Content uploaded by Gemma Archer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gemma Archer on Oct 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity
on Students’ Perceptions
of and Interactions with Diverse English
Accents
Gemma Archer
Abstract For decades, English language students worldwide have been exposed to
prestige L1 accent models, such as Received Pronunciation (RP) and General Amer-
ican (GA), often to the exclusion of all other varieties. However, the dominance of
these models is questionable today with L2-L2 English communication considered
the most common interaction pattern globally. This study was undertaken to under-
stand the extent to which the exposure of L2 students to these models can affect their
perception of diverse Englishes, such as those encountered while attending an inter-
national university. Thirty international students completed a pre-test questionnaire
about their accent beliefs, followed by a Verbal Guise test. Although the question-
naire affirmed broadly positive opinions of prestige models, L2 accents were believed
to be easier to understand, while the local model, Scottish Standard English (SSE),
was believed to be extremely difficult. Results from the Verbal Guise test indicated
most positive associations with the RP accent. However, participants selected the L2
Chinese accent as that which they liked the most, just surpassing the prestige models,
potentially due to its native-like speech rate. Interestingly, though the local accent,
SSE, was perceived poorly in the pre-test questionnaire, the Verbal Guise test results
revealed far less severe views.
Keywords Accent ·Perception ·Prestige models ·RP ·Global Englishes ·
Regional Englishes
G. Archer (B
)
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland
e-mail: gemma.archer@strath.ac.uk
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
V. G. Sardegna and A. Jarosz (eds.), Theoretical and Practical Developments in English
Speech Assessment, Research, and Training, Second Language Learning and Teaching,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-98218- 8_5
67
68 G. Archer
1 Introduction
English is spoken as a second language (L2) with increasing prevalence worldwide,
with current estimations of two billion plus users (Crystal, 2019; The British Council,
2013), which far outnumbers native or first language (L1) users. Due to such demo-
graphics, it is highly likely that L2-L2 and L2-L1 contact will occur more frequently
(Baese-Berk et al., 2013), especially in international universities where the number of
English medium educational courses continues to grow yearly (Myhovych, 2019).
This is certainly the case in UK universities, where students and academic staff
interact using diverse L2 and L1 regional accents. However, accent is a known vari-
able that can affect comprehension significantly (Buck, 2001). As such, it can be
startling for many international students to begin a degree programme in a location
where the accents they hear do not match the controlled prestige native speaker or
‘default’ (Sung, 2016) models they were exposed to as they prepared for international
university education in their home countries.
The University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, where this study occurred,
accurately demonstrates the sheer variety of Englishes that can be present within
just one institution. University staff represent 77 different nationalities and, in
some departments (e.g., University of Strathclyde’s Engineering Department, n.d.),
almost 50% of the academic staff are international. The university also has a large
international student body with their respective mother tongues and accents, and
local Scottish staff and students who speak Scottish Standard English (SSE). SSE
largely mirrors the written standard of English but, as would be expected, it has
its own phonological inventory made up of 13 vowel sounds and 25 consonant
sounds. Outside of the university, international students may also encounter the
Scots language with its own unique vocabulary, syntax, and phonology. This adds yet
another element into the linguistic melting pot with which international L2 students
have to contend, often with no warning or preparation, when they study in Glasgow.
Locations such as Strathclyde are not unique, however. In many educational insti-
tutions in the UK and beyond, international L2 speakers must grapple with spoken
English in its many variations on a daily basis as reported in studies conducted in
Singapore (Goh, 1999), the US (Major et al., 2005), Hong Kong (Sung, 2016), and
Australia (Harding, 2008). Yet, despite the increasing internationalisation of univer-
sities, the spread of English in lingua franca contexts and the further intermingling
of L1 and L2 Englishes, literature investigating L2 speakers’ perceptions of diverse
accents remains limited and classroom materials using prestige native speaker models
persist. The goal of this small-scale study is to contribute to this existing body of
work by investigating L2 speakers’ perceptions of various English accents, many of
which international students at the University of Strathclyde are not likely to have
had previous exposure to.
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 69
2 Literature Review
2.1 Prestige Accent Models in ELT
Many variables can influence how comprehensible a speaker is perceived to be, but
accent is often held responsible for causing communication breakdowns. However,
despite the receptive benefits which could come from increased access to and famil-
iarisation with diverse English accents, the majority of English teaching course-
books and materials continue to present only two models: the prestige L1 varieties
of Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GA) (Kiczkowiak, 2021).
When discussing the continued use of the prestige model RP in English language
teaching, Jenkins (2007) concluded that feelings towards this model as a standard are
“historically deep rooted and thoroughly naturalised” (p. 33). RP is also suggested to
be “the most popular accent for EFL purposes … throughout the twentieth century”
(Przedlacka, 2008, p. 18) and “the most thoroughly described accent of English”
(Wells, 1982, p. 279). A large number of student textbooks, audio materials, teacher
training courses, dictionaries and influential phonetics textbooks continue to take
Daniel Jones’ original descriptions of RP as their pronunciation model de rigueur.
In fact, some coursebook writers have even revealed that they face pressure from
publishing houses to use only educated L1 speakers from the south east of England
in the audio resources they create (Kiczkowiak, 2021).
A second prestige model, GA, also referred to as Standard American English,
has become increasingly visible since World War II due to the status of the US as a
political and economic power (Crystal, 2019). In addition, the prevalence of the US
(and also GA) in films, television, music and online has contributed to an instantly
accessible “American cultural hegemony” worldwide (Henderson et al., 2012, p. 21).
Considering the growing ease of access to GA and in multiple different formats, it
is easy to see why it is considered a viable alternative to RP within ELT and is often
the preferred model for many students (Henderson et al., 2012).
2.2 Factors Affecting Perception of Diverse Accents
As communication between L2 English speakers of diverse language backgrounds
grows, more research investigating L2 interactions and perceptions of accented
English is increasingly warranted (Crowther et al., 2016). However, when under-
taking such investigations, it is necessary to establish what influences listeners’
judgements, be it “the acoustic and phonological properties, or whether they indicate
something about the listener and therefore vary with listeners’ language experience”
(Witteman et al., 2013, p. 537).
70 G. Archer
In their comprehensive article on non-native listeners’ perceptions of accent,
Crowther et al. (2016, p. 161) summarise the phonological features which can
increase ratings of accentedness and, consequently, the assigning of the label ‘native’
or ‘non-native’ speaker. The items listed include accurate production of segmental
and suprasegmental features, such as vowel and consonant sounds, syllable stress,
syllable length, and pitch. The consequences or ‘costs’ for the listener upon being
confronted with speech realisations that are unfamiliar to them can be an increase
in the length of time required for cognitive processing (Adank & McQueen, 2007;
Adank et al., 2009; Harding, 2008; Perry et al., 2017) and the obvious potential for
misunderstandings (Munro & Derwing, 1995). It is possible that the longer it takes
to identify what a speaker has said, the higher the chances a listener will perceive
the accent as different or challenging.
Speech rate has also been identified as another potential factor of influence (Trofi-
movich & Baker, 2006). Speech rate can aid perceptions of native or non-native
status and level of proficiency. Native speakers and more proficient users typically
receive a higher rate; the opposite occurs among L2 learners and those of lower profi-
ciency (Munro, 1999). Additionally, while qualitative data from L2 listener-raters
show they perceive speech rate, particularly faster speech, to be a negative factor
reducing their comprehension (Goh, 1999; Harding, 2008; Zhao, 1997), quantitative
data have produced mixed and sometimes contradictory results (Munro & Derwing,
1998; Zhao, 1997).
A further variable reported in previous research is that of a shared L1. Studies
such as Bent and Bradlow (2003) have shown that a shared L1 between speaker and
listener can positively impact on the intelligibility ratings given by the listener, even
if the speaker is of lower proficiency. This is due to a phenomenon known as the
Matched Interlanguage Speech Intelligibility Benefit (Bent & Bradlow, 2003). Kang
et al. (2016) succinctly explain this benefit as a feature “which predicts that a NNS
listener may be better equipped to interpret specific acoustic–phonetic features of an
L2 that are matched with his own L1 than a different L1” (p. 2). However, studies by
Tauroza and Luk (1997) found limited evidence to support this benefit, and Major
et al. (2002) found inconsistent results in their own study of Spanish and Chinese
listeners.
Furthermore, there is a general consensus that unfamiliar accents, whether native
or non-native, can negatively affect comprehension for all speakers (Flowerdew,
1994; Gass & Varonis, 1984; Major et al., 2002). However, exposure to and expe-
rience with a particular accent can aid our ability to recognise it and cope with its
diverse realisations, ultimately meaning that the greater the exposure to a partic-
ular language variety, the easier comprehension becomes (Ballard & Winke, 2016;
Smith & Bisazza, 1982). The role and influence of the media in establishing famil-
iarity with diverse varieties, even when little or no face-to-face interaction takes place,
was also suggested by Adank et al. (2009), who found that Scottish speakers based in
Glasgow exhibited familiarity with and rapid processing of Standard British English,
a variety ubiquitous across radio and television broadcasting throughout the UK. Yet,
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 71
the reverse effect was not true for Standard British English speakers who were unfa-
miliar with the Glasgow accent, which is infrequently used in UK-wide media. They
had slower response times and made more mistakes upon hearing Glasgow accent
(Adank et al., 2009).
Attitude is another important factor to consider with regards to listener perception.
As Holmes (2001) states, “people develop attitudes towards languages which reflect
their views about those who speak the languages, and the contexts and functions with
which they are associated” (p. 343). While it is well-documented that native speakers
often negatively perceive deviations from the target language in L2 speaker speech,
L2 speakers can also hold negative opinions of non-native speech (Abeywickrama,
2013; Dalton-Puffer et al., 1997; Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010) and regional L1
speech (Archer, 2018). Such attitudes have been known to correlate with compre-
hension and perception of said accents—e.g., in ratings of how friendly or educated a
speaker sounds—, and even influence comprehensibility (Eisenstein & Verdi, 1985).
Indeed, Major et al. (2005) state unequivocally that the more prestigious a variety is,
the greater the levels of comprehension will be.
3 The Study
The current study was conducted at the University of Strathclyde. The students
who participated were expected to have been exposed to prestige models from prior
English language instruction, from their ubiquity in pop culture and in the media,
and from their own use of social media tools and converting platforms like TikTok,
YouTube, and Instagram. This familiarity with prestige models could exert signifi-
cant positive influence over these students’ perception of prestige speaker accents. In
contrast, it could afford negative characteristics to the speakers the students perceived
to ‘deviate’ from more familiar prestige varieties, thus negatively affecting judge-
ments of the L2 and regional L1 speakers. Based on the existing literature and the
characteristics of this student population, three hypotheses were formulated to guide
this investigation of L2 speakers’ perceptions of various English accents:
1. Participants’ familiarity and positive associations with prestige models may
aid their identification, though the opposite is likely true with the SSE and L2
accents.
2. Participants will likely prefer prestige model accents (RP and GA) to SSE and
L2 speakers’ accents.
3. Participants will likely perceive and associate prestige models with more
positive qualities than SSE or L2 models.
72 G. Archer
4 Methodology
4.1 Participants
Thirty students at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow volunteered for this
study. They were 20 males and 10 females between the ages of 20 and 38 years old.
They were from Saudi Arabia (16), China (9), Libya (3), France (1), Kuwait (1),
Thailand (1), and Colombia (1), and were enrolled on a mixture of programmes,
including pre-entry English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, Masters, and
Ph.D. studentships. As can be expected from the diverse pathways of study, their
language level and time spent studying English varied significantly, from just three
months to 28 years, with corresponding levels of English ranging from IELTS 4.5
to 7.5. The average length of residence in Glasgow was 4.4 months, but it ranged
from new arrivals (one week) to two and a half years. Eleven participants had lived
elsewhere in the UK prior to their move to Glasgow.
4.2 Test Procedure
After obtaining informed consent, a pre-test questionnaire gathered participants’
background information, which included details such as their L1, home country,
age, gender, last scores on a standardised English test (e.g., IELTS, TOEFL), length
of English study, and length of residence in the UK and in Glasgow (if different).
Next, participants were asked to identify who they communicated with more (L1 or
L2 speakers of English) or if they talked a similar amount of time with both, and rate
the ease with which they believed they could understand prestige models (RP/GA),
and regional (SSE) and international (L2) accents using a 5-point Likert scale (1
=Difficult or impossible to understand;5=Easy to understand). A description
was provided for each model to ensure students who were unfamiliar with the terms
could understand the type of accent to which the questions referred. Then, participants
completed a Verbal Guise test that measured their perceptual judgements of eight
different speakers (see Sect. 4.3). Following the Verbal Guise test, participants were
instructed to pick which of the eight accents they liked the most and which was the
easiest to understand, and state why. Finally, participants were invited to a post-test
interview to discuss the implications of the study within an English language teaching
context. Five of the 30 participants completed the post-test interview.
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 73
4.3 Verbal Guise Test
Eight different speakers were recorded and used as the stimulus for participants’ eval-
uations. The speakers were between 20 and 40 years old, educated, and all female
in order to control for potential differences due to speaker gender. They were gradu-
ates, current research students, teachers, and other employees connected to English
language teaching at the University of Strathclyde. Three speakers spoke SSE and
were from Glasgow, Dundee, and Ayrshire. Two others had prestige model accents
(RP and GA) and three were bilingual speakers with different L1 mother tongues
(Spanish, Hindi, Mandarin). The speakers read the following four sentences aloud:
1. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
2. I just bought new shoes.
3. It’s very warm in here.
4. I chose and bought the fruit carefully.
Sentence one was an example taken from teaching materials. Sentences two to four
were between 5 and 9 words long and were constructed around various lexical items
containing phonological features which diverge in different accents, namely various
vowel sounds, and /r/ in a post-vocalic position. The diversity of these features is
particularly salient when comparing SSE and RP accents.
Participants were instructed to respond to the following questions using a 5-point
Likert scale (1 =I disagree 100%;5=I agree 100%) after listening to each speaker:
Do you think the speaker.
•is a native speaker?
•has bad pronunciation?
•speaks too fast?
•has a foreign accent?
•is nice to listen to?
•has an annoying accent?
•would be a good English teacher?
•sounds educated?
How easy was the speaker to understand?
Test participants had no prior exposure to the test materials or speakers, and there
were no limitations on the amount of times they could listen to each speaker. The
test’s design, requiring participants to scroll down to locate the next speaker, enabled
distribution and distance between the different accents.
74 G. Archer
4.4 Data Analysis
To get an initial broad-spectrum view of the participants, their demographics, and
perceptual judgements, descriptive statistics (including frequencies and means) were
used. Following this, Chi-squared tests were undertaken to enable a comparison to
be made between participants’ accent preferences and their perceptions of ease of
comprehension for each of the eight speakers. Pearson correlations were also used
to establish if there was any association between the participants’ ability to pinpoint
speaker accents and any of the participants’ variables. These variables included age,
gender, level of proficiency, mother tongue, length of time studying English, length of
time in the UK, and length of time in Glasgow. Finally, a Fischer exact test was used
to corroborate results due to the small sample size (N=30). Participants’ anonymous
responses are identified as P1, P2, P3, etc. A thematic analysis was conducted with
the data from the post-test interviews. Pseudonyms are used to report participants’
comments during the interviews.
5 Results
5.1 Pre-test Questionnaire Ratings
Participants’ use of English with other speakers and their beliefs regarding which
accents they found the most difficult/easier to understand were gathered prior to the
Verbal Guise test. The majority of the participants (46%) said that they spoke to non-
native English speakers/students more than native speakers, with 23.3% stating the
opposite and 23.3% stating they spoke to both equally. Not unexpectedly, both RP
and GA were generally rated as easy to understand, with over half of the respondents
rating them either ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ (RP =50% and GA =56.6%), and a large
cohort awarding them a neutral mid-point rating (RP =43.3%; GA =30%). As per
previous questions, justifications for these ratings were largely connected to clarity
and familiarity with the models either through media or prior education. In contrast,
ratings for SSE were more severe: 63.3% rated it as ‘very difficult or impossible to
understand’ or ‘difficult.’ Some of the justifications for these ratings were as follows:
It is not very clear and sometimes fast. (P11)
It is very short and unclear. (P13)
It has a lot of strange pronunciations. (P10)
The accent is heavy. (P30)
It has a heavier sound. (P7)
We are not used to hear such accent. (P17)
Lastly, participants believed the bilingual or highly proficient L2 speaker option
to be the easiest of all of the accents, with 60% rating it as ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ and
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 75
26.6% as ‘neutral.’ A sense of camaraderie between some of the study participants
and the ‘L2 speakers’ option became clear among their justifications for their ratings,
with remarks made such as the following:
We are the same and use the same pronunciations. (P26)
We have the same process and we know what each other is talking about. (P21)
We learn and use the same words. (P19)
We are in the same level of pronunciation. (P8)
However, other participants noted that that the intelligibility of an L2 speaker for
them was still dependent on which country they came from and which accent they
had.
These ratings at this stage of the study provided an important benchmark. This
benchmark made it possible to draw comparisons between participants’ beliefs
regarding the different accents they were asked to listen to and their responses in
the subsequent Verbal Guise test in which they were asked to identify the accent and
then answer the questions.
5.2 Identification of Accent
Given so many students’ strong positive feelings towards prestige models of English,
it was thought prudent to establish if participants could correctly identify said models
and those they perceived more negatively (i.e., SSE). The results showed that the
most identifiable accent was the SSE accent from Glasgow, with 36.6% accurately
pinpointing it. As all of the participants live in Glasgow, it was presumed that exposure
to this model’s phonological features could explain why it was more recognisable for
some participants. However, no significant correlation was found between length of
time living in Glasgow and ability to identify this accent (p=0.319). The two other
SSE speakers, neither of whom were from Glasgow, were not so easy for participants
to identify, suggesting a particular salience in the Glasgow model’s segmental or
suprasegmental features, which participants seemed to recognise.
Indian was the next most identifiable accent (33.3% correct identifications), poten-
tially due to its syllable-timed prosody, which stood out, particularly between the
two native speaker accents that came before and after it during the Verbal Guise
test. Following this was the GA accent (30% correct identifications), then RP (20%
correct identifications). Interestingly, the majority of wrong answers for these two
varieties were usually for each other, with 23.3% of participants labelling the RP
accent as ‘USA’ and 16.6% believing the US accent to be from ‘England’ and 33.3%
from ‘the UK.’ Such results suggest that while these varieties may be familiar, partic-
ipants cannot always distinguish between the two. Among the remaining L2 accents,
the Chinese accent was correctly identified by 20% of participants, all of whom
were themselves Chinese native speakers. Using Pearson’s correlations, a statisti-
cally significant score of p=0.004 was obtained, thus determining that for the
76 G. Archer
Chinese accent, ‘mother tongue’ is a significant determiner for successful identi-
fication, in keeping with similar results found by Scales et al. (2006). Due to the
demographics of the speakers and study participants, there was no other shared L1
between them to test further correlations of this feature.
The Spanish accent had little to no positive identification, perhaps because this
speaker had had less discernible features associated with her mother tongue. Alterna-
tively, it could be because participants had less interaction with speakers from Spain
as this nationality is not the most prevalent among the University’s international
student population.
After examining variables such as length of time in the UK, length of time in
Glasgow, length of time studying English, age, and gender, aside from shared mother
tongue among Chinese speakers, only one other correlation was found regarding
the ability to identify accents accurately: length of time in Glasgow and correct
identification of the RP accent (p=0.027). This may be due to the fact that many
students begin intensive English instruction when they come to Glasgow, and this
model remains prevalent in teaching resources, thus reinforcing exposure.
One significant issue which became visible from among the participants’ results
was an apparent lack of awareness of the geographical and phonological differences
which exist in the individual nations within the UK: Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Wales, and England. When asked to identify an accent, many participants simply
wrote ‘Great Britain’ or ‘UK,’ suggesting a limited understanding of the very diverse
accents in these nations, or a belief that there is only one ‘British’ accent in the
whole of the UK. On the one hand, such beliefs are surprising, particularly given
that many of the participants had been studying in Scotland, and in other parts of
the UK, for months and even years, presumably absorbing some knowledge about
their most recent country of residence. On the other hand, such results paralleled
with a previous study conducted by the researcher (Archer, 2018) where among new
arrivals to Glasgow from East and South East Asia, many admitted being unaware
of any accent differences prior to coming to Scotland, assuming that everyone in
Britain spoke ‘British English’; many were disappointed to find this was not the
case. As it stands, only answers referring to the individual nations such as ‘Scotland’
or ‘England’ were marked as correct and any use of ‘UK’ or ‘Great Britain’ as
incorrect.
5.3 Accent Perceptions and Associated Qualities
To establish any qualities associated with each accent, participants were instructed
to listen to each recording and then, against a list of statements (see Sect. 4.3),
provide a rating between 1 and 5, where 1 =I disagree 100% and 5 =I agree 100%
(see Table 1). The mean scores revealed interesting insights into the participants’
perceptions of the eight accents. As predicted, RP elicited more generous feelings
from participants, rating the highest among all the accents for ‘nice to listen to,’
‘would be a good English language teacher’ and ‘sounds educated.’ In keeping with
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 77
Tabl e 1 Mean accent ratings by speaker (N=30)
Qualities L2
Spanish
SSE
Glasgow
GA RP L2
Indian
SSE
Dundee
L2
Chinese
SSE
Ayr
Bad
pronunciation
2.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 3.0a2.1 2.0 2.1
Speaks too fast 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.7 1.9 2.9a2.2 2.1
Foreign accent 3.5 2.1 1.9 1.9 4.3a2.2 2.7 2.7
Nice to listen to 3.5 3.5 3.9 4.2a2.5 3.2 3.8 3.6
Annoying
accent
2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7a2.4 1.9 2.2
Would be a
good EL
teacher
3.1 3.4 4.1 4.3a2.5 3.1 3.5 3.5
Sounds
educated
3.4 3.3 3.7 3.9a2.9 3.1 3.4 3.3
Easy to
understand
4.0a3.6 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.9 3.7
aHighest ratings
prior results, the GA speaker was also rated positively in these categories, similar to
the RP speaker.
Among the L2 accents, the L2 Indian accent was rated highest for ‘having a foreign
accent,’ ‘having an annoying accent’ and ‘having bad pronunciation.’ However, the
rating for ‘bad pronunciation’ and ‘annoying accent’ were located midway on the
scale, therefore interpretable as a more neutral or undecided response from partici-
pants regarding these particular qualities. The Chinese accent largely received neutral
mid-point scores for most statements, except for ‘has bad pronunciation’ and ‘has
an annoying accent’ with which participants seemed to disagree. Participants also
felt this accent was ‘easy to understand’ and it received the same mean score as the
prestige GA accent. The L2 Spanish accent was rated as the easiest to understand
of all, and participants also clearly disagreed with the statement ‘speaks too fast.’
With regards to the SSE accents, in contrast with the pre-test views, participants’
perceptions were significantly less severe. For the SSE Glasgow accent, participants
tended to disagree with ‘has bad pronunciation’ and ‘has an annoying accent,’ which
they rated identically to the RP accent. The remaining SSE accents’ scores were also
only slightly higher. The remaining ratings fell into the neutral mid-point, eliciting
neither strong agreement nor disagreement.
78 G. Archer
5.4 Accent Preferences
The final task in the perception test instructed participants to choose which of the
speakers’ accents they liked the most, and which were the easiest to understand.
They were allowed to listen again to each of the accent recordings to refresh their
memories. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the accent that participants liked the most was the
L2 Chinese accent, with eight participants (26.6%) selecting it and justifying their
choice with comments such as “it was clear” and “it was familiar.” As mentioned
previously, many participants (40%) believed this to be a native accent, which may
have also affected their perceptions of it. While examining the raw data, it became
obvious that among those who selected the Chinese accent as their preference, there
were no Chinese participants. In fact, the majority were from Saudi Arabia, along
with one Colombian and one Thai. With regards to the Chinese participants, 10 out of
11 selected a prestige L1 model and one selected the Indian accent as their preference.
As predicted, the two prestige models were also popular among the listeners, with
both being selected by seven participants each (23.3% each) and thus being the joint
second favourite. Comments in favour of the RP accent ranged from “it’s clear” and
“it’s easy” to “I think her voice is close to the British Standard” and “she speaks the
best way.” For those who selected the GA model, their justifications were unanimous
in finding it the clearest and easiest to understand. Among the remaining accents,
L2 Spanish was selected as the preferred model by three (10%), the SSE Glasgow
model by two (6.6%), and the remaining L2s and L1 SSE models received 3.3%.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Speaker 1
L2 Spanish
Speaker 2
L1 SSE
Glasgow
Speaker 3
L1 GA
Speaker 4
L1 RP
Speaker 5
L2 Indian
Speaker 6
L1 SSE
Dundee
Speaker 7
L2 Chinese
Speaker 8
L1 SSE
Ayrshire
Accent easiest to understand vs. Accent you like the most
Easiest to understand Like the most
Fig. 1 ‘Easiest to understand’ versus ‘like the most’ (preferred) accent
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 79
5.5 Ease of Comprehension
To ascertain if accent preference correlated with ease of comprehension, participants
were also asked to select which accent they perceived to be the easiest to under-
stand. The association between these two variables was then calculated using Phi. A
statistically significant score of p=0.000 was determined, thus establishing a clear
relationship between the two variables, suggesting the easier an accent was perceived
to be, the more it was liked (see Fig. 1). Further testing was undertaken to establish
any possible correlation between mother tongue and the accent perceived as ‘easiest
to understand’ (i.e., the ‘Matched Interlanguage Speech Intelligibility Benefit’). In
the current study, this correlation could only be checked among the Chinese partic-
ipants, as this was the only nationality group present among both the speakers and
listener participants. To establish if this benefit existed, a Pearson’s chi-squared test
was undertaken and it demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between
participants’ L1 and their perception of the easiest accent to understand (p=0.616).
Due to the small sample size in this study (N=30), a Fisher’s Exact Test was also
used to corroborate the findings, confirming once again no correlation (p=0.604).
6 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of L2 and L1 regional speech
among international students, who are more likely to find prestige model accents
(RP/GA) more familiar than other speech accents due to their prior education in
their countries. Three hypotheses were formulated based on a review of literature.
Each one is outlined and discussed in the following paragraphs.
Hypothesis 1 Participants’ familiarity and positive associations with prestige
models may aid their identification, though the opposite is likely true with the SSE
and L2 accents.
This hypothesis was not confirmed. The results garnered show a limited number of
participants being able to correctly identify the language background of the speaker,
demonstrating that such a task is challenging for L2 learners. It also suggests that
exposure alone may not be enough to make an accent recognisable; interaction with
said accent may be necessary to enable learners’ conceptualisation and subsequent
recognition of its phonological features. Should that be the case, the identification
of the SSE Glasgow and L2 Indian accents above all others could be due to prior
interactional experiences the participants have had with them, as was found in the
research of Austrian students by Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997).
Hypothesis 2 Participants will likely prefer prestige model accents (GA/RP) to SSE
and L2 speakers’ accents.
80 G. Archer
This hypothesis was not confirmed. Prestige model accents RP and GA have
been reported as a preferred accent of L2 English students in numerous studies
(Abeywickrama, 2013; Dalton-Puffer et al., 1997; Henderson et al., 2012). In
contrast, in this study, the Chinese accent was selected as the most preferred,
followed closely by both prestige models. An examination of the Chinese speaker’s
speech rate revealed that it was identical to that of the RP and was faster than the
General American speakers. As faster speech rates are typically found in native and
high proficiency L2 speakers (Munro, 1999), this feature could have contributed to
the mistaken belief among participants that she was also a native speaker and thus
was awarded the same positive associations. Aside from the fastest speaker (SSE
Dundee), the next most preferred accents (RP, SSE Glasgow, GA) were also faster
overall than all remaining models used. It could be therefore that accents believed
to be native, potentially due to their speech rate, are more preferred.
Hypothesis 3 Participants will likely perceive and associate prestige models with
more positive qualities than SSE or L2 models.
This hypothesis was confirmed. Mean scores of participant ratings revealed a
tendency for prestige models RP and GA to be received more positively for sonority,
perceived level of education, and potential to be a good English language teacher.
Such results could simply be due to the fact that participants’ familiarity with these
models means less cognitive processing is required upon listening, resulting in faster
and easier identification and comprehension.
7 Post-test Interviews
All participants were invited to a post-test interview to establish their beliefs about
how international varieties might become more accepted and normalised among L2
students. Five participants volunteered to complete this final stage of the study. Four
were Ph.D. students from Colombia, Thailand, Libya and China, and one was a
Master’s student from Taiwan.
Two themes emerged from a qualitative analysis of their responses: use of teaching
materials, and approaches to accent in the classroom. Three of the participants
believed using international voices in audio or video materials would be inspiring
and normalising to L2 students, as shown in the following excerpts:
Show a video about a conference where people are speaking with different accents and
sharing ideas in different accents and they can communicate without any problems. Some-
times, at least for me, I think that people won’t understand me because of my accent, but
when I have the chance to speak with other researchers from France or from Wales, they
manage to understand me without any problems, because they are used to these different
accents, especially in the academic world, it’s very common.(Hao,China)
[Referring to a pronunciation class he had taken] something that I really like is when we
were watching interviews with people from different parts of the world. So for example, I
remember this guy- the one who’s really famous from South Africa, or the Malaysian guy
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 81
that was interviewing the scientist in Florida, this kind of thing. So I think that would be a
really good strategy, because at the end, there is not a right or wrong accent. It’s not about
this. It’s a diverse world. It’s totally globalised so we’re having interaction with people from
all parts of the world. So why people are just expecting to learn one English when they can
just be conscious that there are various and the varieties extensive. That for me worked.
(Jorge, Columbia)
I think every textbook only have one accent in common. Like in Taiwan, we have only
American accent or British accent or Australian accent when we have a test or something. I
think we have to be mixed because we could not choose the people we are talking about so
we have to understand the different accent when we are learning. (Siyu, Taiwan)
Remarks such as these suggest that teaching materials and tasks could be useful ways
of generating exposure to international Englishes and normalising accent diversity
even prior to international university education.
Another of the interviewees highlighted the need to educate students about accent
in a globalised world:
At school teach us there is no right accent. They have to change their mind. You have to
communicate with, like, the global world, so you have to understand every accent. (Chalerm,
Thailand)
Participants also remarked on the negative perceptions of diverse accents (namely the
SSE accent) they encountered before arrival in Scotland, accessed online, or heard
from peers.
My friend, she is studying in UK and she told me a lot like “oh you cannot understand the
people in Scotland” but I think it’s fine. (Siyu, Taiwan)
One participant felt strongly that negative perceptions could have significant
implications for students considering further studies in Scotland.
All of student I think on YouTube or on Google for the accent in Scotland, all of them says
“it’s very difficult to understand; it’s not good,” and many students avoid coming to Glasgow
to Scotland because of the reputation of the language, but when I came here I see the Scottish
accent, especially in Glasgow is very nice, the Scottish accent has a rhythm like a melody
when they speaking. (Amir, Libya)
Again, thoughtful pedagogical classroom tasks and teacher guidance could
prevent, or at least, reduce the predictable negative reactions to unfamiliar sounds
being generated by speakers with unfamiliar accents.
8 Implications
From the various stages of this research it can be seen that positive perceptions
of prestige model accents, such as RP and GA, persist in English language learning
despite the fact that L2 listeners may struggle to identify them as such. Moreover, said
models are not essential for communication in the global environment where English
is increasingly used as a lingua franca. As mentioned in the interviews, denying
82 G. Archer
students opportunities to grow accustomed to diverse Englishes may limit their global
vision, potentially even leading to life changing decisions, such as whether or not to
visit, live or study abroad, despite the potential for learning and success they may find
if they did. As Derwing et al. (2002) found, explicit instruction on the phonological
features of Vietnamese accented English not only aided social work students’ overall
comprehension, but it also altered their perceptions of these speakers for the better.
Therefore, providing input and support in class has the potential to alleviate some of
the stigma attached to certain unfamiliar accents.
A simple way to begin the process of international English acclimatisation is
via teaching resources. As gleaned from the existing literature and participants’
comments during interviews, it seems clear that teaching resources play a consid-
erable role in formulating what students believe is the acceptable or correct form
of English. If major publishers continue to produce resources with limited or pres-
tige models only, teachers could supplement their classroom practice with materials
that represent the diversity of English as it is spoken worldwide. In an English for
academic purposes context, this could be online lectures accessed from other univer-
sities, especially as many are now freely available. Alternatively, recordings of short
concise academic presentations, such as those of the Three Minute Thesis competi-
tion, could be a simple way to provide diverse exposure, normalise accent variety,
and even stimulate discussion on interesting topics and useful listening and decoding
strategies.
9 Conclusion
The current study provides insight into the experiences of L2 English students
studying in an international setting and contending with diverse novel L2 and regional
L1 accents on a regular basis. Without the contextual clues provided in face-to-face
communication, participants’ observations of speech accents revealed that though
many have developed a set of beliefs regarding prestige model native speaker accents,
these beliefs do not necessarily help them identify or comprehend the language
presented to them. Furthermore, without any information to guide them, some exert
accent preferences contradicting their firmly held pre-listening beliefs. This can
be seen in participants’ preference for an L2 accent over a prestige model, or in
participants’ disagreement regarding SSE models having a ‘bad pronunciation’ (see
Sect. 5.3), although the majority (63.3%) had previously stated that SSE was ‘impos-
sible’ or ‘difficult to understand’ (see Sect. 5.1). Such results suggest that exclusive
use of prestige models in ELT, and especially EAP, is unwarranted and could even
be detrimental, affecting students’ perceptions of accents, countries, and their inhab-
itants. However, an appropriate place in which acclimatisation to diverse Englishes
can occur is in the classroom. With appropriate resources, teacher guidance can
support students as they navigate their way through the diverse utterances and real-
isations of sounds, normalising the natural diversity that exists among international
pronunciations of English.
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 83
References
Abeywickrama, P. (2013). Why not non-native varieties of English as listening comprehension test
input? RELC Journal, 44(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473270
Adank, P., Evans, B. G., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Comprehension of familiar and unfa-
miliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013552
Adank, P., & McQueen, J. M. (2007). The effect of an unfamiliar regional accent on spoken
word comprehension. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Interna-
tional Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1925–1928). Pirrot. https://www.mpi.nl/publications/
item59662/effect-unfamiliar-regional-accent-spoken-word-comprehension
Archer, G. (2018). Pronunciation models in regional environments: A comparison and assessment
of RP and SSE (Unpublished MRes thesis). University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/30983/
Baese-Berk, M. M., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2013). Accent-independent adaptation to
foreign accented speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), EL174–
EL180. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4789864
Ballard, L., & Winke, P. (2016). Students’ attitudes towards English teachers’ accents: The inter-
play of accent familiarity, comprehensibility, intelligibility, perceived native speaker status and
acceptability as a teacher. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second language pronunciation
assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 259–271). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/
10.21832/ISAACS6848
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of
the Acoustic Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978
0511732959
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Linguistic dimensions of second language
accent and comprehensibility: Non-native listeners perspectives. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 2(2), 160–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.2.2.02cro
Crystal, D. (2019). The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108528931
Dalton-Puffer, C., Kaltenboeck, G., & Smit, U. (1997). Learner attitudes and pronunciation in
Austria. World Englishes, 16(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00052
Derwing, T., Rossiter, M. J., & Munro, M. J. (2002). Teaching native speakers to listen to foreign-
accented speech. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(4), 245–259. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01434630208666468
Eisenstein, M., & Verdi, G. (1985). The intelligibility of social dialects for working class adult
learners of English. Language Learning, 35(2), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.
1985.tb01029.x
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension-an overview.
In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening (pp. 7–29). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139524612
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-
native speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb0
0996.x
Goh, C. (1999). How much do learners know about the factors that influence their listening
comprehension? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 17–42.
Harding, L. (2008). Accent and academic listening assessment: A study of test-taker perceptions.
Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 13(1), 1–33. http://ltrc.unimelb.edu.au/mplt/papers/13_
1_1_Harding.pdf
Henderson, A., Frost, D., Tergujeff, E., Kautzsch, A., Murphy, D., Kirkova-Naskova, A., Waniek-
Klimczak, E., Levey, D., Cunningham, U., & Curnick, L. (2012). The English pronunciation in
Europe survey: Selected results. Research in Language, 10(1), 5–27. https://hal.univ-smb.fr/hal-
01644660
84 G. Archer
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Pearson Education Limited. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780367821852
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford Univer-
sity Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/english-as-a-lingua-franca-attitude-and-ide
ntity-9780194422376?lang=en&cc=fi
Kang, O., Vo, S. C. T., & Moran, M. K. (2016). Perceptual judgments of accented speech by listeners
from different first language backgrounds. TESL-EJ, 20(1), 1–24. http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpr
ess/issues/volume20/ej77/ej77a1/
Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A
classroom study. Language Awareness, 19(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.
486439
Kiczkowiak, M. (2021). Pronunciation in course books: English as a lingua franca perspective. ELT
Journal, 75(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa068
Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, F. B., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of non-native accents
on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173–190. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3588329
Major, R. C., Fitszmaurice, F. B., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2005). Testing the effects
of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension. Language
Learning, 55(1), 37–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588329
Munro, M. (1999). The role of speaking rate in the perception of L2 speech. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 105(2), 1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00038
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception
of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002383099503800305
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native
and foreign-accented speech. Language Learning, 48(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9922.00038
Myhovych, I. (2019). International mobility as a means of insuring inclusive global higher education
space. Advanced Education, 12, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.137813
Perry, L. K., Mech, E. N., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2017). Influences of speech
familiarity on immediate perception and final comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
25, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1297-5
Przedlacka, J. (2008). Models and myth updating the (non)standard accents. In K. Dziubalska-
Kolaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 17–35).
Peter Lang. https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/research/Przedlacka.pdf
Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S. H. (2006). Language learners’ perceptions of
accent. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264305
Smith, L. E., & Bisazza, J. A. (1982). The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for college
students in seven countries. Language Learning, 32(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
1770.1982.tb00971.x
Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English language teaching
classroom: From second language learners’ perspectives. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 10(3), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.936869
Tauroza,S., & Luk, J. (1997). Accent and second language listening comprehension. RELC Journal:
A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 28, 54–71. https://doi.org/10.
1177/003368829702800104
The British Council. (2013). The English effect. Retrieved February 17, 2019, from https://www.
britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/english-effect-report-v2.pdf
The University of Strathclyde. (n.d.). Faculty of engineering. Retrieved September 3, 2020, from
https://www.strath.ac.uk/engineering/international/
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2
experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(1), 1–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44487037
The Effects of Prestige Model Familiarity on Students’ Perceptions … 85
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO
9780511611766
Witteman, M., Weber, A., & McQueen, J. (2013). Foreign accent strength and listener famil-
iarity with an accent codetermine speed of perceptual adaptation. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 75, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0404-y
Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners’ control of speech rate on second language comprehension.
Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/18.1.49
Gemma Archer is Programme Coordinator and EAP teacher in the English Language Teaching
Unit at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland. She is also Editor of Speak Out!—the
journal of the IATEFL pronunciation SIG. Her research interests lie in the use of diverse forms of
regional and global English in teaching materials and in the classroom.
