earlier days tended to focus on

accommodation made among native speakers of English. Although in more recent years,

accommodation has also been discussed in the area of ELF studies, researches focusing on

the phonetic characteristics in accommodation in ELF settings are still scarce.

In this paper, I will focus on accommodation in Interlanguage Talk settings. The study

will be on how people accommodate their speech in an Interlanguage community where the

members have different English levels. For this purpose, I will analyse the sound data

collected by three categories of speakers: native speaker, advanced non-native speaker, and

intermediate non-native speaker. Although the main aim of this study is to observe

accommodation in a single conversation involving three speakers who have different English

abilities, four other conversations, between two speakers in each, will also be examined:

native speaker/native speaker conversation, native speaker/advanced non-native speaker

conversation, native speaker/intermediate non-native speaker conversation, and advanced

non-native/intermediate non-native speaker conversation.

In the Interlanguage Talk that involves three speakers, I assume that the native

speaker and the advanced non-native speaker will converge toward the speech of the

lowest-level speaker - that is, the intermediate non-native speaker - in order to improve

comprehension among them. On the other hand, there will be no changes in the

intermediate non-native speaker's speech. This assumption is based on the view made by

Jenkins (2000) concerning competence limitations of English learners: advanced-level

7

speakers can accommodate their speech according to the English level of their interlocutors,

while intermediate-level speakers lack the ability to do so. In this experiment, the direction

of accommodation made by the advanced non-native speaker is of interest because she has

the ability to converge toward both her higher-level and lower-level interlocutors.

Likewise, in the conversation between two speakers of different levels of English

ability, I assume that the native speaker and the advanced non-native speaker will

accommodate their speaking style according to the English level of their interlocutor.

However, when we discuss motivation for accommodation in the conversation between

non-native speakers, we may have to consider not only communicative efficiency motivation,

but also psychological factors as well. For example, the advanced speaker is expected to

speak slower when talking with the intermediate speaker. Although such accommodation

could be motivated by the need for communicative efficiency, it is also possible that the

advanced speaker would speak faster on purpose to show off her English ability.

In addition, it is interesting to observe the intermediate speaker's speaking style.

Although he does not have the capability to converge toward his higher proficiency

interlocutors, he may change the way he speaks nonetheless, depending on his state of mind.

For instance, when talking to the native speaker, it is possible that he would use more

awkward English if he gets nervous. On the other hand, it is also possible that he would

make an effort to speak better English.

Likewise, I suspect that psychological factors can influence the participants’ style of

speaking in Interlanguage Talk. Thus, the sound data need to be collected in a natural

conversation environment in order to make observations more accurate. However, in

8

previous researches, the sound data were mainly collected in an interview situation, and

most of the experiments were conducted in laboratories in order to reduce unwanted noises.

The data collected in this way are not appropriate for this study because people tend to feel

nervous during recordings. Therefore, in this experiment, I will analyze the sound data

collected in a casual conversation setting. Conversations will be conducted through Skype

Video Chat so that the participants will not feel conscious of the recordings.

In Chapter One, I will provide an overview of previously conducted researches on

accommodation theory. The method used for my experiment will be discussed in Chapter

Two, while its results will be discussed in Chapters Three and Four.

9

Chapter One

Previous Studies on Accommodation Theory

1.1. Accommodation Theory

1.1.1. Speech Accommodation Theory and Communication Accommodation Theory

The theories focusing on accommodation have been described in three categories:

communication accommodation theory, intercultural adaption theory, and co-cultural theory

(Gudykunst, 2001). Although the phenomenon of accommodation has been discussed in the wide

areas of psychology and linguistics, the scope of communication accommodation theory is

mainly centered on linguistic analysis. In my study, I will focus on communication

10

accommodation theory to account for a speaker’s adjustments to another's speech style.

The original form of communication accommodation theory is speech accommodation

theory. In the early 1970s, Giles (1973) first observed speakers change their accent to make

it sound more similar to that of their interlocutors during conversation. Giles and Smith

(1979) integrated this accent mobility model into Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT).

They pointed out that speakers adjust not only their accents but also other aspects of speech

such as speech rate, pauses, utterance length, and pronunciation. For instance, Putman &

Street (1984) reported that interviewees tried to adjust their speech rate in order to make

themselves sound likeable to their interviewers. Later, SAT was developed into

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) by Giles and Coupland (1991). CAT covers

not only linguistic features, but also non-verbal ones as well. The scope of accommodation

theory was broadened to include communicative behaviors such as smiling and gazing.

1.1.2. Motivations

The aim of SAT is to clarify the motivations underlying speech accommodation, and it

focuses on the strategies called “convergence” and “divergence” in which speakers adjust

their speech patterns. During a conversation, speakers use these strategies in order to

decrease or to increase the communicative distance between themselves and their

interlocutors. Beebe and Giles (1984) introduced three main motivations of accommodation:

to gain the interlocutor’s approval, to increase communicative efficiency, and to maintain

positive social identity.

“Convergence” is an attempt at reducing the differences between speakers and their

interlocutors (Giles & Smith, 1979). There are two types of motivations underlying

11

convergence: affective motivation and communicative efficiency motivation. That is,

speakers accommodate their speech patterns in order to first develop an emotional link with

their interlocutors, and second, make themselves more intelligible to their interlocutors. A

number of studies have shown that convergence can help to increase speakers’

attractiveness, predictability, and interpersonal involvement with their interlocutors (Giles

et al, 1987; Jenkins, 2000; Bourhis et al, 2012).

In contrast, “divergence” is an attempt at emphasizing the differences between

speakers and their interlocutors. The motivation underlying divergence is “maintenance”.

Speakers try to retain their group identity by making a distinction from other groups. For

instance, in ELF communication, while non-native speakers try to converge toward their

interlocutors for the purpose of making themselves more intelligible, they have the desire to

preserve the identity of their native language. Therefore, they converge on the features

which may cause phonological problems, but try to preserve some aspects of their native

language accent (Jenkins, 2000).

1.1.3. Communicative Efficiency Motivation and Accommodation Theory

Since the early 1980s, communicative efficiency motivation has been considered

important in the study of accommodation theory. Thakerer et al. (1982) first regarded

increased intelligibility rather than social approval as a principal motivation for speech

accommodation. They demonstrated that speakers accommodate their speech in order to

improve mutual predictability and intelligibility rather than to improve their attractiveness

or social approval. Further studies supported this view by asserting that the main aim of

accommodation is to promote interlocutor comprehension (Bell, 1984; Coupland, 1984). In

12

particular, in an Interlanguage Talk (ILT) context, accommodations are related primarily to

communicative efficiency motivation (Jenkins, 2000; 2002; 2007; 2010). Non-native speakers

have a strong desire to make themselves understood in English because for them, that is the

very purpose of using the language.

1.2. Jenkins

As mentioned in the introduction, most of the studies on accommodation in the earlier

days tended to focus on the accommodations of dialect speakers or fluent bilinguals rather

than those of English language learners (Tarone, 1988; Zuengler, 1991). However, in recent

years, accommodation - or more specifically, strategy of convergence - has been discussed in

the area of ILT studies. For example, Jenkins (2000; 2002; 2007; 2010) discussed

phonological convergence in ILT contexts.

1.2.1. Lingua Franca Core and Non-Core

At the beginning of the chapter where she mentioned accommodation theory (Jenkins,

2000), Jenkins proposed what she termed the “Lingua Franca Core”, which would help to

maintain mutual phonological intelligibility in ILT. According to Jenkins (2000, 132), the

most important areas for the preservation of phonological intelligibility are as follows:

consonant sounds except for /θ/ and /ð/, appropriate consonant cluster simplification, vowel

length distinction, and nuclear stress. The absence of these “core” features causes

intelligibility problems. In contrast, “non-core” features are those that are not important for

intelligibility in ILT (Jenkins, 2002, 99; 2007, 24): vowel quality, vowel addition, weak forms,

consonant sounds /θ/ and /ð/, word stress, pitch direction, and stress-timed rhythm. Later,

13

Jenkins goes on to introduce accommodation theory in an ILT environment.

1.2.2. Accommodation in Interlanguage Talk

In addition to “core” and “non-core” features, Jenkins’ research (2000; 2002; 2007;

2010) has demonstrated that “accommodation” is a key for successful communication in ILT.

Accommodation in ILT does not mean imitating a native speaker’s pronunciation. In an ILT

setting, speakers converge in the direction of the pronunciation of their interlocutors, not

that of native speakers. Therefore, the phonological features produced through

accommodation depend on who is talking with whom. In most cases, accommodations are

made for the purpose of reducing the phonological differences between themselves and their

interlocutors. Through this process, speakers aim to increase mutual intelligibility. That is,

communicative efficiency motivation mainly functions during a conversation in an ILT

environment.

Jenkins (2000) mentioned not only motivation, but also the capability of the speakers

to adjust their speech patterns. She cited a study on quantitative changes carried out by

Takahashi (1989): the advanced English speakers talked more when conversing with their

higher proficiency interlocutors, while they talked less when talking with their lower

proficiency interlocutors. On the other hand, the intermediate speakers did not change the

amount they talked to match the proficiency level of their interlocutors (Jenkins 2000, 176).

From this observation, Jenkins pointed out that second-language (L2) speakers are highly

motivated to converge their speech toward that of their interlocutors but they do not have

the ability to do so. After mentioning this competence limitation, Jenkins moved on to

consider foreigner talk.

14

1.2.3. Foreigner Talk

Jenkins (2000) referred to not only accommodation made in ESL communication, but

also that of NS (Native Speaker) -NNS (Non-Native Speaker) communication. In the early

1970s, Ferguson (1971) first used the term Foreigner Talk (FT) to mean the simplified

register which native speakers use toward non-native speakers. As a phonetic example,

native speakers often try to avoid using contractions and weak forms when they talk with

interlocutors unfamiliar with the language. Jenkins (2000, 177) showed other

characteristics of FT besides this usage of clearly articulated pronunciation: slower speech

rate, more questions, repetition, less syntactical complexity, and the use of higher frequency

vocabulary. Also, she mentioned previous studies such as Varonis and Gass (1982), as well as

Gass and Varonis (1984; 1985), which claimed that native speakers use FT in order to make

themselves more understandable when being interviewed. Later, Jenkins (2000) concluded

that FT adjustment can be explained as one of the accommodations motivated by

communicative efficiency.

1.3. Studies on Speech Rate

The linguistic analysis of accommodation covers a wide range of factors such as

quantitative variables, syntactic complexity, pronunciation and so on, but studies on speech

rate (Street 1983; Putman &Street, 1984) – “speech rate” indicates the number of syllables

uttered per second of total time including pauses— and articulation rate (Fletcher 2012,

570)— “articulation rate” indicates the number of syllables uttered per second of

articulation speaking time minus pauses — have provided some of the most stable support

15

for accommodation theory. For example, Buller and Aune (1988) demonstrated that

similarity in speech rate directly increases approval in interlocutors, by showing that

addresses were inclined to accede to the request of a speaker whose speech rate was similar

to their own. In other cases, speech rate change occurs when speakers want to make

themselves understood. In particular, in FT and ILT, higher proficiency speakers use a

slower speech rate in order to improve the intelligibility of their interlocutors (Jenkins,

2000).

16

Chapter Two

Method of Experiment

2.1. Subject

Two native speakers of English and two Japanese speakers of English participated in

this experiment. The main native speaker (NS1) involved in the experiment is from Canada.

He and another native speaker (NS2) took part in the recording of the native speaker/native

speaker conversation. Both speakers have lived in Japan for several years, and have been

working as Assistant Language Teachers at schools in this country. Of the two Japanese

subjects, one is a graduate of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies in the class of 2012. She

17

majored in English. The other is pursuing a senior Spanish major at the same school. Their

detailed backgrounds are as follows:

Table 1. Backgrounds of Native-Speaker Subjects

Subjects

Sex Age Birth

place

Staying in

Japan

Other

languages

Living

abroad

Main

native

speaker

Male 32 Canada 5 years Japanese(Business)

Chinese (Fluent)

Singapore

Second

native

speaker

Female 23 America 3 years Japanese(Business)

Russian (Fluent)

Uzbekistan

Table 2. Backgrounds of Japanese Subjects

Subjects

Sex Age Mother tongue Birth

place

Major at

university

Other languages

spoken

Advanced

Japanese

speaker

Female 22 Japanese Japan English Italian

(Beginner)

Intermediate

Japanese

Speaker

Male 22 Japanese Japan Spanish Spanish

(Intermediate)

The two Japanese speakers of English have different English levels (Ad/In). The

English major graduate had been studying English at an English conversation school since

she was six years old, and her teachers were native English speakers. Also, she had

participated in an English learning program in England for two months when she was still

18

in university. She has Grade One in the EIKEN Test and obtained over 900 points out of 990

in the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC Exam). Based on her

academic history and certifications, I categorized her English level as “advanced”. On the

other hand, the Spanish-major student had never studied English at an English

conversation school, and had never stayed in any English-speaking country. His score in the

TOEIC Exam is between 600 and 700 points, and he has never taken the EIKEN Test. Based

on these facts, I categorized his English level as “intermediate”.

Table 3. English Academic Background of Japanese Subjects

English

level

Total number of

years learning

English

Studied at English

conversation school?

TOEIC

score

EIKEN

grade

Overseas Stay

Experience

Advanced

16 years Yes

(Since six years old)

Over 900

one England/ two months

(For language program)

Intermediate 10 years No 600-700 - No

2.2. Method

The subjects were asked to do a series of voice chat on Skype for ten minutes each. All

the sessions would be done by different pairs, except one which would be done among three

of them.

The sound data collected would be extracted from natural conversations. They consist

of five parts: 1) native speaker/native speaker conversation, 2) native speaker/advanced

19

speaker conversation, 3) native speaker/intermediate speaker conversation, 4) advanced

speaker/intermediate speaker conversation, and 5) native speaker/advanced/intermediate

speaker. These data were digitally recorded with an audio recorder. Recording was done

with the consent of participants.

Each session was assigned a specific casual topic. For the native speaker/native

speaker conversation, as well as the three-way conversation, the subjects talked about how

they spent their summer vacation. The subjects for the native speaker/advanced speaker

conversation talked about their jobs. The topic of the native speaker/intermediate speaker

conversation was music, and in the advanced speaker/intermediate speaker conversation,

the subjects discussed plans for a future trip.

After the recordings of all the conversations, the main native speaker subject was

asked to evaluate the English abilities of the two Japanese subjects in a questionnaire in

order to find out the factors that trigger accommodation.

2.3. Analysis

The recorded conversation for the first two minutes was extracted for the analysis.

This is because taking into consideration the psychological factors that might affect the

results of the study, the subjects might have felt nervous at the beginning of the recording,

and hence could not speak as naturally as they normally would. The last two minutes were

also extracted, since this is the time period where the speakers were most comfortable with

each other, after having talked to each other for a while, and could therefore speak normally.

The collected data were transcribed in orthographic form (See Transcriptions in Appendix),

20

and the analysis mainly focused on speech rate and number of utterances. Speech rate was

chosen instead of articulation rate because Maruyama (2009) suggested that a speaker's

speech rate, rather than his articulation rate, is directly related to the auditory impressions

of addresses. To calculate speech rate, the total time taken for a subject to say sentences,

including pauses in them, was measured. Next, the number of syllables per millisecond in

the sentences was calculated. The utterances chosen for the analysis of speech rate were

declarative and interrogative sentences uttered by each speaker (See List of Sentences in

Appendix). Also, other characteristics such as repetitions and syntactic complexity were

taken into consideration.

21

Chapter Three

Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of Japanese Subjects' English

The Japanese subjects' competency in English is important in clarifying the factors

that trigger accommodation in an Interlanguage Talk (ILT) environment. First of all, I will

summarize the characteristics of English spoken by the two Japanese speakers (See Table 4).

My evaluation of their ability matches the main native-speaker subject’s opinion (See

Questionnaire and Answers in Appendix). The characteristics of English in two Japanese

subjects can be summarized as follows:

22

Table 4. Characteristics of Japanese Subjects' English

Subjects

Pronunciation Comprehension Expression Sentence

structure

Word

choice

Grammar

Advanced

speaker

had Japanese

accent

(Ex. vowel

substitution)

understood

everything

interlocutor said

expressed

herself well

long and complex

(Ex.

conjunctions,

relative

pronouns)

had large

vocabulary

made few

mistakes

Intermediate

speaker

had Japanese

accent

(Ex. confused /l/

and /r/)

sometimes could not

understand what

interlocutor said/

asked interlocutor to

repeat him/herself

used Japanese

words/

was at loss for

words sometimes

short and simple/

sometimes could

not complete

sentences

used

simple and

frequent

words

often made

mistakes

(Ex. no article,

wrong tenses)

From the point of view of pronunciation, both speakers have an accent characteristic of

a typical Japanese language speaker, and their pronunciation skills are considered to be

similar. For example, both speakers replaced English vowels with other Japanese phonemes

which sound similar to the English vowels. Also, mispronunciations of certain consonants

were found. The advanced speaker pronounced /s/ as /∫/ and /v/ as /b/, while the intermediate

speaker pronounced /θ/as /s/ and /ð/ as /z/. Other features found are less vowel reductions,

23

less consonant cluster reductions, smaller pitch range, and so on. The main difference

between the two speakers is that the advanced speaker pronounced /l/ and /r/ correctly, but

the intermediate speaker could not.

On the other hand, the comprehension skills of the intermediate speaker were weaker

than those of the advanced speaker. The advanced speaker appeared to understand

everything the native speaker said, while the intermediate speaker could not. The

intermediate speaker asked the native speaker to repeat himself when he did not catch what

he had been said.

The ability of the intermediate speaker to express himself in English was also weaker

than that of the advanced speaker. The advanced speaker sometimes paused to think about

what to say next, but she appeared to be able to express herself intelligibly in English.

However, the intermediate speaker was sometimes at a loss for words or used Japanese

words when he did not know how to express himself in English. With regards to sentence

structure, the advanced speaker had the ability to make long and complex sentences by

using relative pronouns and conjunctions, while the intermediate speaker seemed to be

unable to construct long sentences. Sometimes the intermediate speaker used broken

English, and could not answer questions in complete sentences. In addition, the

intermediate speaker often made grammatical mistakes: no articles, wrong tenses,

subject-verb disagreement, and wrong prepositions. On the other hand, there were few

mistakes in the sentences of the advanced speaker. In the area of word choice, the advanced

speaker had a wider range of vocabulary than the intermediate speaker. Although the

advanced speaker used a variety of English words, the intermediate learner used simpler

24

vocabulary. The intermediate speaker is also considered to have a limited vocabulary range

because he used the same expressions repeatedly, such as “many many”, “very very”, and

“wonderful” during conversation. In addition, the advanced speaker understood all the

words the native speaker used, while the intermediate speaker could not catch some words

such as “carp” and “nosebleed”.

In summary, the main differences between the two Japanese subjects' English abilities

are not in pronunciation, but in other categories such as comprehension skills and the

ability to express themselves in English.

3.2. The Native Speaker

The native speaker accommodated several aspects of his speech style to the English

level of his interlocutors. The speaker decreased the speech rate and the amount of speech

when talking with the Japanese speakers, compared to when he was talking with the other

native speaker. He also had a lower speech rate, and made fewer statements toward the

intermediate speaker, compared to his conversation with the advanced speaker.

Table 5. Observed Features in Utterances of Main Native Speaker in Pair Conversations

Observed features

in main native

speaker

Interlocutors

Speech rate of

statements(SL/MS)

Speech rate of

questions(SL/MS)

Number of

Statements made

Number of questions

asked

First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min

-second native speaker 7.6 7.4 10.0 7.7 40 38 3 4

25

- advanced speaker 5.2 5.2 7.1 6.4 34 34 4 2

-intermediate speaker 4.3 4.3 5.2 4.7 24 22 9 9

During the native speaker/intermediate speaker conversation, the native speaker

repeated himself only when the intermediate speaker could not catch what he had said. The

native speaker repeated himself at a slower pace, but not very slowly. Also, the speaker used

complex sentences toward both Japanese subjects. From these facts, the following

conclusion was reached: A native speaker accommodates his speaking style to the English

level of non-native speakers, but accommodation occurs only when intelligibility is

obstructed.

The more important finding is the change in the number of questions asked during

each conversation. The native speaker asked more questions at a significant level toward

the intermediate speaker, but he did not do this with the advanced speaker. This fact is a

key to finding out the factors that trigger accommodation. Perhaps the native speaker asked

more questions to the intermediate speaker to check whether his interlocutor understood

what he had said, to check what his interlocutor wanted to say, and to elicit statements from

his interlocutor. In other words, the native speaker tried to increase mutual intelligibility by

covering for the interlocutor’s lack of comprehension and inability to express himself

adequately. As mentioned earlier, the main difference in the two Japanese speakers' English

abilities is that the advanced speaker could understand everything the native speaker had

said, while the intermediate speaker could not, and the intermediate speaker’s ability to

express himself in English is weaker than that of the advanced speaker. Therefore, it can be

26

concluded that the factors that trigger accommodation are the non-native speakers’ lack of

comprehension and expressions rather than the peculiarity of pronunciation.

3.3. The Japanese Speaker: Advanced Level of English

The advanced speaker also accommodated several aspects of her speaking style toward

the intermediate speaker, but her accommodation is different from that of the native

speaker.

Table 6. Observed Features in Utterances of Advanced Speaker

Observed features

in main native

speaker

Interlocutors

Speech rate of

statements(SL/MS)

Speech rate of

questions(SL/MS)

Number of

Statements made

Number of questions

asked

First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min

- Native speaker 2.5 3.0 5.8 4.5 30 28 4 2

-Intermediate speaker 5.5 6.7 2.8 2.2 32 29 13 9

When speaking to the intermediate speaker, the advanced speaker increased the

number of questions and decreased the speech rate of questions, as the native speaker did.

However, in contrast to the native speaker, the advanced learner increased the speech rate

of her statements toward the intermediate speaker. She seems to have not accommodated,

but careful observation reveals that she accommodated her sentence structures instead of

accommodating her speech rate. More accurately, this subject did not have the capability to

construct complex sentences at a high speech rate. During her conversation with the native

speaker, the advanced speaker spoke in complex and long sentences by using conjunctions

27

and relative pronouns when she was talking with the native speaker, as opposed to the

simpler and shorter sentences she used toward the intermediate speaker. However, she

paused to think of her next words when constructing long sentences. In summary, a

non-native speaker accommodates his/her speaking style depending on the English ability of

his/her interlocutor, but the accommodation occurs only when the speaker has the ability to

do so.

3.4. The Japanese Speaker: Intermediate Level of English

In contrast to former two subjects, the intermediate speaker did not accommodate his

speaking style to the interlocutors.

Table 7.Observed Features in Utterances of Intermediate Speaker.

Observed features

in main native

speaker

Interlocutors

Speech rate of

statements(SL/MS)

Speech rate of

questions(SL/MS)

Number of

Statements made

Number of questions

asked

First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min First 2min Last 2min

- Native speaker 1.3 2.3 N/A N/A 18 22 0 0

- Advanced speaker 2.3 2.7 8.6 6.0 35 32 3 4

In his conversation with the advanced speaker, the intermediate speaker increased his

speech rate and the number of words used, compared to when he was talking to the native

speaker. From this fact, it can be said that the intermediate speaker did not have the ability

to accommodate his speech toward his interlocutors, and he could speak more smoothly to

28

the Japanese speaker than to the native speaker. I assume that the intermediate speaker

felt nervous when he was talking with the native speaker. This subject had few

opportunities to talk with native speakers, while the advanced speaker had learned English

from native speaker English teachers, and she had stayed in an English speaking country

for an extended period of time. In short, how well non-native speakers can communicate in a

conversation with a native speaker depends not only on their English ability, but also their

experiences in communicating with native speakers.

In addition, it is of interest that the intermediate speaker asked questions at a higher

speech rate than the other subjects, while his speech rate of statements was lower than that

of the others. I made several assumptions why this subject spoke slower when he answered

questions, and why he spoke faster when he asked questions. First of all, I assume that the

intermediate speaker spoke slower when he answered questions because he had to think of

his answers on the spot. The speakers did know what his interlocutors would ask until they

actually did, and therefore, he took a longer time to think of his answers. In contrast, the

speaker spoke faster when asking questions, because the questions he asked were formed in

his mind beforehand, perhaps while the others were talking. Speaking slowly or in an

awkward manner may have made him feel embarrassed, so he tried to speak as smoothly as

possible. It was difficult for him to think of what to say beforehand while answering a

question, but before asking a question, he had time to think of what to ask, and he could

even rehearse it in his head. It is also possible that this subject thought of the questions on

the spot, but the expressions were the ones he was already familiar with. For instance, the

speaker used simple expressions such as “do you know…?” or “what is…?”. Since he was

29

familiar with those expressions, he could speak faster. However, this may not be the case.

There is also a third possibility as to why his speech rate of questions was high. The subject

knew that others were much better in English than him, so he assumed that they would be

able to understand him and he did not need to speak slowly when asking questions. The last

possibility is that the intermediate speaker could not afford to worry about how much the

others understood him while communicating in a non-native language. This possibility is

low compared to the earlier assumptions, because it does not accord with earlier studies

(Jenkins, 2000; Beebe and Giles, 1984) which argued that speakers engaged in ILT are

highly motivated to accommodate their speech even if they do not have the ability to do so.

To clarify this, further research is needed.

3.5. Three Speakers

There are several interesting findings in the conversation among three speakers.

First, the native speaker accommodated his speech rate of statements and questions

toward the least proficient speaker, the intermediate speaker. On the other hand, the

advanced speaker maintained a moderate speech rate, not low as when talking with the

native speaker and not high as when talking with the intermediate speaker. Perhaps the

advanced speaker felt that the native speaker's intelligibility might be obstructed if she

adjusted her speech style to suit the least proficient speaker, and therefore tried to speak at

a moderate speed so that both of the other speakers could comprehend her words. As for the

intermediate speaker, he did not have the ability to accommodate his interlocutors in this

conversation, but he could speak more smoothly than during his earlier conversation with

30

the native speaker. I assume that having another Japanese participant in the conversation

made him feel more relaxed.

Table 8.

Comparison of observed features in utterances of each subject in conversation among three speakers

with separate conversations between two speakers.

Speech rate of statements

(Number of syllables per milliseconds)

Number of

statements made

Utterance ratio

among three(％)

Interlocutors

Speakers

Three

speakers

- Native

speaker

- Advanced

speaker

-Intermediate

speaker

Three

speakers

Three

speakers

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

Native speaker 4.5 4.1 7.6 7.4 5.2 5.2 4.3 4.3 22 23 32 36

Advanced speaker 3.6 3.6 2.2 3.0 5.5 6.7 13 18 19 28

Intermediate speaker 2.4 2.6 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.7 33 23 49 36

Speech rate of questions

(Number of syllables per milliseconds)

Number of

questions asked

Percentage of

Questions asked(％)

Interlocutors

Speakers

Three

speakers

- Native

speaker

- Advanced

speaker

-Intermediate

speaker

Three

speakers

Three

speakers

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

First

2min

Last

2min

31

Native speaker 4.5 5.0 10.0 7.7 7.1 6.4 5.2 4.7 7 3 32 13

Advanced speaker 3.6 5.0 5.8 4.5 2.8 2.2 3 1 23 8

Intermediate speaker 8.3 N/A N/A N/A 8.6 6.0 3 0 9 0

Second, the native speaker and the advanced speaker spoke less than the intermediate

speaker. Also, they did not use long and complex sentences. In short, the more proficient

speakers accommodated their amount of speech toward the least proficient speaker in order

to make their utterances intelligible to him.

Third, the percentage of questions in all utterances is high for the native speaker and

the advanced speaker, and all of the questions asked in the first part were directed toward

the intermediate speaker. I assume that the former two subjects felt that more questions

would help to increase the intelligibility of the latter. In contrast, the intermediate speaker

seldom asked questions, and the speech rate of his questions is much higher than that of the

other speakers. It showed the same result as that obtained from pair conversation.

Lastly, the native speaker and advanced speaker increased the number of statements

made and decreased the number of questions asked during the conversation in the last two

minutes, compared to the conversation in the first two minutes. In other words, the more

proficient speakers decreased their amount of accommodation as the conversation continued.

Thus, I theorize that as speakers become familiar with the speaking style of their

interlocutors during conversation, their need to accommodate decreases.

32

Chapter Four

Conclusion

4.1. Conclusion

The main aim of this paper is to examine accommodation in a situation where the

targets of accommodation have two different English levels. In this experiment, the data

were collected by only three subjects. Hence, it may not be appropriate to make general

conclusions from the limited data obtained. However, the results obtained in this

33

experiment are important as a case study of accommodation in ILT. As stated in the

introduction, I had expected that accommodation would be made in the direction of the

lowest-level speaker in the conversation among three speakers, but the result of the

experiment differed from the prediction based on accommodation theory. The advanced-level

speaker accommodated her speech rate to a medium level, making it stay between the

native and intermediate speakers' speech rates. The experiment yielded the following

conclusions:

<Conclusions drawn from the results of the conversation among three speakers>

(1) The native speaker adjusts his speaking style to the intermediate speaker in order to

increase the intelligibility of the least proficient speaker – that is, the intermediate speaker.

(2) The advanced-level speaker accommodates her speaking style in a way that makes it

more intelligible for both the more proficient speaker and the less proficient speaker, while

converging toward the intermediate speaker in other aspects.

(3) The intermediate-level speaker cannot accommodate his higher-level interlocutors

because he does not have the motivation or capability to do so.

From these conclusions, it can be further concluded that, in a conversation involving

people of varying English levels, proficient speakers try to accommodate their speech style

in a way that best increases intelligibility among everyone by raising the mutual

comprehension level of the others, regardless of their English level. The advanced speaker

assumed that accommodating to the intermediate speaker alone would obstruct the

intelligibility of the native speaker since English levels varied greatly between them. This is

the most convincing explanation as to why the advanced speaker did not accommodate her

34

speech rate to the least proficient speaker. In other words, the lack of mutual intelligibility

is the factor that triggers accommodation in ILT. Therefore, in a conversation, speakers

accommodate less and less as time goes by because intelligibility would have inevitably

increased after talking for a while.

In addition to observing the conversation among three speakers, I also examined how

speakers accommodate their speech styles when their interlocutor has a different English

level from their own. Conclusions from the results of the experiment can be summarized as

follows:

＜Native speaker of English＞

(1) The native speaker accommodates his speech style to the English level of a non-native

interlocutor in order to increase mutual comprehension. He accommodates more toward the

low-level speaker than toward the high-level speaker.

(2) The native-speaker adjusts his speech style to his interlocutor only when he feels the

need to do so. Accommodation does not occur when mutual intelligibility is maintained

during conversation.

(3) The trigger for accommodation of the native speaker toward a non-native speaker

depends on the latter's comprehension level and ability to express him/herself rather than

his/her pronunciation skill.

＜Non-native speaker of English＞

(4) The high-level non-native speaker would try to converge toward her interlocutor in order

to increase mutual comprehension, but if she does not have the ability to so, accommodation

does not occur.

35

(5) In contrast to the high-level speaker, the intermediate-level speaker cannot

accommodate his speech style to an interlocutor because he lacks the capability to do so.

(6) Psychological factors can affect a non-native speaker’s communicative ability in a

conversation with a native speaker. In particular, having had past experience in

communicating with native speakers can help him or her feel comfortable, thereby allowing

the conversation go smoothly.

The results drawn from this experiment fit with those of the earlier studies on

accommodation, but it is still not clear why the intermediate speaker asked questions at a

higher speech rate than the other subjects. As stated earlier, if the intermediate-level

subject could not afford to consider how much the other speakers understood him, this

finding calls into question the earlier research which argued that speakers are highly

motivated to accommodate their speech even if they do not have the ability to do so. It would

provide a new insight into the motivation of speakers engaged in ILT in accommodating

their speech styles, and it will be an interesting subject for further research. Also, since the

non-native subjects of this experiment have pronunciation characteristics peculiar to

Japanese speakers, further research is needed to examine a non-native Japanese speaker

who has good pronunciation as an advanced-level speaker.

36

References

Beebe, L. & H. Giles. 1984. “Speech-accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of

second-language acquisition,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46,

5–32.

Bells, A. 1984. “Language style as audience design,” Language in Society, 13, 145-204.

Bourhis, R. Y., R. Sioufi, I. Sachdev. 2012. “Ethnolinguistic interaction and multilingual

communication,” The Handbook of Intergroup Communication, 100-115.

Buller, D. B. & Aune, R. K. 1988. “The effects of vocalic and nonverbal sensitivity on

compliance; A speech accommodation theory explanation,” Human Communication

Research, 14, 301-332.

Coupland, N. 1984. “Accommodation at work: some phonological data and their implications,”

International Journal of the Socieology of Language, 46, 49-70.

Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 60.

Dewey, M. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: An empirical study of innovation in lexis and

grammar. London: University of London, 333.

37

Ferguson, C. A. 1971. “Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal

speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins,” Pidginization and Creolization of

languages, ed. D. Holmes, 141-150.

Fletcher, J. 2012. “The prosody of speech: timing and rhythm,” The Handbook of Phonetic

Sciences, 2, 570.

Gass. S. & E. M. Varonis. 1984. “The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of

non-native speakers,” Language Learning, 34 (1), 65–87.

Gass. S. & E. M. Varonis. 1985. “Variation in native speaker speech modification to

non-native speakers,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 37-57.

Giles, H. 1973. “Accent Mobility: a model and some data,” Anthropological Linguistics, 15,

87-105.

Giles, H., A. Mulac., J. J. Bradac., P. Johnson. 1987. "Speech accommodation theory: The

first decade and beyond,” Communication Year Book, 10, 13-48.

Giles, H. & N.Coupland. 1991. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press, 85.

Giles, H. & P. Smith. 1979. “Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence,”

Language and Social Psychology, 45-65.

Gudykunst, W. B. 2001. “Intercultural Communication Theories,” Handbook of international

and intercultural communication, 179-206.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 132, 158-159, 165-194.

38

Jenkins, J. 2002. “A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus

for English as an international language,” Applied Linguistics, 23 (1), 83-103.

Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Jenkins, J. 2010. “(Un) pleasant? (In) correct? (Un) intelligible? ELF speakers’ perceptions

of their accents,” English as a Lingua Franca: Publishing Studies and Findings, 10-24.

Marushima, A, 2009. “An observation on the tempo of speech language: from a view of

duration and pitch construction,” Tsukuba Working Papers in Linguistics. 28, 48-56.

Putman, W. & Street, R. 1984. “The conception and perception of noncontent speech

performance: Implications for speech accommodation theory,” International Journal

of the Sociology of Language, 97-114.

Street, R. L. 1983. “Noncontent speech convergence in adult-child interactions,”

Communication Yearbook, 7, 369-395.

Takahashi, T. 1989. “The influence of the listener on L2 speech,” Variation in Second

Language Acquisition, Discourse and Pragmatics, 1, 245-279.

Taron, E. 1988.Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.

Thakerar, J. N., H. Giles., J. Cheshire. 1982. “Psychological and linguistic parameters of

speech accommodation theory,” Advances in the Social Psychology of Language,

205-255.

Varonis, E. M. & S. Gass. 1982. “The comprehensibility of non-native speech,” Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 4 (2), 114-136.

Zuengler, J. 1991. “Accommodation in native-nonnative interactions: going beyond the ‘what’

39

to the ‘why’ in second-language research”, Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics,

223-244.

Appendix

1. Questionnaires to a Native Speaker about English Levels of Two Japanese Subjects and

their Answers

①About the advanced Japanese speaker of English

A. How did you feel about her English ability in general? Choose one out of six levels.

1. Beginner 2. Pre-Intermediate 3. Intermediate 4. High-Intermediate

○5. Advanced 6. Native

B. What about her pronunciation? Do you feel her English had the so-called Japanese

accent? Circle yes or no.

Yes /No (Comment: )

C. What about her comprehension? Do you think she could understand what you had

said? Circle yes or no.

Yes /No (Comment: Almost everything )

40

D. What about her ability to express herself in English? Do you think she could explain

what she wanted to say? Circle yes or no.

Yes /No (Comment: Most of the time, yes )

②About the intermediate Japanese speaker of English

A. What did you feel about his English ability in general? Choose one out of six levels.

1. Beginner 2. Pre-Intermediate ○3 . Intermediate 4. High-Intermediate

5. Advanced 6. Native

B. What about his pronunciation? Do you feel his English had the so-called Japanese

accent? Circle yes or no.

Yes / No (Comment: )

C. What about his comprehension? Do you think he could understand what you had

said? Circle yes or no.

Yes / No (Comment: Sometimes, no )

D. What about his ability to express himself in English? Do you think he could explain

what he wanted to say? Circle yes or no.

Yes / No (Comment: Sometimes, no )

2. Transcriptions from Recordings

①Native speaker (NS1)/native speaker (NS2) conversation

A. Recording for first two minutes

NS2: How did you spend your summer vacation?

NS1: I went to Tohoku and Kyushu. Yeah.

41

NS2: Really? Wow. By yourself?

NS1: Yes.

NS2: Oh, cool.

NS1: It was raining. Yeah. I went to Yamadera which is in…. Do you know where it is?

NS2: No, I don’t know.

NS1: In Yamagata prefecture.

NS2: Oh, right, right.

NS1: On my first day there it was raining. Yes.

NS2: I saw your pictures on facebook and it was really good. Like the…

NS1: Really?

NS2: Yeah, Yamagata…. I don’t know the mountains like the green….

NS1: Yeah. But it was so cloudy there. I don’t think I had good shots.

NS2: No, it was good. I like that. Well, and what about Kyushu?

NS1: Kyushu. I went to many prefectures in Kyushu. I stayed in Hakata in Fukuoka. Yeah.

NS2: Fukuoka. I have never been to Fukuoka.

NS1: It’s like Tokyo, similar to Tokyo.

NS2: Really?

NS1: Yeah, it’s pretty…

NS2: Big?

NS1: …big. Yeah.

NS2: I see.

NS1: Yeah. I went to...uh Nagasaki.

42

NS2: Oh…Nagasaki.

NS1: The Gunkan-jima. Do you know where… what it is?

NS2: I don’t know. I have no idea.

NS1: Oh.

NS2: Gunkan….

NS1: Gunkan-jima. It’s a… it’s called…

NS2: Gunkan-jima. It’s shima, island, something.

NS1: It’s called “Battleship island”

NS2: Oh, Battleship island.

NS1: Because it… it looks like a battleship from one of the old Japanese navy…

NS2: Oh, really?

NS1: …battleships I think.

NS2: Oh...

NS1: If I remember correctly.

NS2: Oh, I didn’t know that. Thank you for the information.

NS1: You’re welcome. So… how did you spend your summer vacation?

NS2: Well… I went to… Turkey, the Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

NS1: Wow, so many places!

NS2: No, not that, but like… I like travelling, you know.

NS1: Wow! You must be rich!

NS2: No, I’m not!

NS1: You have a lot of money to go. You have to be able to have a lot of money to go to those

43

places.

B. Recording for last two minutes

NS2: Pamukkale is hot spring place really good, so….

NS1: Oh, I thought there’re only hot springs in Japan.

NS2: No, come on! I don’t think so. There are a lot of hot springs in the world.

NS1: I don’t like the hot springs.

NS2: Really?

NS1: Yeah.

NS2: You don’t like it?

NS1: Yes.

NS2: Why?

NS1: It’s so hot.

NS2: It’s not! Come on! You can… like, there’re different, like, degrees, so you can adjust…

NS1: You know, I went to Tohoku, right? I went to Shimokita which is in the northern part of

Honshu.

NS2: Beppu-onsens are famous.

NS1: Uh… I went to an onsen, hot spring in… in, in Shimokita. Yeah.

NS2: Right.

NS1: Yeah. So it was so hot!

NS2: Really?

NS1: Yeah, I couldn’t. I went into the water, and I would, I got out after, like, ten munites. I

was forcing myself to stay there because I paid money for it. I don’t wanna waste of my

44

money. Yeah.

NS2: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that’s why I don’t like summer in Japan.

NS1: So… what did you eat in Turkey?

NS2: Oh, you know? You know about Kebubs?

NS1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

NS2: Yeah. Yeah.

NS1: I love Kebubs.

NS2: Yeah. Kebubs are really famous in Turkey, so… and a lot of meat.

NS1: Yeas! I love….

NS2: I love meat. Yes. You know…well, like in Japan, it’s so expensive! Yeah.

NS1: Yeah. Yeah. I wanna go to Tokyo. When I go to Akihabara in Tokyo, yeah, I always go to

the Kebub shop there

NS2: Oh, the Turkish?

NS1: Turkish. Yeah.

NS2: Yeah. Yeah. I love the place too.

NS1: Yeah.

NS2: Yeah.

NS1: So which one is the better, the one in Turkey or the one in Japan?

NS2: The one in Turkey, of course.

NS1: Ah….

NS2: Origin. So… and I ate, you know, I like beer. So…

NS1: Oh what kind of beer do you like?

45

NS2: …I drank a lot.

NS1: What kind of beer do you like>

NS2: I think the best one is Japan.

NS1: Really?

NS2: Asahi, so try. Super-dry, well…. all kinds of alcohols. You know, I’m alcoholic. And… I

love wine too.

②Native speaker (NS)/advanced speaker (Ad) conversation

A. Recording for first two minutes

NS: So I’m working at uh… three… uh… two elementary schools.

Ad: Oh, really?

NS: I used to… when I first came to Oyama, I worked in the junior high school.

Ad: Junior high school?

NS: Yeah. One junior high school. Yeah. And then, I stayed there for like two years before I

changed to elementary schools.

Ad: Really. How was it?

NS: How was it?

Ad: Yeah.

NS: It was… fun, I guess.

Ad: Actually, so you teach English, right?

NS: Yeah.

Ad: To Japanese students.

NS: Yap.

46

Ad: For example, what do you do to them…?. So, for example, what do you… what kind of…

NS: What kind of activities or…?

Ad: …class do you do? Yeah. Activities.

NS: Uh… in… in…

Ad: So I thought… like game. Game or something?

NS: Yeah. Mainly games. Mainly communicative activities.

Ad: Oh, it’s fun.

NS: It’s fun…. Uh… students don’t think so.

Ad: Oh, really?

NS: Maybe not. It depends. Yeah.

Ad: Yeah.

NS: So mainly interviews… interviews like… games like bingos. Yeah. Bingos. I know

Japanese kids like bingos so much.

Ad: Yeah. I know. I know.

NS: Do you like bingos…? Yeah. You know.

Ad: So-so. If I… if I could win a… win some prize…

NS: Uh-huh.

Ad: …it’s fun.

NS: Uh… (Advanced speaker’s name), you say you work at the travel agency. What kind of

job, what kind of… job, duties, do you have?

Ad: Uh, mainly sales.

NS: Sales, wow! Okay.

47

Ad: It’s so tough.

NS: It’s tough!

Ad: In summer time. Because we have to walk so many miles away…

NS: Where?

Ad: …to many companies or universities so that I can get some jobs of travels.

B. Recording for last two minutes

NS: What are the difficulties you have? Like, for example, the companies have no time to

entertain you, what’s stuff like that?

Ad: Uh-huh. I have to create some plans where I haven’t been before. Because I’m…

NS: Because…?

Ad: … like… because…. For example, I haven’t been to Shikoku prefecture.

NS: Uh-huh.

Ad: … but there’re times that I have to promote some tours that they go to Shikoku

prefecture.

Ad: It’s very difficult because I haven’t, you know, I haven’t been to Shikoku.

NS: In there. Personally. Yes.

Ad: Yeah. Personally. But I have to imagine or research by the internet or asking by

telephone to Shikoku prefecture and I promote my plans.

NS: Uh….

Ad: Yeah. So I don’t have, like, the skills and career. So I haven’t been to all countries, right?

NS: Uh… I get… okay…I get what your point.

Ad: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry.

48

NS: Okay, okay, okay. Yeah. I get it, Yeah. But you can ask your company to sponsor, like, the

trip for you to go there, to Shikoku or other parts of Japan.

Ad: Yeah. Right.

NS: Yeah. But you took the research.

Ad: Yeah. Actually I haven’t been to Nagano prefecture. But when I said so, uh…, my

company let me go there. Uh…to….

NS: Oh, let you go there.

Ad: Yeah, to….

NS: Wow! To trip! Fun!

Ad: Yeah, to trip and go to some famous places in Nagano. So it was a very good experience.

NS: Yeah. Seriously. Yeah. You can ask me because I’ve been to many places in Japan.

Ad: Oh, really? Wow.

NS: Yeah. I’ve been to….

Ad: For example, where?

NS: Almost.

Ad: Almost?

NS: Almost everywhere. Yeah. You just tell me, name me a place. Yeah.

③Native speaker (NS)/Advanced speaker (Ad) conversation

A. Recording for first two minutes

NS: So… what… uh… do you play… do you play the music that often?

In: Yes. Very often. And recently, last Sunday, I played jazz… and… next… tomorrow…

and….

49

NS: Tomorrow! Wow!

In: Yeah. Tomorrow… I have band.

NS: How often do you have live performances?

In: Uh… maybe… it’s four or five… per… month.

NS: Wow. Wow. Are you professional?

In: No. But… but I love music and, but I love jazz… and I… I want… uh… people… uh… I

want make people smile with music.

NS: Uh…okay. You wanna make people smile with the music.

In: Yes.

NS: That’s a very… uh… ambitious.

In: Thank you.

NS: So… do you think you can succeed? Do you think you have succeeded?

In: Mmm… yes.

NS: Good.

In: Yes. Because… I… through… through the music… I… can meet… the many many

peoples wonderful, warms, and specials… like… I can’t explain.

NS: I can get what you mean. Yeah. I… play a music, instruments… so I can get know what

you mean.

In: Yes.

NS: So how many people are there in your band?

In: Uh… band have twenty….

NS: Twenty? Twenty? Wow!

50

In: It is big band, jazz music.

NS: Wow! Big band!

In: Yes.

NS: You play… like… do you like star from the movie, Swing girl or something? Do you know

Swing girl?

In: Yes. Yes.

B. Recording for last two minutes

NS: By the way, where do you play? Your jazz band.

In: Oh, sorry. Pardon me?

NS: Where do you play… uh… your, your live place?

In: Uh… sorry. I can’t understand your… question.

NS: Uh… where… where do you play? Where?

In: Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Uh… mmm… for example… the cultural centers?

NS: Cultural center?

In: Mmm… I don’t know… how to say… and… jazz festivals… and… the… in university…

or… mmm… and the jazz bar.

NS: Uh. You play at shopping mall often?

In: Uh. Yes. Yes.

NS: Uh….

In: And the last Sunday I played… at the shopping mall.

NS: Oh… how many people were there watching you?

In: Oh, many many people.

51

NS: Oh….

In: I don’t know exactly but it…

NS: Thousands?

In: No! Maybe thousand, but….

NS: Wow. You are famous!

In: Sixty or fifty people… listen.

NS: It’s still a lot of people.

In: Yes. It was a very very wonderful time.

NS: I’m sure it.

In: Yes.

NS: Before I started working as a teacher…

In: Yeah.

NS: …I was studying in Tokyo. After I graduated from my Japanese language school, I

studied in a specialized college.

In: Yeah.

NS: You know what’s specialized college?

In: Yeah. It’s… like… in Japanese, senmon-gakko.

NS: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I actually studied in Tokyo school music for a shot, while a couple

of months.

④ Advanced speaker (Ad)/ Intermediate speaker (In) conversation

A. Recording for first two minutes

In: We make the plan…

52

Ad: For trip, travelling.

In: … for travelling at… in November.

Ad: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. November eight, nine, ten, eleven. Private information.

In: Sorry. Where do you want to go?

Ad: Okay. Oh, so can you afford travelling? Can you afford travelling?

In: Hmm… maybe.

Ad: Really? So can you go on trip for four days?

In: I think it is. I can’t. I can’t. Just for two… two….

Ad: Just imagination, right?

In: …imagination? It’s imagination?

Ad: No? It’s actual plan?

In: Actual plan.

Ad: Okay. Okay. Actual plan.

In: Okay. Okay. So… I don’t have…

Ad: Money?

In: …have money. Sorry.

Ad: So where shall we go? For just one day travelling or I don’t know but….

In: Two, two.

Ad: Maybe we can… oh, two days? Really?

In: Two days and I want to go…

Ad: Oh this is a promise right? This is a promise.

In: Okay. I mean in English. Okay.

53

Ad: In English?

In: Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay! I want to go the places near Tokyo.

Ad: What?

In: I want to go the place….

Ad: Place? The places near Tokyo.

In: …near Tokyo.

Ad: So it’s not travelling.

In: No, no, no. For example… uh… Yokohama… or ….

Ad: Oh, it’s my house.

In: Okay. Nagano… or….

Ad: Nagano? Okay….

B. Recording for last two minutes

In: And… do you want to go Odaiba?

Ad: You don’t want to go to Odaiba.

In: I don’t like the place like… rural place. I don’t know how to say… but….

Ad: So… uh… okay…but….

In: It bother me. It bother me.

Ad: Bother? Really? So how about…?

In: There is a many people. There is a many… there… there is …uh….

Ad: Too crowded?

In: This is too crowded and… so… there is….

Ad: So you get irritated, right?

54

In: Yeah….

Ad: Because there’s so many people.

In: Yeah….

Ad: And also you have to go to make lines….

In: Yeah.

Ad: And also you have to go to make lines…

In: Yes.

Ad: … make lines to get on some places. But I suggest break on weekday.

In: Week… uh… okay.

Ad: Yup.

In: Okay.

Ad: Because we have Thursday, Friday.

In: Uh… you said… I said….it is better at… on… Thursday but….

Ad: Okay. Thursday.

In: I have the class. Yes.

Ad: Class? Oh, okay. Because you’re… yeah, I know.

In: Class… at first… how to say? First class? Ichigennme.

Ad: Uh, first term?

In: First term. Oh thank you. Sorry, it’s it’s…. I can’t absent.

Ad: So I’ll call you. I’ll call you to… so that you can make up.

In: Thank you. Please call me tomorrow. Thank you.

Ad: Tomorrow? Why? You have first term again…?

55

In: No.

Ad: …tomorrow?

➄ Native speaker (NS)/ Advanced speaker (Ad)/ Intermediate speaker (In) conversation

A. Recording for first two minutes

In: I went to the… Tohoku.

NS: What? Where? Where?

Ad: Tohoku.

NS: Tohoku.

In: Tohoku. And… for example… oh… Yamagata prefecture…and Akita prefecture, and

Miyagi prefecture.

NS: When did you go?

Ad: Oh.

NS: What days did you go?

In: What days… hmm… it’s September….

NS: Uh… September.

In: September. Sorry. September to 22 to five.

NS: Oh, just last las….

Ad: Yeah.

NS: Last month! Wow!

Ad: That’s fun.

In: It was very very wonderful and there is… there is… many many… there was many

many… there were many many delicious food and… I have… I had…. Do you know that

56

kawa-zakana? Fish…

NS: Fish?

In: Fish.

Ad: Fish.

In: Do you know Ayu?

NS: Umm… No.

In: Sorry.

Ad: Umm… fish in river…

In: Fish in….

Ad: … which lives inside the river, not into sea, ocean.

In: Sea. Ocean.

NS: Okay, okay. River fish. It’s a kind of river fish, Uh-huh.

Ad: Yeah, river fish.

NS: Okay.

In: What koi?

Ad: Carp.

NS: Carp. Yeah.

In: Carp. I don’t… I….

NS: You eat carp?

In: Yes.

NS: Oh, wow!

Ad: You eat carp?

57

In: Yeah. Carp.

Ad: Really?

In: And carp is not… so many people… uh… carp is… is not delicious.

Ad: I think so too.

In: But, but, but! In Yamagata, it’s… uh… there is many rivers near the… hotels. So well,

they can get… Nandakke? Shinsen… uh….

Ad: Are they fried flesh?

In: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. Fresh carps. So….

Ad: So you…?

In: It was very very delicious.

B. Recording for last two minutes

In: It was very very… it was very very old. Old.

NS: Old.

In: So… it’s… it was constructed in Showa.

Ad: Showa period?

In: Showa period or Meiji.

Ad: Oh, really?

NS: Wow, really.

Ad: So you like old things very much.

In: Yes. Yes.

NS: Like Asakusa, right?

Ad: Yeah. Asakusa, yeah.

58

NS: Kitasenju.

Ad: Yeahm Kitasenju instead of Odaiba.

In: It’s, it is… it was very very wonderful and if you want to see it, please be friend of

facebook. In: Well, actually, we are already friends in facebook. Yeah. I and (the name of

native speaker) become… became friends, right?

In: Okay. Sorry. Please.

Ad: (The name of native speaker)?

NS: What? What? What?

In: (The name of native speaker)… uh… we are friends in facebook.

NS: Yap, yap, yap. Yes, we are. Yap, yap I sent you a request, (the name of intermediate

speaker)

In: Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry!

NS: I’m so sad.

Ad: Oh.

In: Sorry, sorry, sorry! Please look the pictures in… at the Ginzan onsen. It was very very

wonderful.

NS: Okay.

In: And many many foreign people visited… visited… visited the Ginzan onsen. I suggest

you to go there.

Ad: Yeah. I want to go there too.

In: Uh… okay.

NS: I don’t like onsen though.

59

Ad: Oh, really?

In: Oh, really?

NS: No, I don’t. Yeah, really I don’t. Because hot springs are too hot for my foot.

Ad: oh….

In: The first time I went to onsen, it was like five years ago, I stayed the onsen for like ten

minutes, and then I couldn’t take the heat any more.

Ad: Oh… yeah.

NS: At last, my nose started to bleed.

Ad: Really?

3. List of Sentences

SL: Number of syllables, MS: Total time of utterance (milliseconds), SR: Speech rate

(SL/MS)

①Declarative Sentences

A. Pair conversations

a. NS (with NS2, for first two min): You have to be able to have a lot of money to go to those

places. (SL＝19; MS＝2.5; SR＝7.6)

b. NS (with NS2, for last two min): I was forcing myself to stay there because I paid money

for it. (SL＝17; MS＝2.3; SR＝7.4)

c. NS (with Ad, for first two min): I know Japanese kids like bingos so much. (SL＝11; MS＝

2.1; SR＝5.2)

d. NS (with Ad, for last two min): You can ask me because I’ve been to many places in Japan.

60

(SL＝16; MS＝3.1; SR＝5.2)

e. NS (with In, for first two min): I play the music, instruments, so I can get, know what you

mean. (SL＝36; MS＝3.7; SR＝4.3)

f. NS (with In, for last two min): So I actually studied in Tokyo school music for a shot while,

a couple of months. (SL＝22; MS＝5.1; SR＝4.3)

g. Ad (with NS, for first two min): Because we have to walk so many miles away to many

companies or universities so that I can get some jobs of travels. (SL＝33; MS＝15.2; SR＝2.2)

h. Ad (with NS, for last two min): For example, I haven’t been to Shikoku prefecture, but

there’re times that I have to promote some tours that they go to Shikoku prefecture. (SL＝

37; MS＝12.5; SR＝3.0)

i. Ad (with In, for first two min): So, it’s not travelling. (SL＝6; MS＝1.4; SR＝5.5)

j. Ad (with In, for last two min): Because there’s so many people. (SL＝8; MS＝1.2; SR＝6.7)

k. In (with NS, for first two min): Maybe it’s four or five per month. (SL＝8; MS＝6.2; SR＝

1.3)

l. In (with NS, for last two min): Sixty or Fifty people listen. (SL＝9; MS＝4.0; SR＝2.3)

m. In (with Ad, for first two min): I want to go the places near Tokyo. (SL＝10; MS＝4.3; SR

＝2.3)

n. In (with Ad, for last two min): Please call me tomorrow. (SL＝6; MS＝2.2; SR＝2.7)

B. Group conversation

a. NS (for first two min): It’s kind of river fish. (SL＝5; MS＝1.1; SR＝4.5)

b. NS (for last two min): The first time I went to onsen, it was like five years ago, I stayed the

onsen for like ten minutes, and then I couldn’t take the heat anymore. (SL＝39; MS＝9.4; SR

61

＝4.1)

c. Ad (for first two min): Fish in river which lives inside the river not into sea, ocean. (SL＝

17; MS＝4.7; SR＝3.6)

d. Ad (for last two min): Well, actually we are already friends in facebook. (SL＝13; MS＝4.0;

SR＝3.6)

e. In (for first two min): In Yamagata, it’s, there is many rivers near the hotels. (SL＝16; MS

＝6.8; SR＝2.4)

f. In (for last two min): It’s, it is, it was very very wonderful time and if you want to see it,

please be friend of facebook. (SL＝23; MS＝8.8; SR＝2.6)

② Interrogative Sentences

A. Pair conversations

a. NS (with NS2, for first two min): Do you know where it is? (SL＝6; MS＝0.6; SR＝10)

b. NS (with NS2, for last two min): So which is the better, the one in Turkey or the one in

Japan? (SL＝17; MS＝2.2; SR＝7.7)

c. NS (with Ad, for first two min): Do you like bingos? (SL＝5; MS＝0.7; SR＝7.1)

d. NS (with Ad, for last two min): What are the difficulties you face? (SL＝9; MS＝1.4; SR＝

6.4)

e. NS (with In, for first two min): How often do you have live performances? (SL＝11; MS＝

2.1; SR＝5.2)

f. NS (with In, for last two min): You play at shopping mall often? (SL＝8; MS＝1.7; SR＝4.7)

g. Ad (with NS, for first two min): What kind of class do you do? (SL＝7; MS＝1.2; SR＝5.8)

h. Ad (with NS, for last two min): For example, where? (SL＝5; MS＝1.1; SR＝4.5)

62

i. Ad (with In, for first two min): So you can go on trip for four days? (SL＝7; MS＝1.2; SR＝

5.8)

j. Ad (with In, for last two min): You have first term again? (SL＝5; MS＝1.1; SR＝4.5)

k. In (with Ad, for first two min): Where do you want to go? (SL＝6; MS＝0.7; SR＝8.6)

l. In (with Ad, for last two min): Do you want to go Odaiba? (SL＝9; MS＝1.5; SR＝6.0)

B. Group conversation

a. NS (for first two min): What days did you go? (SL＝5; MS＝1.1; SR＝4.5)

b. NS (for last two min): Are they flied fresh? (SL＝4; MS＝1.3; SR＝3.6)

c. Ad (for first two min): Do you know Ayu? (SL＝5; MS＝0.6; SR＝8.3)

d. Ad (for last two min): What? (SL＝1; MS＝0.2; SR＝5.0)

e. In (for first two min): Showa period? (SL＝5; MS＝1.0; SR＝5.0)