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
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/shaping-learners-pronunciation-teaching-the-connect
ed-speech-of-north-american-english-1st-edition-james-dean-brown/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Manual of American English Pronunciation for Adult

Foreign Students Clifford H. Prator
https://ebookmeta.com/product/manual-of-american-english-
pronunciation-for-adult-foreign-students-clifford-h-prator/
50 Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners

Adrienne L Herrell Michael Jordan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/50-strategies-for-teaching-english-
language-learners-adrienne-l-herrell-michael-jordan/
The Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current

English 2nd Edition Clive Upton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-dictionary-of-
pronunciation-for-current-english-2nd-edition-clive-upton/
English Phonetics and Pronunciation Practice 1st

Edition Paul Carley
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/
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-
michaela-colombo/
Teaching English Language Learners 43 Strategies for

Successful K 8 Classrooms 1st Edition Colombo Michaela
https://ebookmeta.com/product/teaching-english-language-
learners-43-strategies-for-successful-k-8-classrooms-1st-edition-
colombo-michaela/
Robo Pete James Dean
https://ebookmeta.com/product/robo-pete-james-dean/
Global Trade and the Shaping of English Freedom 1st

Edition William A. Pettigrew
https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-trade-and-the-shaping-of-
english-freedom-1st-edition-william-a-pettigrew/
SHAPING LEARNERS’
PRONUNCIATION
A straightforward entry to understanding crucial components of phonological

literacy, this essential text explains the theoretical and practical rationale for
teaching connected speech (CS) and offers useful pedagogical applications.
Brown and Crowther describe the basic phonemes (including consonants,
vowels, and diphthongs) of spoken North American English and examine
word stress, utterance stress, and timing, as they are related to CS. With acces-
sible, non-technical language, the authors show how phoneme variations,
simple transitions, dropping sounds, inserting sounds, and changing sounds
operate, and how CS is integral to English language teaching, especially for
developing non-native users’ oral English communicative ability.
Each chapter features explicit discussions of pedagogical ideas targeting
L2 learners, further resources, and CS-oriented exercises that are accessi-
ble and easy to implement for L2 teachers. These exercises are accompanied
when relevant with recorded audio examples of CS production at www.
routledge.com/9780367697570.
James Dean Brown is a Professor Emeritus of the University of Hawaiʻi at

Mānoa, USA.
Dustin Crowther is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Second Lan-

guage Studies at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, USA.
ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series
Series Editor: Eli Hinkel
Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking, 2nd Edition

Jonathan M. Newton and I.S.P. Nation
Storytelling in Multilingual Interaction

A Conversation Analysis Perspective
Jean Wong and Hansun Zhang Waring
Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening, 2nd Edition

Metacognition in Action
Christine C. M. Goh and Larry Vandergrift
Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching

Martin East
What English Language Teachers Need to Know Volume III

Designing Curriculum, 2nd Edition
MaryAnn Christison and Denise E. Murray
Doing Ref lective Practice in English Language Teaching

120 Activities for Effective Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, and
Professional Development
Thomas S. C. Farrell
Creating Classrooms of Peace in English Language Teaching

Edited by Barbara M. Birch
Shaping Learners’ Pronunciation

Teaching the Connected Speech of North American English
James Dean Brown and Dustin Crowther
Handbook of Practical Second Language Teaching and Learning

Edited by Eli Hinkel
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

ESL-Applied-Linguistics-Professional-Series/book-series/LEAESLALP
SHAPING LEARNERS’
PRONUNCIATION
Teaching the Connected Speech
of North American English
James Dean Brown and Dustin Crowther

Cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 James Dean Brown and Dustin Crowther
The right of James Dean Brown and Dustin Crowther to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-0-367-70150-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-69757-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-14477-9 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003144779
Typeset in Bembo
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9780367697570
CONTENTS
Support Material vii

Prefaceviii
PART A
In the Beginning1
1 Where Connected Speech Fits into English

Language Learning 3
2 Transcribing Speech Sounds 29
3 Word Stress 47
4 Utterance Stress and Timing 63
PART B
As a Rule77
5 Phoneme Variations 79
6 Simple Transitions 93
7 Dropping Sounds 112

vi Contents
8 Inserting Sounds 137
9 Changing Sounds 151
10 Connected Speech Combines Multiple Processes175
Answer Key 191

Appendices212
Index219
SUPPORT MATERIAL
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
Who Is This Book Designed for?

There are two pedagogical audiences we have in mind for this book. The
first is second language (L2) teachers, or those most likely to read this book.
Both Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) and Hardison (2014) argued that a limitation
of current L2 teacher training is a lack of phonological literacy, at segmental,
word, and phrase levels. As will become clear, such phonological literacy is
necessary when considering connected speech (CS), as elements of CS are active
at all three levels. In addition, CS is closely tied to the production of and the
comprehension of speech. Productively, CS makes up an important element of
suprasegmental production, and suprasegmental production has been shown
to inform L2 learners’ ability to produce understandable speech (Crowther
et al., 2015a, 2015b; Derwing et al., 1998; Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012). In
terms of listening, it has been convincingly argued that lack of knowledge of
CS hinders L2 learners’ ability to comprehend incoming speech (e.g., Field,
2019; Wagner & Ockey, 2018). With an L2 teacher audience in mind, we aim
to (a) increase their phonological literacy with respect to the key phonological
concepts informing CS processes and (b) provide CS-oriented pedagogical
exercises they can use in their classrooms.
Our second pedagogical audience, albeit indirectly, is of course L2 English
learners. We argue that these L2 learners will benefit from and likely even
enjoy learning more extensively about the grammar of spoken English, with
knowledge that goes beyond the basic units of pronunciation (i.e., the pho-
nemes) and extends to the rules for how these phonemes combine in actual
spoken English. Given the aforementioned ties to the successful production
and comprehension of speech, increased CS awareness and practice will serve
Preface ix
to benefit their L2 development. Whether L2 learners engage directly with

this book or indirectly through the L2 teachers discussed above, we expect our
volume to (a) provide them with an accessible overview of CS processes and
(b) opportunities for guided and autonomous exposure to CS.
Why North American English?

Our choice to emphasize North American English (NAE) as our guiding tar-
get is in no way an attempt to devalue the range of English varieties that now
exist across the globe. We fully acknowledge the extensive English variation
that has come into being. However, given the lack of an empirically driven
and empirically tested pronunciation syllabus for an “international” variety
of English, we strongly believe that a model of English pronunciation is still
necessary as a guide for any pedagogical approach. We have chosen NAE as
our guiding norm because it is first and foremost in line with our own variety
of English, but also because existing scholarship, though limited, still allows
for us to provide explicit examples of the processes involved in CS. It would
seem implausible to comprehensively present CS across the many varieties
of English, both established (e.g., in Singapore, South Africa) and forming
(e.g., in China, Korea) in a single volume. However, CS processes are relevant
across varieties, even if the specifics may differ.
Of course, even the idea of a standard NAE dialect is highly controversial.
To keep things fun, we might consider several well-known accents1 repre-
sented in movies/television. For example, American actors Mark Wahlberg
and Matt Damon both speak with clear Boston accents, whereas fellow actors/
actresses such as Robert De Niro and Edie Falco feature strong New York
accents.2 You’ll often hear reference to a “Southern” accent, which itself fea-
tures significant variation. Take a moment to compare Morgan Freeman’s
Tennessee accent to Matthew McConaughey’s Texan accent. We’ll note here
that we have not even considered the accents of Canada, which differ quite
a bit between the west and the east (e.g., see O’Grady & Archibald, 2019, for
a discussion of Canadian vowel production). The point is that, by definition,
all NAE speakers have roots in some part of North America, and whatever
their dialects are, they are legitimate NAE speakers, but are they speakers of a
“standard” dialect? As McWhorter (2003) put it: “…most ‘languages’ are actu-
ally bundles of variations on a general theme, dialects…By this, I do not mean
that there is ‘a language’ that is surrounded by variations called ‘dialects’…
‘dialects is all there is.’ One of a language’s dialects is considered ‘the standard,’
but this anointment is a mere geopolitical or cultural accident” (p. 53). We
provide these examples to simply show that we are aware of the variation that
exists within and across the dialects of English, and that in this book, we use
NAE as a guide, or an entry point, into CS.
x 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.
Why These Authors?

While both of us are experienced L2 researchers, we both began our careers as
language teachers and possess extensive experience teaching English in both
second and foreign language contexts. The first author, Dr. JD Brown, spent
eight years teaching English as a second language (ESL) and English as a for-
eign language (EFL),3 and has published a fair number of descriptions of CS,
research on CS, and methods of teaching CS (e.g., Brown, 1996, 2012; Brown
& Hilferty, 1986a, 1986b, 2006; Brown & Kondo 2006a). The second author,
Dr. Dustin Crowther, has 10+ years of L2 English teaching experience, and
has published extensively on both L2 speech intelligibility (e.g., Crowther
et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2016, 2018) and Global Englishes (e.g., Crowther, 2021;
Crowther & De Costa, 2017; De Costa et al., 2019).
As a result, both authors are in a position to discuss CS not only from the
framework of current L2 pronunciation research and literature, but also based
on our 18+ combined years of language teaching experience. In addition,
accompanying discussions throughout this book, you will find anecdotes and
observations drawn from JD’s 40+ years of experience working with both
L2 English learners and L2 English teacher trainees, such as that presented in
JD Talks Story 0.1.
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
JD TALKS STORY4 0.1
Why This Book on CS?
Like many professors in the field of applied linguistics, I began my career

first as an assistant English teacher (in France), ESL teacher (in Los Ange-
les, CA and Tallahassee, FL), and EFL teacher (in the People’s Republic of
China), for a total of eight years in the trenches, as I often put it. After
getting a PhD, I worked my way through the ranks from Assistant to Full
and then Emeritus Professor by doing research and writing in the areas of
language testing, curriculum development, and research methods. All the
while, because of my time in the language teaching trenches, I kept my
interest in (and published on) CS. I also taught dozens of graduate courses
over the years that had a strong dose of information on CS. Meanwhile
I kept waiting for somebody to write a good book on CS. In 2005, I got
tired of waiting and put together a collection of research articles on CS (in
English and Japanese) with my wife Kimi (Brown & Kondo-Brown, 2006a).
And I waited some more to no avail, and then edited and published a
collection of teaching modules for various aspects of CS written and con-
tributed by classroom teachers from around the world (Brown, 2012). And
then I waited a bit more before starting to write the present book on CS.
Even though my training at UCLA included three courses on phonol-
ogy and phonetics, I had never had formal training with a focus on CS, and
so I found myself worrying as I began this book that what I was writing was
only going on in JD’s head. I realized that a co-author could add a valua-
ble additional perspective to the book. When Dustin Crowther arrived in
Hawaiʻi. He seemed like the perfect fit. He is well trained in pronunciation
and intelligibility issues, he is Canadian, and most importantly, he has a
different perspective from mine—all of which can only help to make the
resulting book more accurate and useful. The rest is history as they say.
The classifications in Table 0.1 (into Greetings, Farewells, Models + To,

etc.) probably stemmed from the fact that both researchers had studied French
at university. In advanced French courses concepts like liaison, elision, assim-
ilation, etc. were drummed into learners, as well as the rules associated with
each concept. However, when searching for descriptions of similar phenom-
ena in English language pronunciation and teaching materials, they found
only bits and pieces scattered across many books and articles. Looking back
now, the authors of this book feel that it may have been an important first step,
but the categories in this list were a totally inadequate attempt at documenting
xii Preface
JD TALKS STORY 0.2
Genesis of JD’s Interest in CS
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.
What the Reader Should Expect?

Though we in no way claim to provide comprehensive coverage of segmental
and suprasegmentals production (nor other important tools to be highlighted
in Chapter 1, such as paralinguistics, proxemics, or pragmatics), we do intend
to touch on the basic phonemes of spoken NAE (Chapter 2) so that readers
can all be on the same page with regard to the symbols used in the rest of the
book. Then we will move on to examining word stress (Chapter 3), as well
as utterance stress and timing (Chapter 4) as they are related to CS in NAE.
After that, we will examine common phoneme variations relevant to CS in
NAE (Chapter 5), simple transitions (Chapter 6), dropping sounds (Chapter 7),
inserting sounds (Chapter 8), changing sounds (Chapter 9), and finally how
CS combines in multiple processes (Chapter 10). In all chapters, we approach
Preface xiii
TABLE 0.1 List of Reduced Forms Identified by Brown and Hilferty (1986a, 1986b,
1989)
Greetings Other Combined Words Question Forms
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
the discussion of CS using as little technical language as possible so teachers

can easily use the concepts.
At the conclusion of each chapter, we provide explicit discussions of pedagog-
ical ideas primarily targeting L2 learners (Pedagogical Tips, Learner Exercise
Ideas), but also for L2 teachers (Application Exercises). For Chapters 2–5,
we introduce sources for readers to refer to regarding more general pro-
nunciation instruction practices (e.g., the teaching of individual sounds, the
placement of stress within words), before introducing exercises to raise L2
xiv Preface
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
In this chapter, you will find answers to the following questions:
• What is the current state of pronunciation and listening instruction in

reference to CS?
• What should the goals of pronunciation instruction be generally?
• Where does CS fit in English language teaching in terms of linguistic
and contextual issues?
• What does the existing research on CS have to offer?
• Is CS important in L2 listening or speaking or both?
• Why is CS a desirable part of L2 English pronunciation instruction?
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.
A Selective Overview of Approaches to L2

Pronunciation and Listening Instruction
The skills of speaking and listening are frequently considered in partner-
ship in teaching textbooks (e.g., Bailey, 2020; Newton & Nation, 2021).
Unsurprisingly, given that CS frequently causes difficulties for L2 learners in
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:
• Only 59% of respondents indicated receiving pronunciation instruction

training as part of a general TESL or linguistics course; only 20% had
taken a course dedicated to L2 pronunciation instruction;
• Instructors spent less than 6% of class time weekly on pronunciation; and
• A total of 75% of respondents wished they had more training in how to
teach pronunciation.
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
pronunciation instruction was indeed beneficial, though primarily at a con-

trolled level (i.e., read aloud). A limited effect on spontaneous production was
found and, then, only when the reviewed studies emphasized a focus-on-
form approach (i.e., learners’ attention was drawn to phonological form during
meaningful language use). In their more extensive review, Saito and Plonsky
(2019) reviewed 77 studies for target of instruction, how speech was produced
(controlled, spontaneous), and how production was scored (e.g., human raters,
acoustic measures). They specifically defined L2 pronunciation instruction
“as provision of explicit metalinguistic information about articulatory (how
to produce) and/or auditory (how to perceive) aspects of new L2 segmental
and suprasegmental features” (p. 35). However, their review indicated that
“the efficacy of pronunciation teaching remains relatively unclear when spe-
cific features are the focus of instruction (e.g., segmentals, suprasegmentals)
and when gains are measured globally (e.g., comprehensibility, accentedness,
intelligibility, fluency)” (p. 36). In brief, while it is clear that pronunciation
instruction can lead to performance gains, it is less clear where L2 teachers
should place their emphasis.
The above quote drawn from Saito and Plonsky (2019) referenced global
measures of L2 speech, specifically accentedness, comprehensibility, and intel-
ligibility. Though the idea of international intelligibility can be traced back to the
work of Larry E. Smith (e.g., Smith & Nelson, 1985; see also Nelson, 2008), most
contemporary research in this area is traced back to Munro and Derwing (1995).
In their study, the two authors described the relationship between three global
measures of L2 speech, defined in Derwing and Munro (2015) as follows (p. 5):
• Accentedness: “a particular pattern of pronunciation that is perceived to

distinguish members of different speech communities”;
• Comprehensibility: “the ease or difficulty a listener experiences in under-
standing an utterance”; and
• Intelligibility: “the degree of match between a speaker’s intended message
and the listener’s comprehension.”
Whereas accentedness and comprehensibility are perceptual, measured by

listeners’ use of scalar ratings (Munro & Derwing, 2015), intelligibility has
been measured using a wider range of methods (e.g., transcription, true/false
responses; see Kang et al., 2018). Since Munro and Derwing (1995), schol-
ars have argued that these three constructs are independent, though partially
overlapping, measures of L2 speaking. Simply put, L2 speakers with heavy
accents have been shown to be able to produce intelligible and compre-
hensible speech; however, for speech that is deemed low in intelligibility or
comprehensibility, a heavy L2 accent is almost always present. Given the well-
documented difficulties for L2 learners to attain a nativelike accent (e.g., Flege
et al., 1995; Moyer, 1999), L2 pronunciation scholars now strongly advocate
6 In the Beginning
for understanding over nativelikeness as a target of L2 pronunciation acquisi-

tion, and, for our purposes, instruction (Levis, 2005, 2020).
A range of linguistic measures have been associated with L2 speaking ability,
with listener perception of L2 accentedness demonstrating consistently high
associations with segmental production, but more variability in associations
with suprasegmental production (Crowther et al., 2015b). On the other hand,
comprehensibility has been associated with not only segmental and supraseg-
mental measures (e.g., Crowther et al., 2015b; Field, 2005; Kang et al., 2010;
Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012), but also lexical (Saito, 2020; Saito et al., 2016)
and grammatical (Fayer & Krasinsky, 1987; Varonis & Gass, 1982) measures.
Ultimately, this body of research provides ample evidence that the production
of understandable speech draws upon a range of linguistic resources.
One technique that has been proposed for pronunciation instruction is per-
ceptual training, which is argued to support development in production (e.g.,
Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2015). Often, this perceptual
training emphasizes segmental learning, such as the use of Ron Thomson’s
English Accent Coach (Thomson, 2012). Of particular interest to our volume
on CS is that less perceptual training focuses on the larger utterance level
where CS processes are likely to create issues in comprehension (e.g., Field,
2019; Wagner & Ockey, 2018). The intensive listening exercises that might
benefit the learning of CS (i.e., language-focused learning; Rost, 2011) are
often limited or overshadowed by a focus on top-down, metacognitive strat-
egies (e.g., planning, predicting, monitoring, and hypothesis checking) that
allow learners to take advantage of prior knowledge of language and the world
(Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) to comprehend an incoming utterance. However,
we argue that while metacognitive strategies are indeed beneficial for L2
comprehension (e.g., Vandergrift, 2002; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010),
if learners struggle to initially decode an incoming message at the phonemic
level, they may be unable to make use of these metacognitive strategies. With
this in mind, the pedagogical exercises discussed throughout our volume place
an emphasis on raising CS awareness at the phonemic level.
English at the Global Level

Our previous discussion is based primarily on research within a second lan-
guage acquisition or psycholinguistic paradigm. Of additional interest is schol-
arship that draws from a Global Englishes perspective.2 Specifically, Smith and
Nelson (1985) proposed three constructs of international intelligibility, all of which
emphasized the attainment of mutual understanding in cross-variety contact:
• Intelligibility: ability to decode an utterance at the word level;

• Comprehensibility: ability to understand the literal meaning of an utter-
ance; and
• Interpretability: ability to understand the intent of an utterance.
Smith and Nelson’s framework has motivated highly influential Global

Englishes research into interactive intelligibility, specifically Jenkins’s (2000)
lingua franca core (LFC). Through an analysis of communicative breakdowns,
the LFC proposed both core and non-core elements for speech intelligibility.
The core elements, which were proposed as hindering intelligibility, were
exclusively segmental (aside from nuclear stress). The non-core elements fea-
tured suprasegmental considerations, including CS. Though highly influ-
ential in subsequent Global Englishes research, the LFC has also received
significant criticism (e.g., Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Przedlacka, 2005; Munro
& Derwing, 2006; Park & Wee, 2015). Though much of this criticism has
been methodological (i.e., conclusions were drawn from only 27 episodes of
pronunciation-sourced breakdowns), our specific interest lies in the theoret-
ical limitations. In critiquing Jenkins’s (2000) LFC, Sewell (2017) stated that
The absence of nativelike features in L2 speech continues to be a preoc-

cupation of much research and pedagogy, but the seemingly “natural”
presence of vowel reduction and other suprasegmental phenomena in
native speaker pronunciation may be a problematic absence from the
perspective of some non-native listeners.
(p. 68)
Sewell highlighted how absence of a particular feature as a source of commu-

nicative breakdown in a corpus is potentially meaningless, given that we do not
know the extent to which any specific feature occurs within the dataset (see also
Schachter, 1974). As Sewell appropriately indicated, absence of evidence is not evi-
dence of absence. In the case of Jenkins’s LFC, speakers were all highly proficient
L2 English users (upper-intermediate to low advanced) engaged in nonnative-
nonnative interactions. As such, it might be that the non-core LFC elements sim-
ply did not occur within this corpus. However, when nonnative L2 English users
engage with native English users, the presence versus absence of these features
may be crucial in promoting mutual understanding. As Sewell points out, “if
speakers’ past experience leads them to omit or modify features that listeners are
used to relying on, then intelligibility problems will occur” (p. 69).
This last point brings us back around to CS, a characteristic of native
English speech that Jenkins’s (2000) LFC relegated to non-core status. In line
with Sewell (2017), we would argue that the absence of CS as a source of com-
munication breakdown in Jenkins’s corpus may be a result of the absence of
CS in nonnative English production. However, when nonnative users interact
with native users of English, CS will be a significant element of interaction.
The presence of CS in native production is likely to create perceptual difficul-
ties for nonnative users (e.g., Field, 2019; Wagner & Ockey, 2018). Similarly,
the absence of elements of CS in nonnative production is also likely to impede
native users’ ability to understand nonnative users’ speech (e.g., Alameen &
Levis, 2015; Zielinski, 2008). We are not arguing that nonnative users need
8 In the Beginning
to adhere to a specific native norm. Rather, we argue that the reality of L2

English usage is that CS is a key feature of native-nonnative interaction and
has significant implications for the attainment of mutual understanding. The
teaching of CS should thus benefit nonnative users of English both percep-
tually and productively, and at the same time, should in no way hinder, and
maybe even enhance, nonnative-nonnative English interactions.
The Place of Connected Speech in Language Teaching

In order to show where we think CS fits into the overall scheme of language
teaching issues, we will first need to define the basic elements of language in
communication. We will discuss these elements in three categories: (a) lin-
guistic tools, (b) contextual constraints, and (c) combining contextual con-
straints with linguistic tools.
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:
a. suprasegmentals —aspects of pronunciation beyond the individual pho-

neme level (e.g., stress, intonation, voice quality, and connected speech);
b. paralinguistics —aspects of language outside the vocal system (e.g.,
facial expressions, eye movements, eye gaze, head movements, and hand
gestures);
c. proxemics —aspects of language having to do with distance between
interlocutors (e.g., physical distance and touching); and
d. kinesics —aspects of language having to do with the use of the body in
communication (e.g., position, posture, and stance).
However, expanding our view of language tools to include suprasegmentals,

paralinguistic features, proxemics, and kinesics (in addition to the traditional
grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation) is not enough. We must also expand
our traditional ways of thinking about and teaching even grammar, vocabu-
lary, and pronunciation.
Let us start with grammar. The traditional view of grammar is that it is a

set of rules for English. Unfortunately, teachers fail to recognize that, for the
most part, this means the rules for written English (for more on this written
language bias in linguistics, see Linell, 2005, 2019). This view of grammar as
exclusively the written grammar may be out of date and unnecessarily limiting
to our learners. Certainly, many, even most, learners need to learn the many
complex rules of written English so they will be able to read and write it. But
teachers need to recognize (and tell the learners) that those rules for written
English do not apply to spoken English in a one-to-one correspondence (e.g.,
McCarthy & Carter, 1995). Wagner and Ockey (2018) overview several such
differences, including shorter idea units, fewer embedded clauses, and gener-
ally less complex syntax in spoken language. They also highlight greater use
of slang and colloquial language in speech.
Consider the following question: should we teach learners to use complete
sentences when they speak? While such an emphasis may be appropriate when
teaching learners to write, it is clearly not appropriate for teaching the same
learners to speak. Yes, it is true that sometimes complete sentences are appro-
priate in spoken English, but generally, we consider oral speech more in terms
of an utterance, or a complete thought that “may or may not take the syn-
tactic form of a sentence” (Bailey, 2020, p. 8). Consider the following exam-
ple conversation between a native speaker (NS) and second-language learner
(SLL) of English:
NS: Howzit goin’?

SLL: I am not doing very well. Thank you for asking.
NS: Ya sick?
SLL: No, I am just overwhelmed by deadlines and work.
(pause)
NS: Y’r family?
SLL: They are doing very well, thank you.
NS: Where ya headed?
SLL: I am walking to the snack bar. Would you like to come with me?
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
syllabuses and organizing materials. Another factor that may contribute to a

limited segmental emphasis is the fact that teachers want to highlight to learn-
ers their mistaken view that in some languages, and specific to our interest,
in English, there are one-to-one correspondences between written letters and
the phonemes (indeed that was the focus of early books like Hall, 1961 and
Allen et al., 1966). Of course, such a view has repeatedly been shown to be
faulty in English (e.g., see O’Grady & Archibald, 2019, for an explanation of
how the made-up English word ghoti can by pronounced as fish, p. 15).
Unfortunately, a segmental emphasis in L2 pronunciation teaching may often
lead to teachers deemphasizing important generalizations about pronunciation
that the learners might find very helpful: (a) the fact that unstressed vowels in
English become schwa in many environments, probably making schwa the most
common vowel, at least in North American English, (b) the fact that phonemes
change depending on the other phonemes that come before and after them,
(c) the fact that correct word stress is very important to being understood,
and (d) the fact that speakers of syllable-timed languages often have trouble
speaking English because it is a stress-timed language. Another concern of
the segmental emphasis is that teachers largely ignore the many CS forms that
occur in normal spoken English, connected forms that change, eliminate, or
shape the phonemes in real spoken English. Such CS forms include weak forms,
reduction, linking, contraction, assimilation, elision, and intrusion.
Commonly learners acquire the ability to unscramble the graphemes, pho-
nemes, grammar, and vocabulary of something like: When are we going to get
out of here? But teachers are amazed when their learners cannot understand the
same thing in natural spoken English (even when it is spoken slowly): When’r
we gonna gedouda here? Why is it that teachers so assiduously avoid the various
aspects of authentic spoken English pronunciation? As we have indicated pre-
viously, much of this may simply be the extent of L2 pronunciation instruc-
tion training English language teachers receive, or more specifically, the lack
thereof (e.g., Foote et al., 2011).
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
b. places —differences in speech patterns due to the places in which com-

munication happens (e.g., in a classroom setting, at the doctor’s office, at
the coffee shop);
c. social roles —differences in speech patterns due to the relative position
or standing of participants in a speech event (e.g., learner and teacher,
customer and barista, boss and employee);
d. sexual roles —differences in speech patterns due to the genders of
speaker/listener (e.g., between husbands and wives, male and female
colleagues);
e. psychological roles —differences in speech patterns due to aggressive-
ness, size, dominance, etc. (e.g., large man and small man, criminal and
victim);
f. registers —differences in speech patterns usually due to group mem-
bership (e.g., professions like preachers, lawyers, baristas, soldiers, etc., or
hobbies like football fans, musicians, online gamers); and
g. styles —differences in speech patterns usually depending on the degree
to which the speaker wants to be very casual or very formal (or some-
where in between) as determined by all of the above factors.
However, expanding our view of language teaching to include explanations

of the variables governing linguistic choices is not enough to bring language
teaching up to date. Somehow the contextual constraints need to be linked to
the linguistic tools.
Combining Contextual Constraints with Linguistic Tools

Pragmatics is “the study of language from the point of view of the users, espe-
cially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language
in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has [sic] on the other
participants in an act of communication” (Crystal, 2008, p. 379). Put another
way, pragmatics is the study of “the relationship between natural language
expressions and their uses in specific situations” (Bussman, 1998, p. 374). In other
words, pragmatics is the study of the connections between the components of
the language itself (grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation as well as supraseg-
mentals, paralinguistic features, proxemics, and kinesics) and the influences on
the language of specific situations (which vary in terms of time and place, social,
sexual, and psychological roles, as well as register and style—all depending on
the context). Or put more concisely, pragmatics provides the link or connection
between contextual constraints and linguistics tools (as shown in Table 1.1). See
Taguchi (2019), for a specific emphasis on L2 pragmatic considerations.
But where does CS fit into all of this? Recall that our definition for
suprasegmentals near the top of this chapter was “aspects of pronunciation
beyond the individual phoneme level, e.g., stress, intonation, voice quality,
and connected speech.” Since CS was one aspect of suprasegmentals—which in
TABLE 1.1 Features of the Oral Proficiency
Seven Contextual Constraints → Link → Seven Linguistic Tools
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.
JD TALKS STORY 1.1
Levels of Speech Formality
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
Why Call It Connected Speech?

Now that we have established the topic of this book, we should probably
explain why we have decided to refer to that topic as connected speech.
We could equally well have referred to it (as we have found elsewhere in the
literature on the topic) as casual speech, colloquial speech, fast speech, informal speech,
reduced speech, reduced forms, relaxed speech, or sandhi variation (for obvious rea-
sons, we avoided calling it lazy, sloppy, careless, slovenly, substandard, low-class, or
low-status speech). But we have chosen to call this set of phenomena connected
speech. Why? In order to answer this question, we will begin by looking at why
we might not want to call the concept colloquial or informal speech. Richards
and Schmidt (2011) define colloquial speech as follows:
an informal type of speech used among friends and others in situa-

tions where empathy, rapport or lack of social barriers are important.
Colloquial speech is often marked by the use of slang or idioms and by
other linguistic characteristics such as deletion of subject or auxiliaries
(e.g., as in “Got the time?” instead of “Do you have the time?”).
(p. 96)
Thus, colloquial speech is a broader category than what we are referring to

as CS. Colloquial speech is marked by certain elements of suprasegmental
productions (those elements we are calling CS) but is also marked at least by
choice of vocabulary and sentence structure, and perhaps by various paralin-
guistic, proxemic, and kinesic features. Thus, CS is one aspect of the features
that distinguish colloquial speech from formal speech—but it is important to
note that CS is only one aspect. For similar reasons, we would not want to call
it relaxed or casual speech because as with colloquial speech, CS is just one
aspect of what makes speech relaxed or casual.
Crystal (2008) defines CS as:
A term used by linguists to refer to spoken language when analysed as

a continuous sequence, as in normal utterances and conversations. Its
significance lies in the contrast implied with studies of linguistic units
seen in isolation, such as an individual sound, word or phrase, which
were the subject matter of traditional linguistic enquiry. It is now real-
ized that important changes happen to these units when they are used in
connected speech, as demonstrated by such processes as assimilation and
elision, e.g. and becoming [n̩ ] in such phrases as boys and girls.
(p. 101)
However, it is also important to note that CS, though it is often associated

with colloquial speech, is not restricted to colloquial speech (also see JD Talks
JD TALKS STORY 1.2
The Stigma of Lazy English
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.
Research on Connected Speech

To date, there has not been as much written about CS as there is about many
other topics. In fact, until recently, we would characterize the literature on
this topic as being made up of a bit here and a bit there. Indeed, most authors
16 In the Beginning
only touched on CS as one part of learning pronunciation or listening com-

prehension. Notably, Kobayashi and Linde (1984), Rost and Stratton (1978),
and Weinstein (2000) provided more concentrated coverage of CS during
those years. However, as you will see in the following section, the research
has picked up considerably in recent years both in quantity and quality. The
rest of this section will examine the early and more recent research as well as
books on the topic.
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).
Veselovska (2016) explored how teaching assimilation (one element of CS)

might be enhanced by using computer-assisted language learning and Internet
resources. Nokes (2018) focused on digital materials development options for
teaching CS. Three studies surveyed teachers’ attitudes about CS (Lu & Kuo,
2011; Rogerson, 2006; Rosa, 2002) by administering and analyzing surveys of
the views of groups of ESL and EFL teachers on CS instruction.
In terms of the effectiveness of teaching CS for listening comprehension, Brown and
Hilferty (1986a, 1986b, 2006) took the issue one step further by investigating
the effects of instructing CS on the listening comprehension of EFL learners,
and demonstrated that CS could be taught and instruction could improve some
sorts of listening comprehension. Matsuzawa (2006) investigated the degree
to which teaching CS could be effective and found that explicit instruction
is needed for Japanese learners of English and can lead to improvements in
comprehension of CS. Carreira (2008) investigated the effectiveness of teach-
ing CS and found that while such teaching did not improve learners’ Test of
English for International Communication (TOEIC) listening scores, it did improve
their ability to listen to and recognize words on a dictation cloze test, and
more importantly that learners enjoy learning CS. Lee (2013) found a signifi-
cant effect for teaching CS on the listening comprehension of Korean leaners
of English, which varied for different phonological processes. Cormier et al.
(2013) found a meaningful learning effect for CS among Chinese business
English learners both in an immediate posttest and follow-up test one month
later. Gokgoz-Kurt (2016) found that university-level ESL learners benefited
from online training in perception of CS (specifically word-boundary pala-
talization) and found a significant relationship between attention control and
phonological learning in learning CS.
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
variety of CS purposes: helping learners understand that written and spoken

English are different, preparing the learners to accept CS, word stress, schwa
and weak/strong forms, sentence stress and timing, transitions, dropping
sounds, inserting sounds, changing sounds, contractions, and blendings and
putting CS all together (including question forms, functions, modal and aux-
iliary verb phrases, and teaching techniques). In short, Brown (2012) provides
teaching modules that are directly related to the topics of the present book.
Is Connected Speech Important in

Listening or Speaking or Both?
In terms of both listening and speaking in CS, little literature exists that con-
siders both skills simultaneously. Nowacka (2011) examined productive and
receptive aspects of English consonants and CS (for Polish learners of English).
Underwood and Wallace (2012) investigated both the comprehension and
production development of CS instruction with low-proficiency Japanese uni-
versity EFL learners. Given this lack of simultaneous focus on listening and
speaking, we argue below for the importance of CS for listening and speaking
separately, but stress to our readers here that in interaction, you cannot con-
sider one without the other.
In terms of CS in listening, many authors (including most of those listed
above) have pointed out the difficulty SLL listeners encounter when they try
to understand native CS (see also Field, 2019; Wagner & Ockey, 2018). Gillian
Brown (1990) colorfully and accurately referred to this phenomenon as an
“acoustic blur” (p. 2). Whatever it is called, researchers continue to argue for
the importance of CS in SLL listening comprehension (e.g., Carreira, 2008;
Field, 2019; Norris, 1994; Weinstein, 2007).
In terms of CS in speaking, a number of authors (some of those covered
above and others) have discussed the importance of CS in learning how to
speak English. For instance, Sardegna (2011) showed that the linking skill
in CS can be taught and learned by ESL learners, and that the effects persist.
Wong et al. (2019) examined the production of CS processes in English by
Cantonese learners. In addition, Zielinski (2008) showed that the intelligi-
bility of SLL of English from the perspective of native listeners depends in
important ways on to what extent CS is produced by the SLLs in a conver-
sation. In particular, “a non-standard pattern of strong and weak syllables in
individual multisyllabic words” (Zielinski, 2008, p. 81, emphasis in original)
appears to have high impact on the intelligibility of SLLs. Native listeners,
especially those with less exposure to nonnative speech, may be, at least ini-
tially, thrown off by speech that excludes the natural use of CS. As it has been
shown that native listeners often make snap judgments of SLLs based on gen-
eral biases (e.g., Lindemann, 2005), limited CS use may lead to unwarranted
dismissal of the SLL as a valid language user. We of course acknowledge that
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).
Why Should We Teach Connected Speech?

So why should teachers bother teaching CS? Kelly (2001) captured a general
answer to this question when he wrote, “In the same way that working on
sentence stress and intonation can help learners to better understand spoken
English, so can working on the other features of connected speech. In many
cases, the simple awareness of their existence can help enormously in enabling
learners to better understand the language they hear” (p. 113).
In more detail, we think teachers should cover CS for the following ten
reasons (adapted from Brown, 2012, pp. xi–xii):
1. CS is a very real part of the English language. Learners need to be exposed

to and taught all seven sets of linguistic tools discussed in this chapter, and
CS is part of the suprasegmentals that figure into that set of tools;
2. Learners need to understand more about grammar, vocabulary, and pro-
nunciation than we traditionally teach, and CS is part of the new infor-
mation they need to understand about pronunciation;
3. Learners need to be able to respond to the seven sets of contextual con-
straints discussed in this chapter; the ability to understand and use CS is
essential to making such adjustments;
4. CS is used in all levels of formality (Hartmann & Stork, 1972; Joos, 1966)
including the most formal sorts of speech, but in different ways at different
levels of formality;
5. In all of those levels, CS may play an important accentuation role (Gimson,
2014), the understanding of which can help SLLs understand oral English
and produce intelligible spoken English;
6. Teaching pronunciation by explaining only the phonemes without
describing how those phonemes are connected and interrelated is like
teaching grammar by explaining only the words without describing how
those words are connected and interrelated;
7. Research studies indicate that SLLs have a problem understanding or pro-
ducing the features of CS (e.g., Brown & Hilferty, 1986a, 1986b, 2006;
Henrichsen, 1984; Ito, 2001, 2006a; Kim, 1995);
8. Research also indicates that the elements of CS can be taught to SLLs
of English (Brown & Hilferty, 1986a, 1986b, 2006; Carreira, 2008; Ito,
2006b, Matsuzawa, 2006);
9. In those situations where learners must communicate with NSs of North
American English, those NSs will perceive CS as more natural, friendlier,
20 In the Beginning
more personal or intimate, and more sympathetic. Why wouldn’t SLLs

want to be viewed as natural, friendly, personal or intimate, and sympa-
thetic in such situations?; and
10. Perhaps most important of all, we have found that learning about CS
in any depth provides learners with new information—information
that they find interesting. In other words, learners enjoy studying CS
(Carreira, 2008).
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.
Learner Exercise Ideas/Application Exercises

This chapter was intended primarily to provide information for practicing and
future teachers. Though we will elaborate on elements of CS more extensively
in subsequent chapters, we present the following exercise as an initial aware-
ness raising technique, relevant to both teachers/future teachers and language
learners. We believe the following exercise will be useful to help raise awareness
of the role of CS in oral English comprehension and production. We note that
in future chapters, separate sections will be provided for Learner Exercise Ideas,
which provide classroom CS exercises for L2 learners, and Application Exercises,
which provide exercises to help solidify your own knowledge of CS processes.
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.
Example 1.1
A: When are you going to LA?

B: I am going to go on Sunday.
A: Wow! I wish I were getting out of here for a while. Have you got your
plane ticket?
B: No. I have got to get it tomorrow.
A: What do you have to do in LA?
B: I have got to give them some product samples, but I also want to do
some sightseeing?
A: Where will you go?
B: I want to get out of LA and see Disneyland.
A: Okay, have a good time.
B: Okay, goodbye.
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.
Chapter Review Questions

1. What role do suprasegmental elements of L2 speech play in speech intelligi-
bility? In what way does this role inform the authors’ argument as to why
we should teach connected speech?
2. What are the shortcomings of assuming that spoken English grammar is
directly transferable from written English grammar?
3. Why do you think we propose in Table 1.1 that pragmatics is the key
link between the contextual constraints that inform speech production
and linguistic tools necessary for speech production? Where does CS fall
within this model?
4. Why did we chose connected speech, as opposed to other labels, such as col-
loquial speech (or even the less positive lazy speech)?
5. Briefly, why is CS relevant to both listening comprehension and speech
intelligibility. And why should it be taught in EFL/ESL classrooms?
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.
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. (2006). Teacher resources for teaching connected speech. In J. D. Brown
& K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language
speakers (pp. 27–47). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
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. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for
listening comprehension. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on
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. (2006b). Introducing connected speech. In J. D.
Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to sec-
ond language speakers (pp. 1–15). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Brown, J. D., & Kondo-Brown, K. (2006c). Testing reduced forms. In J. D. Brown
& K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second lan-
guage speakers (pp. 247–264). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Burgess, J. & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language
teaching and teacher education. System, 28(2), 191–215.
Burns, A. (2006). Integrating research and professional development on pronunciation
teaching in a national adult ESL program. TESL Reporter, 39(2), 34–41.
Bussmann, H. (1998). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics (G. Trauth & K.
Kazzazi, Ed. & Trans.). Routledge.
Cahill, R. (2006). Teaching reduced interrogative forms to low-level EFL students
in Japan. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching con-
nected speech to second language speakers (pp. 99–125). University of Hawai‘i, National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
Carney, N. (2018). Diagnosing L2 English learners’ listening comprehension abilities
with scripted and unscripted listening texts [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Temple
University Japan, Tokyo.
Carreira, J. M. (2008). Effects of teaching reduced forms in a university preparatory
course. In JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings (pp. 200–207). Japan Association on
Language Teaching.
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.
Claire, E. (1998). Dangerous English 2000: An indispensable guide for language learners and
others (3rd ed.). Delta.
Cormier, C. M., Zhang, Y. H., & Matsuzawa, T. (2013). Comprehension of English
reduced forms by Chinese business people and the effectiveness of instruction. In
The Proceedings of the 15th Annual Temple University Japan Campus Applied Linguistics
Colloquium. Temple University Japan.
24 In the Beginning
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.
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
Matsuzawa, T. (2006). Comprehension of English reduced forms by Japanese business

people and the effectiveness of instruction. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown
(Eds.), Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers (pp. 59–66).
University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we
teach it? ELT Journal, 49(3), 207–218.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age,
motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 81–108.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intel-
ligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL pro-
nunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520–531.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). A prospectus for pronunciation research
in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1),
11–42.
Murphy, D. (2011). An investigation of English pronunciation teaching in Ireland.
English Today, 27(4), 10–18.
Nagle, C., Trofimovich, P., & Bergeron, A. (2019). Toward a dynamic view of second
language comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 647–672
Nelson, C. L. (2008). Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27(3–4), 297–308.
Newton, J. M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2021). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
Nokes, J. (2018). Whaddya call that again? Materials for teaching connected speech.
Second Language Studies, 36(2), 27–153.
Norris, R. W. (1994). Keeping up with native speaker speed: An investigation of
reduced forms and deletions in informal spoken English. Studies in Comparative
Culture, 25, 72–79.
Nowacka, M. (2011). The productive and receptive acquisition of consonants and con-
nected speech by Polish students of English. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.),
The acquisition of L2 phonology (pp. 59–73). Channel View.
O’Grady, W., & Archibald, J. (2019). Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction
(9th ed.). Pearson Canada.
Park, J. S-Y. & Wee, L. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Lessons for language and
mobility. In C. Stroud & M. Prinsloo (Eds.), Language, literacy and diversity: Moving
words (pp. 55–71). Routledge.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2011). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics (4th ed.). Longman.
Rogerson, M. (2006). Don’cha Know? A survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives on
reduced forms instruction. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), Perspectives
on teaching connected speech to second language speakers (pp. 85–97). University of
Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Rosa, M. (2002). Don’cha know? A survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives on reduced
forms instruction. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 49–78.
Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Rost, M. A., & Stratton, R. K. (1978). Listening in the real world: Clues to English conver-
sation. Lingual House.
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis
of 15 quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854.
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
Frank Hardy led the way.

He paused in the passage for a few seconds, surveying the scene in
the outer cave.
All the men were asleep. They were rolled up in their blankets and
lay sprawled in the shadows. There was merely a faint crimson glow
from the embers of the fire.
He did not go on all fours; he just crouched low as he moved across
the cave among the sleepers. Quick, sure footsteps, as silent as
those of a cat, brought him to the outer entrance.
So much depended on their escape that the lads were uncannily
silent. They seemed like mere shadows as they progressed, one by
one, to the mouth of the cave. There was not a sound. The snores of
the sleeping gangsters were unbroken.
Frank waited at the entrance. Chet joined him in a few moments.
Then came Biff, and finally Joe. Safely out of the cave, the boys
halted for a second on the rocks.
"I'll take the lead," whispered Frank. "Join hands and follow me."
It was pitch dark and the rocky path to the outskirts of the wood, he
knew, would be treacherous. He reached back and grasped Chet's
hand. Then he moved forward, carefully testing every step. On him
depended the success of their flight to the wood. One stumble, one
dislodged rock, might ruin everything.
Step by step, he moved cautiously forward. He had a good idea of
where the woods trail opened, and he made toward it. Once they
reached the trail he felt sure they would be safe.
Frank had an idea. He stopped and turned to the others.
"If anything happens," he said, in a low voice, "don't stick together.
Scatter and try to make for the boat. Even if only one of us makes it
he'll be able to get to the mainland."
The others whispered assent. He turned and proceeded across the
rocks.
This safeguard, he felt, was wise. In case the gangsters discovered
their escape they would prevent a repetition of the previous
occurrence. In the darkness it was entirely probable that at least one,
if not more, would be able to evade recapture.
But as he went on, his hopes rose. There was still not a sound from
the cave in the rock. The darkness was in heavy silence.
He could faintly discern the black mass of trees and bushes before
him. If they could only reach the trail!
But when he eventually came to the undergrowth he found that he
had somehow missed the path. The trees were densely massed
before him. They would be certain to raise a commotion if they
attempted to enter the thicket at that point, he knew. They would be
certain of becoming lost as well. They must find the trail.
Every moment was precious. Frank moved to the left but the bushes
were still dense in front of him.
Joe moved up beside him.
"I think the trail is farther over," he said quietly.
Frank turned in the direction indicated.
They found the trail at last. Joe and Frank were ahead. Chet and Biff
followed. Here they were unable to avoid making some sound. Twigs
and branches crackled underfoot. This was unavoidable, but every
noise seemed deafening.
Suddenly, from behind them, arose a terrific uproar.
Shouts, yells, the crash of a revolver, heavy footfalls, rent the silence
into shreds. The sounds came from the cave.
"They're gone!" roared a voice. "Wake up! They're gone!"
The boys remained stock-still for a moment in the gloom of the trail.
"They'll be after us," said Frank quickly. "Take it easy. Make for the
cove. I'll take the lead. Make as little noise as you can."
He started off at a trot, and the others followed. Behind them the
uproar increased in volume. They could hear the gangsters shouting
to one another; they could hear rocks clattering as their pursuers
came running down from the cave.
Their erstwhile captors were rushing directly for the trail. They
assumed that the boys would attempt to regain their boat as quickly
as possible.
A voice was shouting:
"Head them off at the shore! Don't let them get to their boat!"
The boys increased their speed. There was no attempt at
concealment now. They could hear the branches crashing behind
them as the gangsters hurried through the thicket.
In the pitch blackness of the grove they stumbled and fell, tripped
and reeled as they rushed along.
Chet and Biff, being unused to the trail, were obliged to travel at a
slower pace, and in this way they dropped behind. The Hardy boys
did not notice. There was such a confusion of sound in the grove,
what with the noise of their own flight and the uproar of the pursuit,
that they did not know that their chums were straggling.
At a fork in the trail, Frank and Joe headed to the left, the path
leading downhill at this point, and toward the cove. They could hear
the boom of the surf not far away and they knew that they were
nearing their goal.
When Chet and Biff hastened up they failed to notice, in the inky
blackness, that the trail branched two ways. Chet was in the lead
and his footsteps brought him to the right. He could not hear the
footsteps of the Hardy boys ahead but he judged that they were so
far in advance that he could not hear them.
Their pursuers had become scattered. Some were pursuing them
down the trail. Others were skirting the grove, intending to watch the
shore. In the distance they could see occasional flashes of light.
Once or twice there was a revolver shot.
"It won't go so well with us if they see us this time," called Frank back
to his brother.
"If we can only beat them to the boat we'll be all right," panted Joe.
They emerged from the grove. They could see the white line of the
surf ahead and the gray shapes of the rocks along the shore. The
cove lay below.
The Hardy boys raced down the rocky slope. Only then did they
become aware of the fact that their chums were not following.
Frank stopped and turned.
"Where are Chet and Biff?" he asked, startled.
"I thought they were right behind," replied Joe blankly.
They listened. There were no sounds of running footsteps down the
trail. Back in the grove they could hear a frenzied crackling of
branches, but whether it was caused by their comrades or by their
pursuers they could not tell.
"They must have taken the wrong turning in the dark," declared
Frank, as the solution dawned on him. "Quick—we'll get to the boat
first! If we can find them we'll bring them with us. If we can't we'll
have to make for the mainland alone."
A flash of scarlet light showed against the blackness of the bush as a
revolver crashed out, and a scattering of rock close by told them that
the bullet had been meant for them. The gangsters were near at
hand.
Without another word the Hardy boys turned and dashed down the
rocky trail leading to the cove. The path was precipitous and rocky.
Joe stumbled once and fell headlong, but he was up again in an
instant, spurred on by the fear that they would be recaptured. Frank
reached the shore first. The motorboat was just where they had left
it, but it was drawn up on the sands.
Joe raced up and the boys placed themselves, one on either side of
the bow.
"All right!" gritted Frank. "Ready!"
They shoved desperately at the motorboat, and it began to move
slowly out into the water of the cove.
The gangsters were drawing closer. The boys heard heavy footfalls
on the rocks at the outskirts of the grove.
Bang! Bang!
The revolver crashed out again. Bullets splashed into the water.
Desperately, the Hardy boys struggled with their boat.
At last the keel left the sand, and the boat slid out swiftly into the
cove waters. Frank and Joe splashed out into the waves and began
to scramble over the side.
Frank had a glimpse of a dark figure racing down the rocky slope
toward them. He leaped to the engine.
"Here they are!" roared a voice.
More footsteps came running along the shore. The gangsters were
converging toward the cove. Frank worked hastily over the engine.
There was a splutter and a roar as the motor responded. The boat
began to back slowly out of the cove.
"Keep down," he cautioned his brother.
Joe ducked, and not a moment too soon, for a fusillade of shots
suddenly crashed out from the shore. Bullets whistled overhead.
Wood splintered as one of them struck the side of the boat. Frank
heard a heavy splashing in the water and judged that one of the
gangsters was wading out in pursuit.
The boat moved slowly out to the entrance of the cove. In the
darkness it was a ticklish performance. Frank doubted if he could
make it. At any time it demanded careful steersmanship, and now
there was no time for caution. The cove entrance was merely a faint
gray blur against the darkness of the rocks on either side. He guided
the Sleuth toward it.
Shots crashed and echoed from the shore. A dark form suddenly
rose up beside the boat, with revolver upraised, but Joe launched
himself on the man with surprising suddenness. His fist shot out and
crashed into the gangster's face. With a muffled cry, the fellow
stumbled back and lost his balance, going beneath the waves. He
rose again in a moment, waist-deep in water, spluttering and
choking, but by that time the Sleuth was several yards away and the
water was too deep to permit the fellow to wade out any farther. His
revolver was useless, and he began to make his way back to shore,
growling to himself.
The motorboat reached the cove entrance. The rocks loomed high
on either side.
Frank held his breath. At any moment he expected to hear the dread
sound of the scraping rocks, but the Sleuth glided through the
narrow channel without mishap, then shot out to the open sea. He
spun the wheel about, brought the boat forward, and a moment later
the engine was roaring its staccato defiance to the gangsters in the
cove.
Frank looked back. He could see flashlights bobbing up and down on
the beach.
"They're going for their own boats!" he exclaimed.
Then, with a grim smile, he bent forward over the wheel. Instead of
heading the motorboat out to the open sea, he directed it along the

Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaping Learners Pronunciation Teaching The Connected Speech of North American English 1st Edition James Dean Brown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shaping Learners Pronunciation

Teaching the Connected Speech of

Manual of American English Pronunciation for Adult

50 Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners

The Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current

English Phonetics and Pronunciation Practice 1st

Teaching English Language Learners 43 Strategies for

Teaching English Language Learners 43 Strategies for

Robo Pete James Dean

Global Trade and the Shaping of English Freedom 1st

A straightforward entry to understanding crucial components of phonological

James Dean Brown is a Professor Emeritus of the University of Hawaiʻi at

Dustin Crowther is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Second Lan-

Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking, 2nd Edition

Storytelling in Multilingual Interaction

Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening, 2nd Edition

Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching

What English Language Teachers Need to Know Volume III

Doing Ref lective Practice in English Language Teaching

Creating Classrooms of Peace in English Language Teaching

Shaping Learners’ Pronunciation

Handbook of Practical Second Language Teaching and Learning

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

James Dean Brown and Dustin Crowther

ISBN: 978-0-367-70150-5 (hbk)

Support Material vii

1 Where Connected Speech Fits into English

2 Transcribing Speech Sounds 29

4 Utterance Stress and Timing 63

7 Dropping Sounds 112

8 Inserting Sounds 137

9 Changing Sounds 151

10 Connected Speech Combines Multiple Processes175

Answer Key 191

Who Is This Book Designed for?

to benefit their L2 development. Whether L2 learners engage directly with

Why North American English?

Why These Authors?

JD TALKS STORY4 0.1

Why This Book on CS?

Like many professors in the field of applied linguistics, I began my career

The classifications in Table 0.1 (into Greetings, Farewells, Models + To,

JD TALKS STORY 0.2

Genesis of JD’s Interest in CS

What the Reader Should Expect?

Greetings Other Combined Words Question Forms

the discussion of CS using as little technical language as possible so teachers

In this chapter, you will find answers to the following questions:

• What is the current state of pronunciation and listening instruction in

A Selective Overview of Approaches to L2

• Only 59% of respondents indicated receiving pronunciation instruction

pronunciation instruction was indeed beneficial, though primarily at a con-

• Accentedness: “a particular pattern of pronunciation that is perceived to

Whereas accentedness and comprehensibility are perceptual, measured by

for understanding over nativelikeness as a target of L2 pronunciation acquisi-

English at the Global Level

• Intelligibility: ability to decode an utterance at the word level;

Smith and Nelson’s framework has motivated highly influential Global

The absence of nativelike features in L2 speech continues to be a preoc-

Support Material vii

2 Transcribing Speech Sounds 29

4 Utterance Stress and Timing 63

7 Dropping Sounds 112

8 Inserting Sounds 137

9 Changing Sounds 151

10 Connected Speech Combines Multiple Processes175

Answer Key 191