Phonology Phonetics What Do We Mean By INTELLIGIBILITY

Phonology & Phonetics What Do We Mean By INTELLIGIBILITY Muneera H. Ahmed

Bamgbose’s three aspects Intelligibility Comprehensibility Interpretability They correspond closely to Smith and Nelson’s terms

IN THE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGIBILITY OF ENGLISH, THE THREE TERMS WERE OFTEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY. IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION, SMITH AND NELSON SUGGESTED THAT: The term ‘intelligibility’ be reserved for word and utterance recognition. With ‘comprehensibility’ being used to refer to word and utterance meaning and ‘interpretability’ to refer to the grasping of the speaker’s intention in producing the utterance

1 THE TERM ‘INTERPRETABILITY’ THUS REPLACED FOR NELSON HIS PREVIOUS USE OF THE WORD ‘INTELLIGIBILITY’ TO MEAN ‘APPREHENSION OF THE MESSAGE IN THE SENSE INTENDED BY THE SPEAKER’ (1982: 63). Intelligibility, as defined by Smith and Nelson, (word and utterance recognition ) has something in common with Brown’s term ‘identification’, by which she means the recognizing of items such as proper names and telephone numbers, and which she contrasts with ‘understanding’-the grasping of the communicative content of utterances (1995: 10 -11).

JAMES, C. Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analysis. London: 1998. 304 p. JAMES , approaches the subject from the speaker’s standpoint ‘intelligibility’ ‘comprehensibility’ ‘communicativity’ James uses the word ‘comprehensibility’ ‘as a cover term to refer to all aspects of the accessibility of the content---as opposed to the form--- of utterances’, with intelligibility being reserved for ‘the accessibility of the basic, literal meaning, the propositional content encoded in an utterance’ (1998: 212). Thus, James intends to convey by the term ‘comprehensibility’ the same meaning as Bamgbose’s ‘intelligibility’, and by the term ‘intelligibility’ the same meaning as Smith and Nelson’s ‘comprehensibility’. James contrasts intelligibility with ‘communicativity’, which he describes as ‘a more ambitious notion, involving access to pragmatic forces, implicatures and connotations’. Communicativity is ‘a higher order achievement’ involving the transmitting of ‘the right social information’ (ibid. : 216 -7).

Lanham (1990) had earlier pursued the same line of thought, though with a different allocation of the terminology Lanham, in his study of the intelligibility of ‘errorful English spoken by second or foreignlanguage users’ proposed a distinction between ‘intelligibility’ and ‘comprehensibility’. The former he relates intelligibility to the effect of errors on the recognition of linguistic form while comprehensibility : is concerned with ‘the communicative effect of error, the consequences of error on the comprehensibility of contextualized discourse’ (ibid. : 243). Brumfit, in a similar vein, though predating James, contrasts the ‘intelligibility of world English text’ with what he describes as the ‘richer problem’ of ‘interpretability of world English communication’ (1982: 95). There is still no general consensus in the use of the term ‘intelligibility’, whether viewed from a speaker or listener perspective. In other words, the terminological ‘confusion’, to which Smith and Nelson drew attention in 1985, is still with us. Nelson, a whole decade later, reiterates his view of the need for a division of ‘general “intelligibility” or “understanding” into a three-level system of intelligibility, comprehensibility and interpretability’ (1995: 274).

Whatever the term actually used for the concept of formal recognition and recognizability of words and utterances, matters of form are considered by their writers to be of relatively minor relevance in spoken communication (and miscommunication) as compared with matters of meaning. We see this, for example, in James’s (1998) contrast of ‘intelligibility’ with ‘communicativity’; In Lanham’s (1990) distinction between ‘intelligibility’ and ‘comprehensibility’; and In Brumfit’s (1982) claim for the ‘interpretability of communication’ as being ‘a richer problem’ than the ‘intelligibility of text’.

Terminologies proposed from 1950 to 2003 Terminologies Intelligibility Effectiveness Comprehension Comprehensibility Interpretability Understandability Communication Accessibility Acceptability Communicativity Year and Scholar 1950, Catford; 1979, Smith and Rafiqzad; 1985, Smith and Nelson; 1987, Kenworthy; 1998, Bamgbose; 1998, James; 2000, Jenkins; 2003, Field. 1950, Catford. 1979, Smith and Rafiqzad. 1985, Smith and Nelson; 1998, James; 1990, Lanham; 2003, Field. 1982, Brumfit; 1985, Smith and Nelson; 1987, Kenworthy. 1995, Dalton and Seidlhofer 1998, James

THE MAIN RESEARCH INTEREST THESE DAYS, IT APPEARS, IS IN HIGHER-LEVEL CONCEPTS GOING BY NAMES SUCH AS : ‘INTERPRETABILITY’, ‘COMMUNICATIVITY’, AND ‘UNDERSTANDING’. THE ‘REAL’ BUSINESS OF IMPARTING AND PROCESSING MESSAGES, IT IS FREQUENTLY SAID, INVOLVES : THE TOP-DOWN PROCESSING OF CONTEXTUAL PHENOMENA (BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE RELATING TO PERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL CUES) RATHER THAN THE BOTTOM-UP PRODUCTION AND RECEPTION OF LINGUISTIC FORM. Brown argues, ‘adequate communication’ is regularly achieved, despite ‘the pervasive underspecification of meanings of utterances’. This is because the sheer amount of shared background information enables interlocutors to establish ‘a structure of mutual beliefs’. In other words, speakers are able to construct and interpret utterances in the light of beliefs about the other’s state of knowledge, and to ascribe to each other the intentions which they ‘would expect to experience themselves in uttering the utterance just heard in that particular context’ (1995: 232 -3).