925926

research-article2020
REL0010.1177/0033688220925926RELC JournalWang

Thematic Review

RELC Journal

Segmental versus
 ­
2022, Vol. 53(1) 194–202
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Suprasegmental: Which sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033688220925926
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220925926
One is More Important journals.sagepub.com/home/rel

to Teach?

Xue Wang
The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
This article considers the continuing debate in pronunciation instruction (PI) about whether
segmental or suprasegmental features are more important in teaching English to speakers of
other languages. While evidence has accumulated on both sides of the debate, the emergence of
the notion of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) further complicates the issue. This article provides
a review of current research supporting the different views in the segmental/suprasegmental
debate. The review highlights research evidence that examines either the impact of segmental
and suprasegmental features on intelligibility or the effectiveness of teaching these features to
improve intelligibility. A review of this line of research underlines the context-specific nature of
the debate and a third view that blurs the boundary between segmentals and suprasegmentals.

Keywords
Segmental/suprasegmental features, pronunciation instruction, English as a Lingua Franca

Introduction
Against the backdrop of the paradigm shift from a form-based to a communicative
approach in teaching English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL), pronunciation
instruction (PI) has been increasingly integrated into the communicative approach,
where the aim of PI mainly focusses on the intelligibility of the learners’ utterance. The
identification of pronunciation features that influence a speaker’s intelligibility has
become a focus in an emerging body of research into PI in ESL and EFL contexts. Such
features are mainly categorized as either segmental (individual sounds, e.g. vowels, con-
sonants) or suprasegmental (extending over syllables, words, or phrases, e.g. stress,
rhythm, intonation).

Corresponding author:
Xue Wang, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Email: wangxue@eduhk.hk
Wang 195

A longstanding debate has been about whether it is more important to teach segmental
or suprasegmental features as a priority in PI. Two opposing views emerge from this
debate: some purport that suprasegmentals should be given priority in PI as they have a
greater impact on intelligibility (e.g. Tanner and Landon, 2009), whereas some claim the
opposite (e.g. Jenkins, 2002). Zielinski (2015), however, approaches this debate differ-
ently by challenging the assumption that segmental and suprasegmental features are
independent entities. She argues that the two features are both important and should not
always be viewed separately. This review attempts to discuss the three views. First, it
synthesizes the arguments and evidence supporting either segmentals or suprasegmen-
tals as being more important than the other. It then focusses on Zielinski’s (2015: 409)
claim that ‘the segmental/suprasegmental debate is based on a false dichotomy’.
Pedagogical and future research implications are discussed.

The Importance of Suprasegmentals

Traditionally, pronunciation materials or curriculums start from small segmental ele-
ments and move towards larger suprasegmental features. However, such a linear approach
has been criticized for not attending to the bigger picture; as a result, learners may find it
difficult to understand how the various elements fit together in utterances (Pennington
and Rogerson-Revell, 2019). Thus, some advocate that suprasegmentals should be given
priority in PI as they have a greater impact on intelligibility. Fraser (2001) for example,
proposed that the order in which pronunciation features should be addressed should be
based on how they affect listener comprehension. She argues that native listeners rely on
stress patterns much more than on segmental features and that incorrect stress patterns
will render the speaker’s utterance unintelligible even if the speaker has appropriate
consonant production. This view is embraced by Chela-Flores (2001) and Tanner and
Landon (2009) who concur that suprasegmental aspects deserve to be given emphasis
and priority as they have more impact on intelligibility and thus are more relevant to
students’ immediate pronunciation needs.
Research has given support to the importance of appropriate suprasegmentals produc-
tion to intelligibility and proficiency rating (e.g. Hahn, 2004; Kang et al., 2010). Drawing
on 26 speech samples obtained from the iBT TOEFL Practice Online test, Kang et al.
(2010: 564) found that ‘suprasegmental features alone can collectively account for about
50% of the variance in proficiency and comprehensibility ratings’. Similarly, Isaacs and
Trofimovich’s (2012) study with 40 ESL learners suggests that word stress was the most
salient feature differentiating ESL speakers of different proficiency levels. Evidence has
also accumulated indicating that suprasegmental-based PI may be more effective than
the segmental-based one. Derwing et al. (1998) compared the instructional gains of three
types of PI, namely, explicit segmental-based PI, suprasegmental-based PI and nonspe-
cific PI (control group). Although both groups receiving explicit PI showed improve-
ment in perceived accentedness and intelligibility in a controlled, read-aloud task, only
the group instructed in suprasegmentals improved in intelligibility and fluency in a less-
controlled narrative task. In a similar study documented by Gordon et al. (2013), only the
group that received explicit instruction on suprasegmentals showed significant improve-
ment in comprehensibility scores. Similar findings were also presented in Gordon and
196 RELC Journal 53(1)

Darcy (2016), who reported that only the group instructed in suprasegmentals showed
improvement in intelligibility. This may be because, as the researchers noted, supraseg-
mental-based PI involved communicative contexts, while segmental-based PI only
focussed on the lexical level. That said, the researchers still suggest that suprasegmental
instruction may be more effective in short-term PI interventions. Such studies, however,
are relatively rare in the existing literature. Many studies only support the effectiveness
of suprasegmental-based PI without suggesting its relative effectiveness compared with
segmental-based PI (e.g. Derwing et al., 1997; Derwing et al., 2014; Saito and Saito,
2017; Tanner and Landon, 2009).

The Importance of Segmentals

On the other side of the debate, many argue that segmental features have a greater impact
on intelligibility and thus should be given emphasis in PI. Collins and Mees (2013), for
example, identified seven pronunciation features that they think are the most important
features to intelligibility and listed them in the order in which they should be taught. The
top five on the list were different segmental features such as vowels and consonants pro-
duction accuracy whereas the only two suprasegmental features, stress and intonation,
were at the end of the list. In line with the list, research has highlighted the importance of
accurate segmental production to intelligibility. Rogers and Dalby (2005) itemized a min-
imal-pairs probe list to examine the intelligibility of segmental elements produced by
Mandarin-L1 students. The results show that 76% of the variance in speakers’ utterance
intelligibility can be accounted for by seven phonemic category features. In a similar vein,
Bent et al. (2007) found that accurate production of vowels, as well as consonants in the
word-initial position, significantly correlates with intelligibility. Similar findings were
reported in Saito’s (2011a) study with Japanese learners of English. Eight segmentals, /æ,
f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɹ/, were found to have a significant influence on native speakers’ (NSs)
speech perception. Notwithstanding the paucity of evidence supporting the relative effec-
tiveness of segmental-based PI over the suprasegmental-based one, abundant experimen-
tal research has highlighted the effectiveness of segmental-based PI. Studies examining
the impact of segmental-based PI on intelligibility have demonstrated instructional gains
in controlled measurement tasks (e.g. Derwing et al., 1998; Saito, 2011b; Saito and Lyster,
2012) as well as in free constructed responses (Saito and Lyster, 2012).
While previous discussions and studies almost exclusively focus on the intelligibility
for native listeners, Jenkins (2000) argues that PI needs to be geared towards the intelli-
gibility for non-native listeners since non-native speakers (NNSs) are now frequently
interacting with other NNSs using English as a lingua franca (ELF). Jenkins (2000: 135)
contends that segmentals are more important than suprasegmentals in NNS-NNS com-
munication and speakers’ adoption of some suprasegmental features such as reductions
may even ‘obstruct intelligibility’. Drawing on the field data collected in various class-
room and social situations, Jenkins (2002) further points out that the most common
causes of communication breakdowns are attributable to the problematic pronunciation
of segmental features such as substituting the sound /f/ in failed with /p/. She thus pro-
posed the Lingua Franca Core, a set of crucial pronunciation features that function as
safeguards to mutual intelligibility among NNS interlocutors. The main core items were
Wang 197

categorized into five groups, among which four were segmentals and only one had to do
with suprasegmentals (i.e. the appropriate use of nuclear stress). Noteworthy is that
suprasegmental features such as word stress and intonation that are regarded as substan-
tially important to intelligibility in previous studies (e.g. Hahn, 2004) were categorized
into non-core features by Jenkins (2002).

Reexamining the Segmental/Suprasegmental Dichotomy

The segmental/suprasegmental debate stems from the premise which views segmental
and suprasegmental features as separate entities. This dichotomy is reified in the previ-
ous research that viewed and measured the two separately and categorized pronunciation
problems as either one or the other. Zielinski (2008), however, contends that this is a
false dichotomy and that it can be difficult to categorize the problematic or non-target-
like features as either segmental or suprasegmental. She points out the two-way nature of
intelligibility by arguing that both the speaker and the listener have a role to play when
the utterance is rendered unintelligible. From the speaker’s point of view, the focus is on
how the words were pronounced and why they were produced that way; while from the
perspective of the listener, the focus shifts towards what the listeners misheard and what
misled them. The speakers’ pronunciation feature that reduces intelligibility can be cat-
egorized differently depending on the perspective from which the feature is analysed. An
example from Zielinski (2015) is the categorization of a Mandarin L1 speaker’s pronun-
ciation feature of epenthesis – adding an extra sound, usually a schwa, to the end of a
word. Epenthesis is a common problem among Chinese learners of English because
Mandarin does not have word-final consonant clusters. Notwithstanding the segmental
nature of the extra vowel, the speaker’s addition of a vowel is attributed to the syllable
structure constraints of her L1 Mandarin, which is a suprasegmental issue. The listeners,
two NSs of Australian English, heard two words (just a/don’t) as they were misled by the
change in the syllable pattern caused by the added vowel, which is also related to
suprasegmentals.
Apart from the complexity of categorizing the pronunciation deviations as either seg-
mental or suprasegmental, Zielinski (2015) contends that the segmental/suprasegmental
dichotomy ignores the possible interaction between the two features as interactive com-
ponents of an integrated system. It can be this interaction that influences intelligibility.
This view resonates with what Weismer and Martin (1992: 83) argue that ‘modifications
of segmental elements. . .may influence not only the perception of those particular seg-
ments but also the perception of the rhythmic structure of the utterances as a whole’.
Hence, instead of debating whether it is more important to teach segmental or supraseg-
mental features, it may be more sensible to view both of them ‘as part of an integrated
and interactive system where the production of one can influence the other’ (Zielinski,
2015: 402).

Discussion
The debate over segmentals and suprasegmentals appears to end in a stalemate among
the different voices and seemingly contradictory evidence, but a look at the literature
198 RELC Journal 53(1)

shows marked heterogeneity in research design among this line of research. The stud-
ies reviewed in this article vary substantially in the scale of study (n=1–75), learners’
L1 background (Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, French being the most common
ones) and research methods such as intervention duration (4 hours to 12 weeks) and
target forms (see Table 1), all of which could affect the results and conclusions of the
study.
The variations emerging from previous findings may be attributable to the diverse L1
backgrounds of participants – learners from different L1s face different opportunities
and challenges stemming from language transfer. For example, as Mandarin has contras-
tive stress at the word-level that is absent in Korean, Mandarin speakers can have an
advantage over Korean speakers in stress processing of English words (Lin et al., 2014).
Different intervention durations and target forms of the instruction may also lead to dif-
ferent results. Therefore, the interpretation of conclusions drawn from previous findings
warrants caution.
The discussion would not be complete or fair without mention of the learning con-
text. Learning context matters in ESL/EFL learning in that it shapes, or at least influ-
ences, learners’ beliefs and decision-making in their English learning trajectory.
Notwithstanding the merits of Jenkins’s (2002) Lingua Franca Core in modifying pro-
nunciation standards for ELF communication, there are foreseeable challenges in the
promotion of the Lingua Franca Core in contexts where the exonormative NS model
prevails. One of these contexts is mainland China, where English is being taught as a
foreign language following an exonormative NS model. The Lingua Franca Core is
proposed to facilitate ELF interactions among speakers of different L1s, whereas
English classrooms in mainland China usually consist of learners with the same L1 who
barely have the opportunity to experience ELF communication. Regarding language
attitudes, Chinese EFL learners generally still prefer the exonormative NS model (e.g.
Fang and Ren, 2018; Kung and Wang, 2019). While it is important for English language
teaching (ELT) practitioners to inform students of the growing trend of ELF, teachers
should support those who aspire to follow the exonormative NS model and inhibit non-
target-like pronunciation features. In this sense, there seems to be no standard answer to
whether it is more important to teach segmentals or suprasegmentals.
Challenging the segmental/suprasegmental dichotomy, Zielinski’s (2015) stand on
this debate opens a new avenue for discussion. Segmentals and suprasegmentals are not
implacable foes but constant companions. They are both an integral part of the pronun-
ciation system that can possibly and positively interact with and build on each other.
Notwithstanding the potential benefits of categorizing learners’ pronunciation features,
the non-target-like pronunciation features can be categorized differently depending on
the perspective from which the analysis is made. The PI process would be unnecessarily
complicated if every non-target-like feature is to be categorized as either segmental or
suprasegmental. There can be a fine line between segmental and suprasegmental issues
for ESL and EFL learners with different L1 pronunciation systems ingrained or imprinted
since birth or even since before birth (i.e. in the womb, where the maternal voice becomes
familiar to the fetus). Instead of viewing the acquisition of segmentals and suprasegmen-
tals as a fundamentally different process, it would be more productive to take a holistic
perspective.
 Wang

Table 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Review.

Study N Participants’ L1s Duration Target forms

Derwing et al. (1997) 13 Chinese, Farsi, French, Spanish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, 12 weeks stress, intonation, rhythm
Derwing et al. (1998) 48 Asian and European languages, Spanish 11 weeks segmentals and suprasegmentals
Hahn (2004) 1 Korean n/ab stress
Rogers and Dalby (2005) 8 Chinese n/ab segmentals
Tanner and Landon (2009) 75 Asian and Romance languages, Haitian Creole, Russian, 13 weeks pause, stress, intonation
Armenian
Kang et al. (2010) 26 Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Spanish n/ab rate, pause, intonation
Saito (2011a) 20 Japanese n/ab /æ, f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɹ/
Saito (2011b) 20 Japanese 4 hours /æ, f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɹ/
Isaacs and Trofimovich (2012) 40 French n/ab segmentals and suprasegmentals
Saito and Lyster (2012) 64 Japanese 4 hours /ɹ/
Gordon et al. (2013) 30 n/aa 3 weeks /i, ɪ, æ, ɛ/
rhythm, stress, reduction, linking
Derwing et al. (2014) 7 Vietnamese, Khmer 17 hours selected segments and word endings
word stress, sentence stress, intonation
Gordon and Darcy (2016) 30 Arabic, French, Korean, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish, 3 weeks segmentals and suprasegmentals
Turkish
Saito and Saito (2017) 20 Japanese 6 weeks stress, rhythm, intonation

Notes: n/aa = Participants’ L1s are not reported in the study; n/ab = Intervention duration does not apply because the study only identified pronunciation features
that influence intelligibility with no PI intervention provided.
199
200 RELC Journal 53(1)

Pedagogical and Future Research Implications

A number of implications can be derived from the discussion. First, since very few stud-
ies appear to support that either one is more important than the other, and a meta-analysis
of PI effectiveness showed a greater effect when both segmental and suprasegmental
features are included in the instruction (Lee et al., 2015), teachers should awaken stu-
dents to the importance of both. Second, it is important for teachers not to be constrained
by the segmental/suprasegmental dichotomy but to be aware of and take advantage of the
interactive relationship between the two. Teachers may help students to analyse their
pronunciation features and conceptualize the interaction between segmental and
suprasegmental features from the perspectives of both the speaker and the listener. Third,
rather than uncritically adopting conclusions from previous research, ELT practitioners
should familiarize themselves with learners’ L1 background to help them identify and
tackle the features they find challenging to pronounce or discriminate. For instance,
Korean learners usually need to attend to stress at the word-level (Lin et al., 2014), while
Chinese learners often need extra help to address the schwa epenthesis problem (Zielinski,
2015). Thus, teaching learners from different L1s may require a shift in the focus of
instruction. Teachers may inform their teaching with research evidence and experiment
with various PI approaches that were proved effective in previous research conducted
with similar students and in similar contexts. For Japanese learners, for example, Saito’s
(2011b) study proved the effectiveness of explicit instruction (perception activities fol-
lowed by production activities and feedback provision) focussed on eight English-
specific segmentals that do not exist in Japanese, i.e. /æ, f, v, θ, ð, w, l, ɹ/. ELT practitioners
are further advised to, based on learners’ needs and profiles of pronunciation mastery,
adapt PI designs such as duration of intervention and assessment criteria.
The emergence of notions such as ELF reflects the changing demographics of English
speakers in today’s world (e.g. McKay, 2018), which calls attention to intelligibility from
the non-native listener’s perspective, especially when the existing research is predomi-
nantly conducted with native listeners. To bridge this lacuna, more research needs to be
conducted with NNS listeners to not only investigate the impact of segmentals/supraseg-
mentals on intelligibility but also to examine the effectiveness of segmental- and
suprasegmental-based PI to facilitate ELF communication. This will shed more light on
the role of segmentals and suprasegmentals in ESL/EFL learning and what types of PI
are suitable for different contexts and purposes.

Conclusion
The segmental/suprasegmental debate has been a topic of conversation for decades. This
review suggests the debate may not be valid when taken out of context, since learners of
different L1s and learning contexts may have different needs. Putting the segmental/
suprasegmental dichotomy aside, no evidence appears to dispute that both features are
important and that addressing one may also improve aspects of intelligibility related to
the other. While advantages of both segmental- or suprasegmental-based PI are gaining
momentum, the emergence of ELF brings a new dimension to the discussion. The exist-
ing research has almost exclusively had NSs as listeners to judge the intelligibility of
Wang 201

NNSs’ speech, which, however, does not reflect the rapidly growing trend of ELF.
Considerations of ELT call for more research conducted with NNSs as listeners to
accommodate the knowledge base of PI to the changing demographics of English users
in today’s world.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Xue Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0854-6393

References
Bent T, Bradlow AR, and Smith B (2007) Phonemic errors in different word positions and their
effects on intelligibility of non-native speech: all’s well that begins well. In: Bohn OS, Munro
MJ (eds) Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. In Honor of James
Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 331–47.
Chela-Flores B (2001) Pronunciation and language learning: an integrative approach. International
Review of Applied Linguistics 39(2): 85–101.
Collins B, Mees I (2013) Practical Phonetics and Phonology: A Resource Book for Students (3rd
ed). London: Routledge.
Derwing TM, Munro MJ, and Wiebe GE (1997) Pronunciation instruction for fossilized learners:
can it help? Applied Language Learning 8(2): 185–203.
Derwing TM, Munro MJ, and Wiebe GE (1998) Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pro-
nunciation instruction. Language Learning 48(3): 393–410.
Derwing TM, Munro MJ, Foote JA, Waugh E, and Fleming J (2014) Opening the window on
comprehensible pronunciation after 19 years: a workplace training study. Language Learning
64(3): 526–48.
Fang F, Ren W (2018) Developing students’ awareness of global Englishes. ELT Journal 72(4):
384–94.
Fraser H (2001) Teaching Pronunciation: A Handbook for Teachers and Trainers. Three
Frameworks for an Integrated Approach. Sydney, NSW: Department of Education Training
and Youth Affairs.
Gordon J, Darcy I, and Ewert D (2013) Pronunciation teaching and learning: effects of explicit
phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In: Levis J, LeVelle K (eds) Proceedings of the 4th
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Ames, IA: Iowa
State University, pp.194–206.
Gordon J, Darcy I (2016) The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners: a classroom
study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation 2(1): 56–92.
Hahn LD (2004) Primary stress and intelligibility: research to motivate the teaching of supraseg-
mentals. TESOL Quarterly 38(2): 201–23.
202 RELC Journal 53(1)

Isaacs T, Trofimovich P (2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility: identifying the linguistic influ-

ences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
34(3): 475–505.
Jenkins J (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New
Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins J (2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for
English as an International Language. Applied Linguistics 23(1): 83–103.
Kang O, Rubin D, and Pickering L (2010) Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judg-
ments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal 94(4):
554–66.
Kung FW, Wang X (2019) Exploring EFL learners’ accent preferences for effective ELF com-
munication. RELC Journal 50(3): 394–407.
Lee J, Jang J, and Plonsky L (2015) The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruc-
tion: a meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics 36(3): 345–66.
Lin CY, Wang M, Idsardi WJ, and Xu Y (2014) Stress processing in Mandarin and Korean second
language learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2): 316–46.
Pennington MC, Rogerson-Revell P (2019) English Pronunciation Teaching and Research:
Contemporary Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McKay SL (2018) English as an international language: what it is and what it means for pedagogy.
RELC Journal 49(1): 9–23.
Rogers CL, Dalby J (2005) Forced choice analysis of segmental production by Chinese-accented
English speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48(2): 306–22.
Saito K (2011a) Identifying problematic segmental features to acquire comprehensible pronuncia-
tion in EFL settings: the case of Japanese learners of English. RELC Journal 42(3): 363–78.
Saito K (2011b) Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehen-
sible pronunciation development: an instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language
Awareness 20(1): 45–59.
Saito K, Lyster R (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pro-
nunciation development of /J/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning 62(2):
595–633.
Saito Y, Saito K (2017) Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language
comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: the case of inexperienced Japanese
EFL learners. Language Teaching Research 21(5): 589–608.
Tanner MW, Landon MM (2009) The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on
ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language
Learning and Technology 13(3): 51–56.
Weismer G, Martin RE (1992) Acoustic and perceptual approaches to the study of intelligibility.
In: Kent RD (ed.) Intelligibility in Speech Disorders. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 67–118.
Zielinski BW (2008) The listener: no longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System
36(1): 69–84.
Zielinski BW (2015) The segmental/suprasegmental debate. In: Reed M, Levis J (eds) The
Handbook of English Pronunciation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 397–412.