This study aims to determine the perceived mutual intelligibility of Regional Indian English (RIE) accents from the Standard Indian English (SIE) speakers’ perspective; find out if there is attitudinal bias among young SIE speakers towards RIE speakers based on the English Medium/Vernacular Medium (EM/VM) divide; and if the bias has any effect on the perceived intelligibility of RIE accents. This study aims to look into the phenomenon of bias as well. However, as bias is an implicit characteristic that is generally kept veiled from public scrutiny, it could not be incorporated in the questionnaire for analysis. As a result, it was not included overtly as a research question either. Primarily, also because determining the ‘acceptability’ of an accent (a main research question) implies looking for instances of stereotyping. And stereotyping creates the very conditions for bias to grow and fester. Hence, as bias is a result of a process, this study will attempt to statistically shed light on this subject through data interpretation.
Accents tell “the story of who you are” in terms of being the most revealing predicators of a speaker’s geographical origins and social background, including perceived educational levels, professional status, social class and identity. These “social and acoustic” aspects of an accent often give rise to stereotypes and value judgements of the speakers and/or groups, especially if it differs in noticeable ways from established pronunciation patterns. This leads to negative reactions or language attitudes that are reflected in systemic discrimination in areas of education and employment. It can be argued that to eschew this discriminatory practice of stereotyping non-native or foreign accents, the intelligibility construct emerged as early as 1900 (Henry Sweet) as an alternative, egalitarian L2 pronunciation target option for L2 learners. Hence, intelligibility of L2 speech pattern found itself to be one of the main concerns of accents.
In the study of accents, the object of study is not so much the speaker’s speech style but the listener’s hearing and understanding. Munro makes a further salient point by noting that the effect of accents on communication can be best judged by an “unsophisticated listener” to see how understandable L2 speakers are within their community. This kind of judgement data of listeners’ perceptions are considered to be “gold standard”.
Table of Contents
A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY OF REGIONAL INDIAN ENGLISH.
CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background and context
1.2.1 Indian English and World Englishes (WEs)
1.2.2 The multi-lingual context
1.2.3 The educational context
1.2.4 Standard IE (SIE) and Regional IE (RIE)
1.3 Rationale of the study
1.3.1 On mutual intelligibility
1.3.2 On mutual perceived acceptability
1.4 Aim of the study
1.4.1 The research questions
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intelligibility
2.2.1 ‘Understanding’ and ‘intelligibility’ in World Englishes
2.2.2 Theoretical frameworks and approaches – WEs approach
2.2.3 Research on intelligibility
2.2.3.1 Testing intelligibility measures – an empirical study
2.2.3.2 Mixed studies on Intelligibility and attitudes
2.2.5 Conclusion
2.3 Language attitudes and the ‘status’ and ‘solidarity’ dimensions – theoretical framework
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 Definitions and constructs
2.3.3 Accent recognition and stereotyping
2.3.4 Methods and techniques
2.3.5 Research studies that used status and solidarity – World Englishes paradigm
2.3.6 Language attitude studies on IE
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The rationale for selecting the scalar rating method
3.1 The selection process of participants
3.1.1 The rationale for the selection of speaker group
3.1.2 The rationale for the selection of respondent group
3.3 Data collection process
3.3.1 The online questionnaire / survey
3.3.2 The Verbal-Guise Technique (VGT) and the speech sample used
3.3.3 The scales used
3.4 Ethics
3.4 Data analysis
3.4.1 Statistical methods
3.4.2 On Likert scales, T-tests and ANOVAs
4. RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2. Some methodological aspects
4.3. Accent recognition
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 Accent recognition by speakers’ region
4.3.3 Accent recognition by respondents region
4.3.4 Conclusion
4.4 Intelligibility
4.4.1 Introduction
4.4.2 Question 3: Perceived intelligibility
4.4.2.1 Intelligibility by speakers’ region
4.4.2.2 Intelligibility by respondents’ region
4.4.4 Question 14: Expected communication problems
4.4.4.1 Communication problems by speakers’ region
4.5 Attitudes
4.5.1 Introduction
4.5.3. Status and solidarity by speakers’ region (1503)
4.5.4 Status and solidarity by respondents’ region
4.5.5 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
4.6 English Medium (EM) versus Vernacular Medium (VM) education
4.6.1 Introduction
4.6.2 Recognition of EM educated speakers
4.6.3 EM/VM and accent recognition
4.6.4 EM/VM and intelligibility
4.6.4.1 Perceived intelligibility
4.6.4.2 Expected communication problems
4.6.5 EM/VM and attitudes
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 On preferences and bias
5.3 Accent recognition – main findings and implication
5.3 Intelligibility
5.3.1 Perceived intelligibility
5.3.2 Regional bias in intelligibility
5.3.3 Conclusion
5.4 Language attitudes - Status and solidarity evaluations
5.4.1 Status and solidarity among speakers’ and respondents’ groups
5.4.2. Regional bias in status and solidarity
5.4.2 Principal Component Analysis
5.4.3 Conclusion
5.5 Medium of education
5.5.1 Accent recognition and EM/VM
5.5.2 Intelligibility and EM/VM
5.5.3 Status, solidarity and EM/VM
5.5.4 Educational bias
5.5.4 Conclusion
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General findings
6.2 Limitations and drawbacks of the study
6.2 Implications and recommendations
Study Objectives and Key Themes
This paper examines the complex dynamics of mutual intelligibility and perceived acceptability among Indian English speakers across different regions. It investigates whether regional and educational backgrounds—specifically the divide between English Medium (EM) and Vernacular Medium (VM) education—influence listeners' ability to identify accents, interpret intelligibility, and form attitudinal assessments based on status and solidarity.
- Mutual intelligibility of regional Indian English accents
- Listener perceptions and attitudinal bias based on regional origin
- Impact of Medium of Instruction (EM vs. VM) on accent recognition and valuation
- Application of the status and solidarity theoretical framework in the Indian context
- Assessment of ‘intrinsic partiality’ versus systemic linguistic bias
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Introduction
This paper examines the complex relationship between accents, attitudes and intelligibility and their covert but conspicuous impact on the varieties of Regional Indian English (henceforth RIE1) in India.
Accents tell “the story of who you are” in terms of being the most revealing predicators of a speaker’s geographical origins and social background, including perceived educational levels, professional status, social class and identity (Matsuda 1991, 1329; Beinhoff 2014, 59).
These “social and acoustic” aspects of an accent often give rise to stereotypes and value judgements of the speakers and/or groups, especially if it differs in noticeable ways from established pronunciation patterns (Levis and Zhou 2018, 2). This leads to negative reactions or language attitudes that are reflected in systemic discrimination in areas of education and employment (Munro and Derwing 1995, 290).
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW: This chapter introduces the core research problem regarding accent perception and intelligibility within the Indian socio-linguistic landscape, defining key terminology like Regional Indian English (RIE) and the EM/VM educational divide.
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW: This section reviews existing theoretical frameworks on intelligibility and language attitudes, focusing on the ‘status’ and ‘solidarity’ dimensions and summarizing prior studies on World Englishes.
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY: The author outlines the quantitative research design, detailing the use of scalar ratings, the Verbal-Guise Technique (VGT), and the selection process of participants across four distinct regions of India.
4. RESULTS: This chapter presents the empirical findings regarding regional accent recognition, intelligibility ratings, and attitudinal scores, segmented by speakers' regional and educational backgrounds.
5. DISCUSSION: The results are interpreted and contextualized, providing a deep dive into the existence of ‘intrinsic partiality’ versus actual bias and the significant impact of the EM/VM educational divide on social attitudes.
6. CONCLUSIONS: The final chapter summarizes the primary findings, acknowledges study limitations, and offers policy recommendations for promoting linguistic inclusivity and reducing educational disparities in India.
Keywords
Indian English, Regional Indian English, Mutual Intelligibility, Language Attitudes, World Englishes, Accent Recognition, EM/VM Divide, Verbal-Guise Technique, Status, Solidarity, Stereotyping, Linguistic Discrimination, Perceived Acceptability, Intrinsic Partiality, Educational Bias
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The study focuses on evaluating the mutual intelligibility and perceived social acceptability of various regional accents within Indian English, analyzing how these accents are perceived by listeners from different regional and educational backgrounds.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Central themes include the intersection of language, identity, and socio-economic status, the influence of education (English Medium vs. Vernacular Medium) on accent perception, and the role of stereotyping in communicative interactions.
What is the primary research question?
The study aims to determine if Indian English speakers recognize regional accents, if these accents are mutually intelligible, if they are socially acceptable according to status and solidarity traits, and if educational background improves intelligibility and acceptability.
What scientific methods are utilized?
The research employs a quantitative approach using an online questionnaire, the Verbal-Guise Technique (VGT) to capture authentic speech, and the semantic differential technique to measure attitudinal traits through Likert scales.
What constitutes the main content of the analysis?
The main part of the analysis assesses the correlation between accent recognition and intelligibility, identifies patterns in ‘status’ and ‘solidarity’ ratings, and conducts a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to validate these attitudinal dimensions.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Indian English, mutual intelligibility, language attitudes, EM/VM divide, accent recognition, status, and solidarity.
How does the educational divide impact intelligibility?
The research finds that English Medium (EM) speakers are generally rated as having higher intelligibility and status compared to Vernacular Medium (VM) speakers, suggesting an ideological link between 'neutral' standard accents and perceived communicative competence.
What is the distinction between ‘bias’ and ‘intrinsic partiality’?
The author distinguishes between ‘bias,’ which involves preconceived notions about specific groups or speakers, and ‘intrinsic partiality,’ which refers to aesthetic preferences for specific sound patterns or varieties without necessarily being discriminatory toward the speaker.
- Quote paper
- Suchie Dutta (Author), 2021, Mutual Intelligibility and Acceptability of Regional Indian English (RIE). Accents, Attitudes and Intelligibility of RIE, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1288689
