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

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

3.2. 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 speakers 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 interlocutors 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 // and //, 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 // and //, 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 speakers 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
Sex

Age

Subjects

Main
native
speaker

Male

Second
native
speaker

Female

32

Birth

Staying in

Other

Living

place

Japan

languages

abroad

Canada

5 years

Japanese(Business)

Singapore

Chinese (Fluent)
23

America

3 years

Japanese(Business)

Uzbekistan

Russian (Fluent)

Table 2. Backgrounds of Japanese Subjects

Sex

Age

Mother tongue

Subjects
Advanced
Japanese
speaker

Female

Intermediate
Japanese
Speaker

Male

22

Japanese

Birth

Major at

Other languages

place

university

spoken

Japan

English

Italian
(Beginner)

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

Total number of

Studied at English

TOEIC

EIKEN

Overseas Stay

years learning

conversation school?

score

grade

Experience

Yes

Over 900

one

England/ two months

English
level

English
16 years

Advanced
(Since six years old)
Intermediate

10 years

No

(For language program)

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 subjects 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

Pronunciation

Comprehension

Expression

Subjects

Sentence

Word

structure

choice

Grammar

had Japanese

understood

expressed

long and complex

had large

made few

Advanced

accent

everything

herself well

(Ex.

vocabulary

mistakes

speaker

(Ex. vowel

interlocutor said

conjunctions,

substitution)

relative
pronouns)

had Japanese

sometimes could not

used Japanese

short and simple/

used

often made

Intermediate

accent

understand what

words/

sometimes could

simple and

mistakes

speaker

(Ex. confused /l/

interlocutor said/

was at loss for

not complete

frequent

(Ex. no article,

and /r/)

asked interlocutor to

words sometimes

sentences

words

wrong tenses)

repeat him/herself

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 //as /s/ and // 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
-second native speaker

Speech rate of

Speech rate of

statements(SL/MS)

questions(SL/MS)

Number of

Number of questions

Statements made

asked

First 2min

Last 2min

First 2min

Last 2min

First 2min

Last 2min

First 2min

Last 2min

7.6

7.4

10.0

7.7

40

38

25
- advanced speaker

5.2

5.2

7.1

6.4

34

34

-intermediate speaker

4.3

4.3

5.2

4.7

24

22

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 interlocutors 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 speakers 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

Speech rate of

Number of

Number of questions

statements(SL/MS)

questions(SL/MS)

Statements made

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

-Intermediate speaker

5.5

6.7

2.8

2.2

32

29

13

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

Speech rate of

statements(SL/MS)

questions(SL/MS)

Number of

Number of questions

Statements made

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

- Advanced speaker

2.3

2.7

8.6

6.0

35

32

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.

Interlocutors

Speech rate of statements

Number of

Utterance ratio

(Number of syllables per milliseconds)

statements made

among three()

Three

Three

speakers

speakers

Three

- Native

- Advanced

speakers

speaker

speaker

-Intermediate
speaker

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

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

33

23

49

36

Speakers

Interlocutors

Speakers

2.3

2.7

Speech rate of questions

Number of

(Number of syllables per milliseconds)

questions asked

Questions asked()

Three

Three

Three

- Native

- Advanced

speakers

speaker

speaker

-Intermediate

speakers

speaker

Percentage of

speakers

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

First

Last

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

2min

31
Native speaker

4.5

5.0

10.0

7.7

Advanced speaker

3.6

5.0

5.8

4.5

Intermediate speaker

8.3

N/A

N/A

N/A

7.1

8.6

6.4

6.0

5.2

4.7

32

13

2.8

2.2

23

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 speakers 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,
532.
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), 6587.
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
About 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
5.

2. Pre-Intermediate 3. Intermediate

4. High-Intermediate

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

About 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

Native 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 dont 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 dont know the mountains like the green.
NS1: Yeah. But it was so cloudy there. I dont 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: Its like Tokyo, similar to Tokyo.
NS2: Really?
NS1: Yeah, its pretty
NS2: Big?
NS1: big. Yeah.
NS2: I see.
NS1: Yeah. I went to...uh Nagasaki.

42

NS2: OhNagasaki.
NS1: The Gunkan-jima. Do you know where what it is?
NS2: I dont know. I have no idea.
NS1: Oh.
NS2: Gunkan.
NS1: Gunkan-jima. Its a its called
NS2: Gunkan-jima. Its shima, island, something.
NS1: Its 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 didnt know that. Thank you for the information.
NS1: Youre 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, Im 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 therere only hot springs in Japan.
NS2: No, come on! I dont think so. There are a lot of hot springs in the world.
NS1: I dont like the hot springs.
NS2: Really?
NS1: Yeah.
NS2: You dont like it?
NS1: Yes.
NS2: Why?
NS1: Its so hot.
NS2: Its not! Come on! You can like, therere 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 couldnt. 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 dont wanna waste of my

44

money. Yeah.
NS2: Yeah. Yeah. Well, thats why I dont 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 knowwell, like in Japan, its 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, Im alcoholic. And I
love wine too.
Native speaker (NS)/advanced speaker (Ad) conversation
A. Recording for first two minutes
NS: So Im 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, its fun.
NS: Its fun. Uh students dont 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: its fun.
NS: Uh (Advanced speakers 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: Its so tough.

NS: Its 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, whats stuff like that?
Ad: Uh-huh. I have to create some plans where I havent been before. Because Im
NS: Because?
Ad: like because. For example, I havent been to Shikoku prefecture.
NS: Uh-huh.
Ad: but therere times that I have to promote some tours that they go to Shikoku
prefecture.
Ad: Its very difficult because I havent, you know, I havent 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 dont have, like, the skills and career. So I havent been to all countries, right?
NS: Uh I get okayI 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 havent been to Nagano prefecture. But when I said so, uh, my
company let me go there. Uhto.
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 Ive been to many places in Japan.
Ad: Oh, really? Wow.
NS: Yeah. Ive been to.
Ad: For example, where?
NS: Almost.
Ad: Almost?
NS: Almost everywhere. Yeah. You just tell me, name me a place. Yeah.
Native 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 its 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: Uhokay. You wanna make people smile with the music.
In: Yes.
NS: Thats 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 cant 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 cant 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 dont 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 dont know exactly but it
NS: Thousands?
In: No! Maybe thousand, but.
NS: Wow. You are famous!
In: Sixty or fifty people listen.
NS: Its still a lot of people.
In: Yes. It was a very very wonderful time.
NS: Im 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 whats specialized college?
In: Yeah. Its 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.
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 cant. I cant. Just for two two.
Ad: Just imagination, right?
In: imagination? Its imagination?
Ad: No? Its actual plan?
In: Actual plan.
Ad: Okay. Okay. Actual plan.
In: Okay. Okay. So I dont have
Ad: Money?
In: have money. Sorry.
Ad: So where shall we go? For just one day travelling or I dont 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 its not travelling.
In: No, no, no. For example uh Yokohama or .
Ad: Oh, its 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 dont want to go to Odaiba.
In: I dont like the place like rural place. I dont know how to say but.
Ad: So uh okaybut.
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 theres 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 youre yeah, I know.
In: Class at first how to say? First class? Ichigennme.
Ad: Uh, first term?
In: First term. Oh thank you. Sorry, its its. I cant absent.
Ad: So Ill call you. Ill 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?
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 prefectureand Akita prefecture, and
Miyagi prefecture.
NS: When did you go?
Ad: Oh.
NS: What days did you go?
In: What days hmm its September.
NS: Uh September.
In: September. Sorry. September to 22 to five.
NS: Oh, just last las.
Ad: Yeah.
NS: Last month! Wow!
Ad: Thats 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. Its a kind of river fish, Uh-huh.
Ad: Yeah, river fish.
NS: Okay.
In: What koi?
Ad: Carp.
NS: Carp. Yeah.
In: Carp. I dont 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, its 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 its 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: Its, 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: Im 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 dont like onsen though.

59

Ad: Oh, really?

In: Oh, really?
NS: No, I dont. Yeah, really I dont. 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 couldnt 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)
Declarative 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. (SL19; MS2.5; SR7.6)
b. NS (with NS2, for last two min): I was forcing myself to stay there because I paid money
for it. (SL17; MS2.3; SR7.4)
c. NS (with Ad, for first two min): I know Japanese kids like bingos so much. (SL11; MS
2.1; SR5.2)
d. NS (with Ad, for last two min): You can ask me because Ive been to many places in Japan.

60

(SL16; MS3.1; SR5.2)

e. NS (with In, for first two min): I play the music, instruments, so I can get, know what you
mean. (SL36; MS3.7; SR4.3)
f. NS (with In, for last two min): So I actually studied in Tokyo school music for a shot while,
a couple of months. (SL22; MS5.1; SR4.3)
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. (SL33; MS15.2; SR2.2)
h. Ad (with NS, for last two min): For example, I havent been to Shikoku prefecture, but
therere times that I have to promote some tours that they go to Shikoku prefecture. (SL
37; MS12.5; SR3.0)
i. Ad (with In, for first two min): So, its not travelling. (SL6; MS1.4; SR5.5)
j. Ad (with In, for last two min): Because theres so many people. (SL8; MS1.2; SR6.7)
k. In (with NS, for first two min): Maybe its four or five per month. (SL8; MS6.2; SR
1.3)
l. In (with NS, for last two min): Sixty or Fifty people listen. (SL9; MS4.0; SR2.3)
m. In (with Ad, for first two min): I want to go the places near Tokyo. (SL10; MS4.3; SR
2.3)
n. In (with Ad, for last two min): Please call me tomorrow. (SL6; MS2.2; SR2.7)
B. Group conversation
a. NS (for first two min): Its kind of river fish. (SL5; MS1.1; SR4.5)
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 couldnt take the heat anymore. (SL39; MS9.4; SR

61

4.1)
c. Ad (for first two min): Fish in river which lives inside the river not into sea, ocean. (SL
17; MS4.7; SR3.6)
d. Ad (for last two min): Well, actually we are already friends in facebook. (SL13; MS4.0;
SR3.6)
e. In (for first two min): In Yamagata, its, there is many rivers near the hotels. (SL16; MS
6.8; SR2.4)
f. In (for last two min): Its, it is, it was very very wonderful time and if you want to see it,
please be friend of facebook. (SL23; MS8.8; SR2.6)
Interrogative Sentences
A. Pair conversations
a. NS (with NS2, for first two min): Do you know where it is? (SL6; MS0.6; SR10)
b. NS (with NS2, for last two min): So which is the better, the one in Turkey or the one in
Japan? (SL17; MS2.2; SR7.7)
c. NS (with Ad, for first two min): Do you like bingos? (SL5; MS0.7; SR7.1)
d. NS (with Ad, for last two min): What are the difficulties you face? (SL9; MS1.4; SR
6.4)
e. NS (with In, for first two min): How often do you have live performances? (SL11; MS
2.1; SR5.2)
f. NS (with In, for last two min): You play at shopping mall often? (SL8; MS1.7; SR4.7)
g. Ad (with NS, for first two min): What kind of class do you do? (SL7; MS1.2; SR5.8)
h. Ad (with NS, for last two min): For example, where? (SL5; MS1.1; SR4.5)

62

i. Ad (with In, for first two min): So you can go on trip for four days? (SL7; MS1.2; SR
5.8)
j. Ad (with In, for last two min): You have first term again? (SL5; MS1.1; SR4.5)
k. In (with Ad, for first two min): Where do you want to go? (SL6; MS0.7; SR8.6)
l. In (with Ad, for last two min): Do you want to go Odaiba? (SL9; MS1.5; SR6.0)
B. Group conversation
a. NS (for first two min): What days did you go? (SL5; MS1.1; SR4.5)
b. NS (for last two min): Are they flied fresh? (SL4; MS1.3; SR3.6)
c. Ad (for first two min): Do you know Ayu? (SL5; MS0.6; SR8.3)
d. Ad (for last two min): What? (SL1; MS0.2; SR5.0)
e. In (for first two min): Showa period? (SL5; MS1.0; SR5.0)