Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown
Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown
Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown
https://ebookmeta.com/product/manual-of-american-english-
pronunciation-for-adult-foreign-students-clifford-h-prator/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/50-strategies-for-teaching-english-
language-learners-adrienne-l-herrell-michael-jordan/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-dictionary-of-
pronunciation-for-current-english-2nd-edition-clive-upton/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/english-phonetics-and-
pronunciation-practice-1st-edition-paul-carley/
North American Gaels Speech Story and Song in the
Diaspora 1st Edition Natasha Sumner Aidan Doyle
https://ebookmeta.com/product/north-american-gaels-speech-story-
and-song-in-the-diaspora-1st-edition-natasha-sumner-aidan-doyle/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/teaching-english-language-
learners-43-strategies-for-successful-k-8-classrooms-1st-edition-
michaela-colombo/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/teaching-english-language-
learners-43-strategies-for-successful-k-8-classrooms-1st-edition-
colombo-michaela/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/robo-pete-james-dean/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-trade-and-the-shaping-of-
english-freedom-1st-edition-william-a-pettigrew/
SHAPING LEARNERS’
PRONUNCIATION
Typeset in Bembo
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9780367697570
CONTENTS
PART A
In the Beginning1
3 Word Stress 47
PART B
As a Rule77
5 Phoneme Variations 79
6 Simple Transitions 93
The audio examples accompanying the exercises in this book are available on
the Routledge website as downloadable files. Permission has been granted to
purchasers of this book to download these tools. You can access these down-
loads by visiting https://www.routledge.com/9780367697570. Then click
on the tab that says “Support Material” and select the files. They will begin
downloading to your computer.
PREFACE
The need for a specific variety focus is relevant at the segmental level (i.e.,
the level of the individual sound), and even more so at the vowel production
level. As such, we will provide examples using “General American” English,
as discussed in Yavaş (2016) and Zsiga (2013). “General American” English is
characteristic of central United States production (and often TV production;
Zsiga, 2013). We reiterate that this focus on a “General American” English
variety is not to downplay other North American varieties, but since the pro-
cesses of CS often lead to phonological changes at the segmental level, we
argue that a reference point is necessary.
Early Interest in CS
Back in the early 1980s, JD and his colleague Ann Hilferty taught the reduced
forms shown in Table 0.1 to learners in China and set up an experiment in
1981–1982 to investigate the degree to which learners’ listening comprehen-
sion improved if instruction included the teaching of such reduced forms (note
that reduced forms was their name for what we call CS here, see JD Talks Story
0.2 for more on our concept in the 1980s of reduced forms). They found a
35% improvement in listening comprehension as measured by reduced forms
dictations (documented later in Brown & Hilferty, 1986a, 1986b, 1989) in the
reduced forms presented in Table 0.1.
Preface xi
One day in 1981, when I was a wee lad of 34, I was teaching an Eng-
lish for specific purposes course in the People’s Republic of China for the
UCLA/China Exchange Program and one of my learners asked me in class,
“Why is it that I can understand you when you talk to us, but cannot
understand you when you talk to another American teacher?” I said that I
didn’t know, but that I would get back to the learner. At lunch that day in
the “foreign experts” building, I asked my colleagues what they thought
might be causing the difference between the teacher talk that we were
presenting to our learners, and the way we talked to each other as native
speakers. The discussion gradually led us to the realization that the teacher
talk we used in class was much more like the written language that learners
already understood reasonably well and that the oral language we used
with each other was something quite different. We came to call that differ-
ence “reduced speech,” and its components “reduced forms” or “reduc-
tions.” Ann Hilferty and I took a particular interest in the topic and over
time collected from our own observations and from colleagues a list of
reduced forms presented in Table 0.1.
and classifying reduced forms. The biggest problem is that it takes a more-or-
less lexical approach to the issue (as though “reduced forms” were vocabu-
lary items to be learned by rote), which contrasts starkly with the rules-based
approach presented in this book.
TABLE 0.1 List of Reduced Forms Identified by Brown and Hilferty (1986a, 1986b,
1989)
Howarya (How are you?) c'mon (come on) Howza (How is the)
Howdy (How do you do?) g'won (go on) How d'ya (How do you)
gedouda (get out of ) How'd ja (How did you)
Farewells wadda (what a) How'ja (How would you)
G'bye (Goodbye) Jawanna (Do you want to)
'bye (Goodbye) Shortened Words Yawanna (Do you want to)
Seeya (See you) 'bout (about) Whaddya (What do you)
S'long (So long) 'nother (another) Whatduzzee (What does he)
'round (around) Whaja (What did you)
Modals + TO 'cause (because) Whaja (What would you)
goin'ta (going to) in' (-ing) Whad'll (What will)
gonna (going to) jus' ( just) Whatser (What is her)
gotta (got to) ol' (old) Whatsiz (What is his)
hafta (have to) yu (you) Wheraya (Where are you)
otta (ought to) yer (your) When d'ya (When do you)
wanna (want to) Where j'eat (Where did you
eat?)
Words + OF J'eat jet (Did you eat yet?)
Modals + HAVE kinda (kind of ) J'ev (Did you have)
coulda (could have) sorta (sort of ) J'ever (Did you ever)
mighta (might have) type-a (type of ) Wouldja (Would you)
shoulda (should have) a lotta (a lot of )
in fruna (in front of )
Negative Modals ouda (out of )
/wõ/ [nasalized o] (won't)
/dõ/ [nasalized o] (don't) Contractions
duzn (doesn't) N(or PN) + be(present)
havn (haven't) N(or PN) + be(future)
N(or PN) + would
N(or PN) + will
N(or PN) + have(present)
N(or PN) + have(past)
Let + PN
there + be
there + have
here + be
learners’ awareness of how the key concept of each chapter is important to CS.
Importantly, in terms of teaching CS, the exercises in each chapter build off
of those in the previous chapter(s). This sequencing of CS-oriented exercises
continues from Chapters 6 to 10, where we begin to emphasize the compre-
hension and production of CS. Our sequenced approach to teaching CS is
accompanied by descriptions of additional exercises previously discussed in CS
literature such as Brown (2012) and Brown and Kondo-Brown (2006a). For
L2 teachers, we provide exercises designed to raise their awareness of CS, spe-
cifically the phonological processes that underlie CS, in order to allow them
to better address the topic in their L2 classrooms. These exercises are accom-
panied when relevant with recorded examples of CS production, through the
Routledge website Routledge.com/9780367697570.
Notes
1 For clarity, during this discussion, dialect refers to varieties of languages that share
enough linguistic similarity to be considered a single language, while accent refers
to one feature that helps to distinguish between dialects, specifically, the phono-
logical variations in regional production (Hall et al., 2017).
2 The second author readily admits his love of mafia movies and television shows
with this latter example. He could also reference various The Sopranos actors who
exemplify a New Jersey accent, such as lead James Gandolfini.
3 For those who may be new to the field of English language teaching, ESL (Eng-
lish as a second language) refers to English language teaching in contexts where
English serves as the primary language of the community (e.g., in Canada or the
United States), whereas EFL (English as a foreign language) refers to contexts in
which English does not serve as a primary language of the community (e.g., in
China or Japan).
4 In Hawaiian Creole English, or Pidgin as it is known locally in Hawaiʻi, talk story
means to engage in chatting or casual conversation—although it is actually much
more relaxed than that stiff definition indicates. We decided that we would call
these boxes JD Talks Story to indicate that what they contain is based on expe-
rience rather than on formal research.
References
Brown, J. D. (1996). Fluency development. In G. van Troyer (Ed.), JALT ‘95:
Curriculum and evaluation (pp. 174–179). Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (2012). New ways of teaching connected speech. TESOL International.
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1986a). Listening for reduced forms. TESOL Quarterly,
20(4), 759–763.
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1986b). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for
listening comprehension. RELC Journal, 17(2), 59–70.
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1989). Teaching reduced forms. Modern English Teaching,
25(1), 26–28.
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for
listening comprehension. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on
Preface xv
teaching connected speech to second language speakers (pp. 51–58). University of Hawai‘i,
National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Brown, J. D., & Kondo-Brown, K. (Eds.) (2006a). Perspectives on teaching connected
speech to second language speakers. University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation:
A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Crowther, D. (2021). Language development in the global English classroom: A role for
SLA theoretical inquiry. In Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), World Englishes: Pedagogy (pp. 27–41).
Bloomsbury.
Crowther, D., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). Developing mutual intelligibility and conviv-
iality in the 21st century classroom: Insights from English as a lingua franca and
intercultural communication. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 450–460.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Linguistic dimensions of second
language accent and comprehensibility: Nonnative listeners’ perspectives. Journal of
Second Language Pronunciation, 2(2), 160–182.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015a). Does a speaking task
affect second language comprehensibility? Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80–95.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2015b). Second language
comprehensibility revisited: Investing the effects of learner background. TESOL
Quarterly, 49(4), 814–837.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2018). Linguistic dimensions of
L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 40(2), 443–457.
De Costa, P. I., Crowther, D., & Maloney, J. (Eds.). (2019). Investigating World Englishes:
Research methodology and practical applications. Routledge.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad
framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410.
Field, J. (2019). Second language listening: Current ideas, current issues. In J. W.
Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds). The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Hall, C. J., Smith, P. H., & Wicaksono, R. (2017). Mapping applied linguistics: A guide
for students and practitioners (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Hardison, D. (2014). Phonological literacy in L2 learning and teacher training. In
J. M. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 195–218).
De Gruyter Mouton.
McWhorter, J. (2003). The power of Babel: A natural history of language. Harper Perennial.
O’Grady, W., & Archibald, J. (2019). Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction
(9th ed.). Pearson Canada.
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916.
Wagner, E., & Ockey, G. (2018). An overview of the use of authentic, real-world
spoken texts on L2 listening tests. In G. Ockey & E. Wagner (Eds.), Assessing L2
listening: Moving towards authenticity (pp. 13–28). John Benjamins.
Yavaş, M. (2016). Applied English phonology (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Zsiga, E. C. (2013). The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology.
Wiley-Blackwell.
PART A
In the beginning
1
WHERE CONNECTED SPEECH
FITS INTO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING
While our primary emphasis in this book is on the description and teaching
of connected speech (CS), we begin by taking a step back and briefly review-
ing current perspectives on second language (L2) English pronunciation and
speaking/listening instruction. Given that our primary intended audience is
teachers, both in-service and in-training, we begin with a brief review of the
state of current teaching practices.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003144779-2
4 In the Beginning
terms of listening comprehension (e.g., Field, 2019; Wagner & Ockey, 2018),
we can expect the productive use of CS to be problematic as well. However,
addressing CS (both perceptually and productively) in the classroom faces
several important challenges, with teacher preparedness being of primary
concern.
Limitations in the extent to which L2 teachers are trained to teach English
pronunciation have been well documented. To highlight this ongoing limited
attention in teacher training, we draw specifically on Foote et al. (2011), who
replicated Breitkreutz et al.’s (2001) survey of English as a second language
(ESL) teachers in Canada ten years later.1 Summarized briefly, Foote et al.
found limited change in teachers’ responses during the ten years between sur-
veys. Specific findings included that:
One surprising change between Breitkreutz et al.’s 2001 survey and Foote
et al.’s 2011 survey is that respondents in Foote et al. indicated a slight empha-
sis toward segmentals as opposed to a balanced focus between segmentals and
suprasegmentals. In fact, 32% of respondents indicated spending less than a
third of their time teaching suprasegmental elements (and keep in mind that
less than 6% of class time weekly was dedicated to pronunciation!). This is a
concerning shift, given that suprasegmentals (i.e., prosodic elements such as
word stress, intonation, and rhythm) have been shown to impact listeners’
understanding of L2 speech to the same extent as, if not more than, segmentals
(i.e., vowels, consonants; Crowther et al., 2015b; Field, 2005; Trofimovich
& Isaacs, 2012). Given the self-report nature of L2 pronunciation instruc-
tion training above, a logical extension would be to question the extent to
which such reports aligned with actual classroom practice. Foote et al. (2016)
observed 40 hours of a grade six English language classroom in Québec,
Canada. Within this communicative-oriented classroom, Foote et al. found
that three experienced teachers prioritized the production of individual sounds,
primarily through corrective feedback (i.e., limited pre-planned instruction),
and such episodes of feedback accounted for ~10% of all language-related epi-
sodes. In essence, classroom practice aligned strongly with that reported in the
previously discussed surveys.
Despite lack of teacher preparedness and limited classroom emphasis, pro-
nunciation instruction has been found to be beneficial (Derwing & Munro,
2015). Saito’s (2012) review of 15 pronunciation instruction studies found that
Where Connected Speech Fits 5
Linguistic Tools
Most lay people instinctively think that language (and for our specific pur-
poses, English) is made up of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation (spe-
cifically the production of individual sounds or segments). Our guess is that
if you were to ask many of your learners, most of them will identify gram-
mar, vocabulary, and pronunciation as the key components of language. The
first author of this book argued in several places (Brown, 1995, 1996) that
becoming proficient in English should be expanded beyond learning only the
traditional sets of linguistic tools of grammar, vocabulary, and segmental pro-
duction. Learners also need to learn to use additional non-traditional tools
including at least the following:
In our example, notice that the SLL is using complete sentences and that those
sentences follow the rules of the written language, as opposed to the speech by
the NS, which consists of partial sentences and more colloquial productions.
A more natural representation, for example, if spoken by two NSs, might look
something like the following:
Howzit goin’?
NS 1:
Not so good, thanks.
NS 2:
Ya sick?
NS 1:
No, jus’overwhelmed.
NS 2:
(pause)
10 In the Beginning
NS 1: Y’r family?
NS 2: They’re good, thanks.
NS 1: Where ya headed?
NS 2: The snack bar. Wanna come along?
Notice how both speakers in the second example conversation use the gram-
mar of spoken colloquial English, which does not require complete sentences,
but instead is organized around utterances. Also notice how the pronunciation
in the second conversation is reduced here and there, and therefore provides
at least an approximation of the relaxed pronunciation that is more natural
for conversational English. While our example is admittedly an exaggeration
of much native interaction, it does demonstrate how English interaction can
occur without adherence to fully formed, grammatically correct sentences.
Now let’s turn to vocabulary. A traditional pedagogical approach, espe-
cially frequent in foreign language learning contexts, is to treat vocabulary as
though it is a list of words and treat those words as though they each have a
single meaning. Such an approach disregards a growing body of research that
discusses vocabulary learning in terms of not only breadth (number of words
known), but more importantly depth (knowledge of range of grammatical
functions, domains, registers; see Webb, 2019, for an in-depth discussion). For
example, the seemingly simple word run is not only a verb representing a phys-
ical action (i.e., run a race), but also a verb that represents an operation (e.g., run
a board meeting). Potentially overlooked is that run can also serve a different
grammatical function, that of a noun (e.g., Did you enjoy the run?). This is
just one of many examples of why claiming any vocabulary term as a single
lexical item is clearly a misrepresentation. Finally, teachers often tend to avoid
idioms, colloquialism, and so-called vulgarity, even though such expressions
are frequent in everyday discourse, particularly in English. These types of
vocabulary are an important part of English too (e.g., see Claire, 1998; Liu,
2008). For learners to function in informal and relaxed language situations (or
comprehend many situations in movies or on television, for that matter), they
will need a command of this vocabulary, too.
Similar sorts of problems crop up in traditional approaches to teaching
pronunciation. Teachers have shown a tendency to emphasize the segmental
features of L2 speech (e.g., Foote et al., 2011), even though suprasegmen-
tal measures, such as word stress, intonation, and speech rhythm, have been
linked to L2 understanding (e.g., Crowther et al., 2015b; Derwing et al., 1998;
Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012). Derwing (2003) has proposed that a segmental
emphasis is likely a byproduct of teachers’ lack of confidence in teaching L2
pronunciation, for which they receive limited training (e.g., Breitkreutz et al.,
2001; Burgess & Spencer, 2000; Burns, 2006; Foote et al., 2011; MacDonald,
2002; Murphy, 2011). It is also likely because the phoneme is the smallest unit of
distinctive sound and therefore serves as a useful unit of analysis for designing
Where Connected Speech Fits 11
Contextual Constraints
Brown (1995, 1996) further suggested that the choices people will make within
sets of linguistic tools (in grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, as well as
suprasegmentals, paralinguistic features, proxemics, and kinesics) often depend
on contextual constraints, which are themselves largely due to variations in the
communicative contexts in which speakers find themselves based on:
a. times —differences in speech patterns due to when they take place his-
torically (e.g., Chaucerian English, Shakespearean English, the English of
Lincoln’s time, the English of James Cagney’s era, the more contemporary
English of Brad Pitt or Morgan Freeman);
12 In the Beginning
Time
Place Grammar
Vocabulary
Social roles Segmentals
Sexual roles Pragmatics Suprasegmentals
Psychological roles Paralinguistics
Proxemics
Register Kinesics
Style
turn is found in Table 1.1 exactly in the middle of the list of linguistic tools—
that is clearly where we see CS fitting into the scheme of language teaching.
CS is an aspect of suprasegmentals that teachers must include if they wish to
give their learners a complete package of linguistic tools that they can use to
adequately and appropriately respond to the various contexts in which they
may find themselves communicating in English.
My experience is that many EFL and ESL teachers and their learners need
to realize that English is not limited to the more-or-less formal English pre-
sented in so many textbooks, especially EFL textbooks. There are many
different contexts and levels of formality in which the English language is
used. This is a fundamental fact that many EFL/ESL teachers and learners
never confront. What are those levels of formality? Hartmann and Stork
(1972, p. 136) list five levels (following Joos, 1966): “(1) frozen or oratori-
cal, e.g., Participants should remain seated throughout the ceremony; (2) for-
mal or deliberate, e.g., Those taking part should sit during the proceedings;
(3) consultative, e.g., Would you please sit during the proceedings; (4) casual,
e.g., Don’t get up; and (5) intimate, e.g., Sit tight.”
Other terms used to describe levels of formality include cultivated or
cultured, a type of speech used by educated speakers of the standard
language, colloquial, a type of speech used in everyday informal talk,
sub-standard (or non-standard, illiterate, or vulgar), a type of speech notice-
ably different from the accepted standard, whatever that is. In short, there
are many forms of real spoken communication and they all involve aspects
of CS. For more on levels of formality, see Chapter 10.
14 In the Beginning
How do lay people think about making choices among their linguistic tools
for different sets of contextual constraints? Years of ESL/EFL teaching have
shown me that most learners of English and even most native speakers
of North American English believe that speaking proper English or good
English involves using formal English. Conversely in terms of CS, many peo-
ple believe that the use of weak forms, reduction, linking, contraction,
assimilation, elision, and intrusion is a sign of lazy, sloppy, careless, or even
slovenly English. Is that belief true?
Expert linguists and applied linguists say it is not. For example, the
very prominent phonetician Peter Ladefoged (who was, I must confess,
one of my phonetics teachers at UCLA) states flatly that: “There is, of
course, nothing slovenly or lazy about using weak forms and assimilations.
Only people with artificial notions about what constitutes so-called good
speech could use adjectives such as these to label the kind of speech I have
been describing…Weak forms and assimilations are common in the speech
of every sort of speaker of both Britain and America. Foreigners who make
insufficient use of them sound stilted” (Ladefoged, 2015, p. 119).
The misconception about CS may arise from the fact that many lay
people believe that the use of colloquial speech is a sign of substandard,
low-class, or low-status English. In response, experts say that: “Colloquial
speech is not necessarily non-prestige speech and should not be consid-
ered substandard. Educated native speakers of a language normally use
colloquial speech in informal situations with friends, fellow workers, and
members of the family” (Richards & Schmidt, 2011, p. 96).
Story 1.2). Indeed, CS exists in all types of speech, including formal speech.
Gimson (2014) points out that “Connected speech, i.e. an utterance consisting
of more than one word, exhibits features of accentuation that are in many
ways comparable with those found in the polysyllabic word” (p. 270). Thus,
in all levels of speech, from colloquial to formal, CS may play an important
“accentuation” role.
Studies Focused on CS
In terms of testing CS among SLLs, Bowen (1977) reported on the development
and validity of his Integrative Grammar Test (IGT), which was the first evalua-
tive tool to test our knowledge of ESL learners’ ability to comprehend CS in
listening. Brown and Kondo-Brown (2006c) described a variety of alternative
ideas for testing CS in both English and Japanese. Seong (2008) developed a
more sophisticated test of CS production and validated it using multi-faceted
Rasch analyses. And finally, Carney (2018) included CS in his efforts to diag-
nose listening comprehension difficulties among university-level Japanese EFL
learners.
In terms of the effects of CS on the listening comprehension of SLLs, Weinstein
(1984) studied the effects of speech speed and level of formality on three com-
mon CS phrases: going to, want to, and have to. Henrichsen (1984) investigated
the effects on NSs and ESL learners’ listening comprehension scores of the
presence or absence of sandhi-variation (also known as CS), which he found
negatively affected ESL learners’ comprehension of English. Ito (2006b, 2014)
extended Henrichsen’s work in her investigations of the influence of CS on
input-intake processes by adding other variables: presence/absence of CS, sen-
tence complexity, and differences in CS type. She provided further evidence
that CS influences listening comprehension, but also that the types of CS may
have different effects. Several other studies stressed the importance of word
recognition in CS listening (Hayashi, 1987; Gao, 2014).
In terms of research on teaching CS, Kim (1995) studied which speech ele-
ments SLLs attended to while listening and found in introspective interviews
that phonetic prominence may contribute to whether or not learners notice
particular components. Jones and Ono (2000) examined textbook dialogues
and compared them to actual conversations to determine the degree to which
real speech is represented in textbooks finding that “textbook dialogues do not
reflect the ways in which real talk is produced in actual interactions” (p. 12).
Crawford and Ueyama (2011) also examined 26 textbooks available in Japan
(13 regular course books and 13 that focused on different CS phrases) and found
that both types of books included CS though more was found in the latter
type, but that CS was generally presented as “individual instances of change as
opposed to the products of a limited number of phonological processes” (p. 60).
Where Connected Speech Fits 17
Books Specifically on CS
Brown and Kondo-Brown (2006b) introduced the first book length collection
of articles on the topic of teaching CS in English and Japanese by defining and
describing the various phonological phenomena that fall within the general
definition of CS and discussing a number of reasons why language teachers
should teach CS to their learners. Some of the research articles cited above are
also available as chapters in their book, and other chapters provided new ideas
for teaching and testing CS. For example, Brown (2006) reviewed resources
available to teachers for better understanding CS and teaching the various
topics involved. Cahill (2006) addressed the issue of how CS should be taught.
Varden (2006) described how a phonetic software program called WASP can
be used to teach CS. And, as mentioned above, Brown and Kondo-Brown
(2006c) focused on testing CS.
Brown (2012) provided 120 ready-to-teach CS modules written and con-
tributed by ESL/EFL teachers from around the world organized in terms of a
18 In the Beginning
in our globalized world, these perceptions are changing (see Nagle et al., 2019,
for recent work on the dynamic nature of listener perception), but there is still
a paucity of research into perceptual training for NSs of English (see Derwing
& Munro, 2014; Subtirelu & Lindemann, 2014).
Pedagogical Tips
Beginning in Chapter 2, we end each chapter with three sections: Pedagogical
Tips, Learner Exercise Ideas, and Application Exercises. The first of these three,
Pedagogical Tips, will feature general advice on how we might address the topic
of interest in the L2 classroom, with reference to additional resources of inter-
est. These tips will build into the exercises provided in the following two
sections. Given the theoretical nature of the current chapter, we provide the
following exercises for the simple purpose of helping to raise awareness of the
presence of CS in oral English production, a vital first step to any pedagogical
approach to teaching CS.
Stage 1
Listen to Track 1.1. You can read along with the transcript (see Example 1.1 on
the next page). This example dialogue features no elements of CS.
Stage 2
Now listen to a revised version of the same dialogue (Track 1.2). This revised
example dialogue is exactly the same, except that the speakers use elements of
CS. Pay attention to how the speakers’ productions differ from their produc-
tions in Track 1.1.
Where Connected Speech Fits 21
Example 1.1
Stage 3
Listen to Track 1.2 again (and again if desired). As you listen, annotate the
transcript in Example 1.1. Specifically indicate where the written text differs
from the speech being produced. More simply, underline/circle/star where the
spoken representation of the dialogue does not align with a proper reading of
the dialogue (e.g., what are you doing heard as whaddya doin’).
Stage 4
After annotating Example 1.1, compare your annotations to the CS-influenced
transcript provided in Answer Key 1.1. How many differences did you iden-
tify? These differences are all examples of CS!
Stage 5
To prepare for the rest of the volume, consider each example of CS in Answer
Key 1.1. Without worrying about using any technical terms, how would you
describe the production processes used by the two speakers. For example,
you might say that in Speaker A’s first utterance, When’re ya goin’ta LA?, the
speaker deletes sounds (e.g., the a in are), reduces sounds (e.g., the ing in going),
and blends words (e.g., going to becomes goin’ta). What other examples do you
see in the dialogue?
Throughout our volume, we will revisit this dialogue to highlight the dif-
ferent production processes that make up CS in North American English.
This specific activity is intended to simply help raise your awareness of what
we mean when we refer to CS and to demonstrate that the written representa-
tion of language rarely aligns with the productive representation. Though at
22 In the Beginning
this time we are speaking to you as teachers and future teachers, this same
exercise can be used with your learners for the same purpose: raising awareness
of (a) the existence of CS and (b) that CS consists of a range of processes.
Notes
1 See also Burgess and Spencer (2000), Burns (2006), MacDonald (2002), and Mur-
phy (2011).
2 We use Global Englishes as an umbrella term for world Englishes, English as an
international language (EIL), and English as a lingua franca (ELF). Though exist-
ing scholarship often lacks clarity with regard to what extent these three constructs
overlap (see Crowther, 2021), all three are interested in the global spread and use
of the English language by both native and nonnative speakers.
References
Alameen, G., & Levis, J. (2015). Connected speech. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), The
handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 157–174). Wiley Blackwell.
Allen, R. L., Allen, V. F., & Shute, M. (1966). English sounds and their spellings. Crowell.
Bailey, K. M. (2020). Teaching listening and speaking in second and foreign language contexts.
Bloomsbury.
Bowen, J. D. (1977). The integrative grammar test: A further note. RELC Journal, 8,
94–95.
Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2001). Pronunciation teaching
practices in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 51–61.
Brown, G. (1990). Listening to spoken English (2nd ed.). Longman.
Brown, J. D. (avec contributions de LAIRDIL). (1995). Aspects of fluency and accuracy
(Conference no 4). Laboratoire Inter-Universitaire de Recherche en Didactique des
Langues.
Where Connected Speech Fits 23
Crawford, M. J., & Ueyama, Y. (2011). Coverage and instruction of reduced forms in
EFL course books. The Language Teacher, 35(4), 55–61.
Crowther, D. (2021). Language development in the global English classroom: A role for
SLA theoretical inquiry. In Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), World Englishes: Pedagogy (pp. 27–41).
Bloomsbury.
Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Saito, K., & Isaacs, T. (2015b). Second language
comprehensibility revisited: Investing the effects of learner background. TESOL
Quarterly, 49(4), 814–837.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell.
Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 59(4), 547–566.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2014). Training native speaker to listen to L2
speech. In J. M. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent
(pp. 219–236). De Gruyter.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based
perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad
framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410.
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., & Przedlacka, J. (Eds.). (2005). English pronunciation models:
A changing scene. Peter Lang.
Fayer, J. M., & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility
and irritation. Language Learning, 37(3), 313–326.
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423.
Field, J. (2019). Second language listening: Current ideas, current issues. In J. W.
Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Effects of age of second-
language learning on the production of English consonants. Speech Communication,
16(1), 1–26.
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of teaching pronuncia-
tion in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1–22.
Foote, J. A., Trofimovich, P., Collins, L., & Urzúa, F. S. (2016). Pronunciation teach-
ing practices in communicative second language classes. The Language Learning
Journal, 44(2), 181–196.
Gao, L. (2014) An exploration of L2 listening problems and their causes [Unpublished PhD
thesis]. University of Nottingham.
Gimson, A. C. (revised by Cruttenden, A.) (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English
(8th ed.). Arnold.
Gokgoz-Kurt, B. (2016). Attention control and the effects of online training in improving
connected speech perception by learners of English as a second language [Unpublished PhD
dissertation]. University of South Carolina.
Hall, R. A., Jr. (1961). Sound and spelling in English. Chilton.
Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. Wiley.
Hayashi, T. (1987). Language competence and information processing strategy: A comparison of
first and second language word recognition in connected speech [Unpublished PhD disser-
tation]. University of Illinois.
Henrichsen, L. E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL.
Language Learning, 34(3), 103–126.
Where Connected Speech Fits 25
Ito, Y. (2001). Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners’ input-intake process. Second
Language Studies, 20(1), 99–124.
Ito, Y. (2006a). The significance of reduced forms in L2 pedagogy. In J. D. Brown &
K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speak-
ers (pp. 17–25). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Ito, Y. (2006b). The comprehension of English reduced forms by second language
learners and its effect on input/intake process. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown
(Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers (pp. 67–81).
University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Ito, Y. (2014). Japanese learners’ listening to English connected speech. Studies in
Linguistics and Language Teaching, 25(11), 57–72.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University
Press.
Jones, K. & Ono, T. (2000). Reconciling textbook dialogues and naturally occurring
talk: What we think we do is not what we do. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT.
Joos, M. (Ed.). (1966). Readings in linguistics I: The development of descriptive linguistics in
America 1925–1956 (4th ed.). Chicago University.
Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of
accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The
Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566.
Kang, O., Thomson, R. I., & Moran, M. (2018). Empirical approaches to measuring
the intelligibility of different varieties of English in predicting listener comprehen-
sion. Language Learning, 68(1), 115–146.
Kelly, G. (2001). How to teach pronunciation. Longman.
Kim, H.-Y. (1995). Intake from the speech stream: Speech elements that L2 learn-
ers attend to. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learn-
ing (pp. 65–83). Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of
Hawai‘i Press.
Kobayashi, E., & Linde, R. (1984). Practice in English reduced forms. Sansyusya.
Ladefoged, P. (revised by Johnson, K.). (2015). A course in phonetics (7th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
Lee, S. (2013). Korean university students’ listening comprehension and learning
effects of connected speech processes in English. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics,
29(3), 133–169.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teach-
ing. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377.
Levis, J. M. (2020). Changes in L2 pronunciation: 25 years of intelligibility, compre-
hensibility, and accentedness. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(3), 277–282.
Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks “broken English”? US undergraduates’ perceptions
of non-native English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 187–212.
Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics. Routledge.
Linell, P. (2019). The Written Language Bias (WLB) in linguistics 40 years after.
Language Sciences, 76, 101230.
Liu, D. (2008). Idioms: Description, comprehension, acquisition, and pedagogy. CRC Press.
Lu, Y,-H, & Kuo, F.-L. (2011). A survey of EFL teachers’ perspectives on connected
speech instruction. In Selected papers from 2011 PAC/The Twentieth International
Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 206–215). English Teachers Association.
MacDonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation—Views and practices of reluctant teachers.
Prospect, 17(3), 3–18.
26 In the Beginning
Saito, K. (2020). Multi- or single-word units? The role of collocation use in compre-
hensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning,
70(2), 548–588.
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teach-
ing revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 69(3), 652–708.
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical profiles of com-
prehensible second language speech: The role of appropriateness, fluency, vari-
ation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 38(4), 677–701.
Sardegna, V. G. (2011). Pronunciation learning strategies that improve ESL learn-
ers’ linking. In. J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation
in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 105–121). Iowa State
University.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2), 205–214.
Seong, A. H. (2008). Evaluating an instrument for assessing connected speech perfor-
mance using Facets analysis. Second Language Studies, 26(2), 45–101.
Sewell, A. (2017). Functional load revisited: Reinterpreting the findings of ‘lingua
franca’ intelligibility studies. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 57–79.
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions
and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333–342.
Subtirelu, N. C., & Lindemann, S. (2014). Teaching first language speakers to com-
municate across linguistic difference: Addressing attitudes, comprehension, and
strategies. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 765–783.
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and prag-
matics. Routledge.
Thomson, R. I. (2012). English Accent Coach [Computer program]. Version 2.3.
Retrieved January 12, 2021, from www.englishaccentcoach.com
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916.
Underwood, P., & Wallace, M. (2012). The effects of instruction in reduced forms on
the performance of low-proficiency EFL university students. Asian EFL Journal,
14(4), 134–152.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). ‘It was nice to see that our predictions were right’: Developing
metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review,
58(4), 555–575.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening:
Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does
make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
Varden, J. K. (2006). Visualizing English speech reductions using the free phonetic
software package WASP. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives
on teaching connected speech to second language speakers (pp. 127–165). University of
Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1982). The comprehensibility of nonnative speech.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(2), 114–136.
Veselovska, G. (2016). Teaching elements of English RP connected speech and CALL:
Phonemic assimilation. Education and Information Technologies, 21, 1387–1400.
28 In the Beginning
Wagner, E., & Ockey, G. (2018). An overview of the use of authentic, real-world
spoken texts on L2 listening tests. In G. Ockey & E. Wagner (Eds.), Assessing L2
listening: Moving towards authenticity (pp. 13–28). John Benjamins.
Webb, S. (Ed.) (2019). The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies. Routledge.
Weinstein, N. (1984). The effects of levels of formality and tempo on reduced forms
[Unpublished Master’s thesis]. University of California at Los Angeles.
Weinstein, N. (2000). Whaddaya say? Guided practice in relaxed speech (2nd ed.). Longman.
Weinstein, N. (2007). Reduced forms, a powerful tool for listening comprehension.
TEXTESOL III Newsletter, January, 3–6.
Wong, S. W. L., Dealey, J., Leung, V. W. H., & Mok, P. P. K. (2019). Production of
English connected speech processes: an assessment of Cantonese ESL learners’ diffi-
culties obtaining native-like speech. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 581–596.
Zielinski, B. W. (2008). The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelli-
gibility. System, 36(1), 69–84.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The muttering died away. After a long pause, Frank again reached
for the keys.
His hands closed over them. He gripped them tightly so that they
would not jangle together. Then he moved slowly back onto the rock
ledge, the keys safely in his grasp.
The Hardy boys continued their silent journey toward the darkness in
the rear of the cave. The dying fire cast little light.
Little by little they edged forward into the depths of the cave, past the
sleeping men. The slightest noise, they knew, might be sufficient to
arouse one of the gang. They proceeded with the utmost caution
toward the back of the cavern.
At length Frank found what he sought. It was a dark patch in the rear
wall—the entrance to the inner chamber.
He reached it safely and groped his way through into the pitchy
blackness beyond. He stopped and listened. The sound of deep
breathing told him that his two chums were asleep within.
He reached back and laid a restraining hand on Joe's arm, indicating
that he was to remain at the mouth of the inner chamber and keep
watch. Joe realized his intention and remained where he was. Frank
then continued.
Cautiously, he groped about in the darkness, moving slowly forward.
At length his hand fell upon an outstretched arm, then a shoulder
which stirred slightly.
He bent forward and shook the sleeper.
"Chet!" he whispered.
The other boy moved and began to sit up. The chains jangled.
"Quiet!" whispered Frank, fearing that his chum might be alarmed at
this sudden and surprising awakening and make some sound.
"Who is it?" whispered the other.
"It's me—Frank. I've come to help you get free."
From the darkness he heard a gasp of surprise, but it was quickly
silenced.
"I'll waken Biff," replied Chet. Frank had merely guessed at this being
Chet Morton whom he had awakened, and found that his guess had
been correct.
In a few minutes Biff had been aroused.
"The men are asleep," whispered Frank. "Don't ask questions. Keep
quiet until we get outside. I have the keys. Where is the lock?"
"We're chained to the rock," Chet whispered in return. He grasped
Frank's hand, guiding it to the wall of the cave until his fingers closed
on a heavy padlock. "There you are!"
Frank tried several keys before he found the one that fitted, but at
length the padlock snapped open. He grasped the chain with his
other hand so that it did not fall to the floor with a clatter. He lowered
it gently.
"Now for the handcuffs."
Chet extended his wrists and Frank finally located the small key that
opened the handcuffs. He removed them, then released Chet's feet
in a similar manner. Then he crawled over to Biff, releasing him from
his chains.
All this work had been done with a minimum of noise, and as there
had been no warning whisper from Joe, they assumed that the men
in the outer cave had not been aroused.
Frank led the way out, the three crawling on hands and knees into
the main cave. They could see Joe crawling ahead of them, past the
ruby glow of the embers.
The snores of the men continued without interruption. Frank was
jubilant. The most dangerous part of the affair was over. Could they
but gain the entrance in safety and reach their motorboat in the cove
before the gang should discover that their prisoners had escaped, all
would be well.
Frank caught sight of a flashlight lying in the sand. His own light had
been lost in the rock cave the previous day and he knew they would
need a light to regain their boat.
He reached carefully over for it. His hands closed about the black
cylinder and the light was his.
Chet and Biff nodded appreciatively when they saw what he had
done. The flashlight would be a big factor in aiding their escape.
Joe had reached the entrance to the cave by now. They saw him get
to his feet and glide silently out into the darkness.
Frank reached the end of the ledge. The flashlight was clutched in
his hand. Slowly he rose to his feet. But a small pebble betrayed
him. He lost his balance and staggered for a second.
Had it not been for the flashlight the emergency would have passed
because he flung out his hand and supported himself against the
wall of the cave. But the heavy flashlight struck a loose projection of
rock.
There was a grinding clatter of stone as the rock came free.
In the dead silence of the cave the noise seemed magnified many
times. Frank knew that the sleepers would be aroused. He threw
caution to the winds.
He leaped forward, gaining the entrance at a bound. Chet Morton
and Biff Hooper, seeing that nothing was to be gained by further
caution, scrambled to their feet and raced in pursuit.
The noise of the dislodged rock had already wakened one of the
men. He raised himself on elbow in alarm and peered about. Then
he saw the fleeing figures in the mouth of the cave and heard the
running footsteps.
He sprang at once to his feet.
"They're getting away!" he roared. "Wake up, men! They're getting
away!"
Instantly pandemonium prevailed within the cave. The men hastily
tumbled out of their blankets, bewildered at being aroused from
slumber.
The Hardy boys and their chums, racing across the rocky stretch on
the outskirts of the cave, heard the uproar and the cry:
"After them! Don't let them escape!"
CHAPTER XVII
Capture
The men in the cave lost no time in taking up the pursuit. They had
been sleeping in their clothes and, once aroused, hurried out of the
cave in search of the fugitives.
The boys raced across the rocks. Behind them they could hear
shouts as the gangsters called to each other. Then came the crash
of a revolver as one of the men pumped shot after shot in their
direction.
Biff sprawled full length on the rocks.
"Are you hurt?" asked Joe, stopping to help him rise.
"No, I'm all right," gasped Biff, scrambling to his feet. He had
suffered bruises but seemed otherwise uninjured. However, when he
began to run again Joe noticed that he was limping and his progress
was slower than formerly.
Frank had the battered flashlight, but he did not dare switch it on for
fear of revealing their whereabouts to the men. The latter, however,
were stumbling along behind, following the trail by reason of the
noise the boys made in their mad flight toward the trees.
The men had the advantage in that they knew every inch of the
rocky ground. The boys had to proceed more cautiously because it
was unfamiliar to them, especially to Chet and Biff.
Biff was limping along in the rear and Joe purposely slowed down his
pace so as to remain with his chum. But the delay was fatal. Out of
the darkness came one of their pursuers, and with a growl of triumph
he flung himself at Biff.
His arms encircled the lad's legs in a perfect tackle and Biff went
down with a crash. Joe wheeled about and plunged upon them,
striking out desperately to fight off Biff's attacker. They struggled
fiercely in the darkness. Joe felt his fist crash into the man's face and
he heard a grunt of pain. Biff was wriggling out of his assailant's
grasp, and the boys might indeed have made their escape had it not
been that the other men came running up out of the shadows.
With a roar of fury, two of them plunged at the boys and hauled them
away from their comrade.
"After the other two!" shouted a voice, which they recognized as that
of Red, "They're heading for the bushes!"
Joe and Biff found themselves roughly hauled to their feet, their arms
held tightly behind them. They heard the clatter of footsteps as two
of the other men ran after Frank and Chet.
"Back to the cave with 'em," growled Red. "Looks like we've got one
of the guys that helped 'em get away. I've been thinkin' all day that
there was some one hangin' around here that we didn't know about."
The lads were shoved and pushed ahead of their captors, dragged
and bundled across the rocks until they reached the cave. Then they
were roughly shoved through the entrance into the light of the fire.
"Ah! I thought so!" declared Red. "One of the guys that tried to help
them get away." He peered closer at Joe. "Blessed if it ain't one of
those two boys that was in the boat with the Hardys that day."
One of the other men ordered the boys to sit down, and they
crouched beside the stirred-up fire, sick at heart, wondering how it
fared with Frank and Chet.
When Joe and Biff were captured it was Chet's first impulse to turn
and go back, but a warning shout from Frank restrained him.
"Keep running!" he called. "If they're caught we'll have a chance to
get help."
The wisdom of this course flashed through Chet's mind at once. If
they went to the aid of their comrades they would probably all be
captured and in a worse position than before. But if two, or even one,
managed to escape, it would be possible to bring help to the island
and effect the release of the others.
Chet heard Frank crash into the undergrowth. It was pitch dark, and
although he tried to follow he knew he had left the trail. He did not
call out because he was afraid of revealing his whereabouts to the
men behind, but he blundered on, hoping to catch up with Frank. As
for the latter, he was quite unaware of Chet's predicament.
Chet crashed into the bushes. Branches whipped his face. Roots
gripped his feet. He struggled on through the dense growth, blindly,
in the darkness. Far ahead of him he could hear Frank making his
way through the underbrush, but when he tried to go toward the
sound he found that his sense of direction was confused.
He struggled on for some time. Suddenly he saw a patch of gray
light ahead. It was the open sky and he soon plunged out of the
undergrowth into a rocky clearing. He breathed a sigh of relief.
But the relief was short-lived.
A dark figure loomed up before him. He dodged swiftly to one side,
but a huge hand caught at his clothing. He was spun violently around
and then he was caught by the collar, despite his struggles.
"Got you!" grunted the dark figure, with satisfaction. "Now if we can
only get the other—"
He said no more, but shoved Chet before him across the rocks.
Then it was that Chet found that, instead of fleeing farther away from
the cave he had really made a circle in the wood and had emerged
directly into the clearing again. He was sick with disappointment. He
wriggled and twisted in the grasp of his captor, but the man was too
strong for him and he shook Chet vigorously, tripping his feet from
under him.
"None of that! You come along with me!" he rasped.
And in a few minutes Chet was shoved back into the cave, where he
found Biff Hooper and Joe Hardy crouched silently beside the fire,
with downcast faces.
Frank alone had escaped.
Frank knew that Chet had got lost but he did not dare call out, for he
could also hear the running tramp of feet that told him their pursuers
had not yet given up the chase. If he could only reach the cove and
get the motorboat started he would be able to go over to the
mainland for help. If only one escaped, it would be sufficient to save
the others. He could not afford to risk his own capture in seeking
Chet.
He crashed on through the bushes, trying to make as little noise as
possible. But he was off the trail, and the tangled undergrowth was
growing denser with every forward step he took.
He still clutched the flashlight that had been the cause of their
undoing. He was glad he had found it, because in the pitch
blackness he was unable to find his way. He could hear the roar of
the waves, but they appeared to come from all sides and he was
unable to judge accurately the route to the shore.
Frank decided that he would not make use of the flashlight until it
was absolutely necessary. There was too much danger that its
gleam might be seen by one of the searchers. And he knew that the
gang would not give up the chase as long as they knew he was on
the island.
"Perhaps they don't know there are two of us," he thought. "If Joe
can convince them that he rescued Chet and Biff single-handed they
won't know about me and they won't keep on searching."
In this lay his only hope—in this and in the chance that he would be
able to reach the motorboat and make his escape before being seen.
But if the gangsters knew he was still free they would leave no stone
unturned to find him, as they would know that if he once left the
island they were lost.
He blundered about in the deep thicket, turning vainly this way and
that. Great vines trailed across his face; he brushed aside stubborn
branches and soggy wet leaves; he stumbled over roots and little
bushes; the deep grass rustled and hissed at his feet.
There was no other way. He would have to use the flashlight. The
darkness was impenetrable. Trees and bushes enclosed him. He
could not see where he was going.
He switched on the light and, to one side of him, descried a sort of
passage among the bushes, so he headed in that direction. He
managed to get free of the worst of the vines and the thick foliage
and found himself in a forest aisle. He went down it, in the direction
of the booming surf. His heart beat quickly at the thought that he was
now free and that he would soon be back at the boat. What had
happened to Chet? He judged that his chum was either captured
now or lost in the grove. Frank knew that he could not wait to learn
Chet's fate because any delay would be fatal to them all.
He had switched out the flashlight and was plunging along through
the darkness when the forest aisle suddenly took a twist and he
found himself again floundering in the midst of trees and trailing
vines that entangled him.
Frank switched on the flashlight again.
And a second later he heard a grim voice from close by:
"Throw up your hands!"
He wheeled about and found himself suddenly bathed in a ring of
light. Some one was standing only a few feet away with a flashlight
leveled at him, and in the beam of the flashlight he could see a
glittering revolver aimed directly toward him.
"Throw up your hands!" rasped the voice again, "or you'll be shot."
Slowly Frank raised his hands above his head.
"That's better. Now march back ahead of me. Back to the cave,
young fellow. We've got you all now. Forward march!"
CHAPTER XVIII
Back to the Cave
"This is a piece of luck!" declared the red-headed man.
He squatted by the fire with his arms folded and surveyed the four
prisoners. Frank and Joe had been dragged back to the cave with
the others and were now bound and helpless, while the gangsters
confronted them.
"Who are these two?" asked the man called Pete, indicating the
Hardy boys.
Red shook his head.
"We've seen 'em before. They were in the boat the day we were
looking these two birds over," he remarked, gesturing toward Chet
and Biff.
"What's your names?" demanded Pete gruffly.
The Hardy boys glanced at one another. Their captors were not yet
aware of their identity and they did not know whether to admit it or
not. Frank resolved on silence as the best course.
"Find out!" he retorted.
An ugly look crept into Red's face.
"Is that so?" he snarled. "Won't talk, eh? I'll soon make you talk."
He leaned forward and wrenched open Frank's coat. Frank's wrists
were handcuffed and he was helpless to resist. Red pulled him
roughly to one side and groped in the inner pocket of the coat. There
was a rustle of paper and he withdrew two or three letters. Frank bit
his lip in exasperation. He had forgotten about the letters and he
knew that any hope of concealing his identity was now lost.
The red-headed man brought the letters over to the fire and squinted
at the addresses. His eyes opened wide; his jaw dropped.
"Frank Hardy!" he gasped.
"What?" demanded one of the other men.
"All these letters are addressed to Frank Hardy!" declared the
astonished gangster. "What d'you know about that!"
With a sudden movement, Pete grasped Joe by the collar and held
him while he turned his pockets inside out. Finally, with an air of
triumph, he produced Joe's membership card in a Bayport athletic
association, on which his name was written in full.
"Joe Hardy!" he read. "Why, these are the real Hardy boys!"
The gangsters looked at one another with crestfallen expressions,
but their momentary astonishment at realization of their mistake was
quickly changed to rejoicing.
"I told you we weren't the Hardys," put in Chet. "I told you all along
that you were making a mistake."
"Shut up!" ordered Red. "Yes, men, we made a mistake, all right. We
didn't have the Hardy boys after all. But now we have got 'em! I'll say
this is a piece of luck! We've got the whole caboodle now."
Meanwhile one of the men had been going more thoroughly through
the boys' pockets. Now he grunted.
"Armed! Would you believe it? Brats like these!"
"Take the guns away," came the order from Red.
"What'll we do with the others?" demanded one of the gangsters.
"With the two we caught in the first place? We'll hang right onto 'em.
We'll hold the Hardy boys for ransom the way we intended to, and
we'll make some money out of the other two as well. You two boys,"
he said, turning to Chet and Biff, "have your people got money?"
"Find out!" snapped Chet, following Frank's example.
"We'll find out, all right!" rasped Pete. "We'll find out. And if they
haven't got money it'll be all the worse for the pack of you!" He
chuckled suddenly. "We'll make a real haul out of this, men! Four
ransoms!"
"Yes, and now that we have the real Hardy boys we'll give Fenton
Hardy a few anxious minutes," laughed another of the men, from a
dark corner of the cave.
"Where is our father?" asked Frank.
Red scratched his chin meditatively.
"You're gettin' curious, hey? Want to know where your father is? I'll
tell you. He's in a safe place where he can't get out of. Our men out
in the West got him."
"What are they going to do with him?"
"Ah!" said Red, with an air of mystery. "What are they goin' to do with
him? That's the question. One thing is certain—they're goin' to let
him live until we collect ransom for you two."
"And after that?"
"After that? Well, it's up to the boss. But I'm thinkin' he'll never let
Fenton Hardy loose again. He's too dangerous. Maybe, now, my
young friends—"
"Don't talk too much, Red," warned Pete, stirring the fire. "Put these
kids all in the inner cave and let's go to sleep again."
"I guess you're right, Pete," agreed the red-headed man. "It don't pay
to let 'em know too much."
With that, the Hardy boys and their two chums were bundled into the
other cave, where a long chain was passed beneath the links of their
handcuffs and passed through a staple embedded in the rock. The
chain was fastened with a heavy padlock. Frank's heart sank as he
heard the padlock snapped. There seemed to be no hope of escape
now. They were securely chained together in the darkness of the
inner cave.
Their captors left them.
"I guess you'll be safe enough in there until morning," grunted Pete
as he departed, last of all. The gangsters returned to their fire and,
after a brief discussion in low tones, they wrapped themselves up in
their blankets once more.
The boys talked in whispers. Chet and Biff were anxious to know
how the Hardy boys had followed them to the island and, in a few
words, Frank told them of the alarm their disappearance had
occasioned and of how they had decided to take a chance on
searching Blacksnake Island.
"If only we could have got away!" muttered Joe. "We'd have been out
toward the mainland in the boat by now!"
"If even one of us could have got away he could have gone for help,"
Frank whispered. "Oh, well—here we are, and we have to make the
best of it!"
"I'm worried about what they said about dad."
"So am I. We've simply got to get out of here. If we can get word to
the Chicago police they may be able to find him before it's too late!"
The boys were silent. The news that Fenton Hardy had been
captured and that he was in the hands of a merciless gang cast a
cloud of gloom over them all. They realized only too well their own
helplessness in the situation.
"I'm going to try to smash the lock on this pair of handcuffs," Joe
whispered finally. "It seemed rusty to me, when they put them on."
"We tried that with ours," whispered Chet. "It wasn't any use."
"I may have better luck."
"Wait until you're sure the gang are asleep," whispered Biff. "They
might hear you."
The boys lapsed into silence. The darkness of the cave was
impenetrable. Near the entrance they could see a faint glow of pink
from the embers of the fire in the outer cavern, but that was all. They
could not even see one another.
The fact that they were chained together made it impossible for them
to rest comfortably. The gangsters had not even provided them with
a blanket.
"We've been chained in here every night since they caught us," Chet
whispered. "We've had to sleep on the bare rock."
Finally the silence was broken by the sound of steel against rock.
Joe was trying to break the lock of his handcuffs. The effort was
difficult, because his hands were cuffed behind him. But, as he had
said, the handcuffs were rusty and of an antiquated type. Against the
hard rock he could feel them gradually giving way.
For more than ten minutes he battered the lock, the steel digging into
his wrists. He worked as quietly as possible, with long intervals
between each attempt. For a while he was afraid the effort would be
fruitless, as even the rusty steel seemed obdurate. Then, suddenly,
he felt the lock give way. He eased his hands out of the cuffs with a
sigh of relief.
"I'm free," he whispered to the others.
There were suppressed exclamations of delight.
"How are you going to get us out?" whispered Frank.
"I'll try to find the keys."
A low murmur from the other cave arrested his attention. Swiftly he
leaned back against the wall. One of the gangsters was awake. The
boys listened. They heard a movement in the outer cave, a jangling
of keys, and then a heavy footstep.
Joe thrust his arms behind his back and feigned slumber. He could
hear some one entering their cave.
Suddenly a bright light flashed in his face. The man on guard had
come to inspect the captives and he brought with him a flashlight.
Joe kept his eyes closed and breathed heavily. He hoped
desperately that the man would not inspect their handcuffs.
The fellow appeared satisfied and in a few moments went away.
Through narrowed eyelids Joe could see his dark form as he
reached the passage between the two caves. He saw the round
white circle of light shine for a moment on a small rock shelf in the
passageway and he saw the guard reach up and toss a bundle of
keys on the shelf. Then the man went on his way, switching out the
light.
Joe's heart beat faster.
This was luck for which he had not dared hope. He now knew where
the keys were kept. Could he but reach them without arousing the
guard their chances of escape were multiplied tenfold.
He waited until it seemed that hours had passed. None of the boys
dared so much as whisper. The silence was profound. From the
outer cave they could hear snores, but whether the guard was
asleep or not they could not tell.
Joe realized that they would have to make their attempt before
dawn, but he also knew that he could afford to wait, because the
hours just before the break of day are the hours in which the average
person sleeps most soundly, and there was every chance that the
guard might be asleep by then as well.
At last he decided that it was time to act.
He got up quietly and began to make his way across the cave. Inch
by inch he crawled across the rocky floor. He scarcely dared breathe
for fear of disturbing one of their captors.
He was at the passage at last. The fire in the outer cave had died
down. There was scarcely a vestige of light. This gave him hope, for
it seemed to indicate that the guard had fallen asleep, otherwise he
would have replenished the fire to protect himself against the night
chill.
Joe groped for the little rock shelf. At first it eluded him, but at last his
hand closed upon the keys. Carefully, he raised them, his hand
clutching them tightly to prevent a betraying jangle of sound.
He turned slowly to make his way back to the others. In silence he
reached them and began to grope for the chain that bound them
together. He found the chain at last, then the padlock, and felt in the
darkness for the key to fit it.
The key at last! It was larger than the others, which he judged were
the handcuff keys. The padlock snapped and he unhooked the
chain.
"That's that," he whispered, quietly. "Now for the handcuffs."
One by one the other boys presented their shackled wrists to him in
the darkness and he groped for the key that would set them free. In
a tense silence he fumbled with the locks and the handcuffs but, one
by one, the handcuffs opened, one by one the boys moved quietly
aside, rubbing their chafed wrists.
At last the task was finished. They were free again.
But there still remained the outer cave!
CHAPTER XIX
Separated