See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360685976

Phonological Varieties of Interdental Fricative Voiced and Voiceless ‘TH’

among Philippine English Lectal Speakers

Article in Studies in English Language Teaching · May 2022

DOI: 10.22158/selt.v10n2p96

CITATION READS

1 1,182

2 authors:

Richard Sambajon Agbayani Donna Bel Fran Sy

Mariano Marcos State University De La Salle University
9 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Sambajon Agbayani on 02 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Studies in English Language Teaching
ISSN 2372-9740 (Print) ISSN 2329-311X (Online)
Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt

Original Paper

Phonological Varieties of Interdental Fricative Voiced and

Voiceless ‘TH’ among Philippine English Lectal Speakers

Richard Sambajon Agbayani1 & Donna Bel Fran Sy2
1
Mariano Marcos State University, Department of Languages and Literature, City of Batac, Philippines
2
Romblon State University, College of Education, BSED Department, Romblon, Philippines

Received: April 20, 2022 Accepted: May 7, 2022 Online Published: May 18, 2022
doi:10.22158/selt.v10n2p96 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/selt.v10n2p96

Abstract
Guided by the research works of Tayao (2004) and de Leon (2016), and the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA) conventions of sounds, this study describes the phonological varieties of interdental
fricative voiced and voiceless ‘th’ among the six lectal speakers. Six participants took part to embody
the speakers from acrolect, mesolect, and basilect groups. With the use of a poem read by the
participants and which was audio- taped for transcription purposes, the following research objectives
were attained: 1) frequency of deviation of each speaker from the GAE to a new variety of pronouncing
words in terms of voiced interdental fricatives and voiceless interdental fricatives; 2) lectal categories
which conformed to the GAE pronunciation; and 3) the rate of speaking of each participant. Analysis
exhibits that pronunciation of words with regard to both voiced and voiceless interdental fricatives, the
basilectal speakers produced the greatest number of deviations, followed by acrolectals while
mesolectals have the least. In other words, it is the mesolectal speakers who conformed and observed
well the General American English (GAE) standard of pronunciation. However, as to their rates of
speaking, the acrolectal speakers emerged to be the fastest.
Keywords
Philippine English, lectal speakers, interdental fricative voiced th, interdental fricative voiceless th,
speaking rate

1. Introduction
The use of Philippine English (henceforth, PE) as a standard English language has sparked heated
discussions over the years. PE, according to several linguists, is no longer an inferior version; instead, it
is worthy of being acknowledged as a standard system. In fact, PE is used by Filipinos as a genuine
nativized variation of English in different contexts such as bureaucracy, science and technology,

96
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

judiciary, higher education, the legislative, intellectual debate, etc. (Dayag, 2012). In 1993, McKaughan
claimed that PE is an independent English variety with a self-regulating system. Also, according to
Bautista (2000, p. 20), as reported by De Leon (2016), Philippine English is not English that is wrongly
taught in a second language classroom nor a variety that violates the American English standards. Its
peculiarity is not an error committed by those who are not native speakers of American English, but it
is due to the first language influence. Its nativized structure makes it distinct from the Standard
American English.
The crucial thing to note about the aforementioned is that PE along with other varieties has its own
phonological features that are distinct in reality. This corroborates with the statement of Bolton and
Bautista 2009 that PE has turned to be a World Englishes variety having a localized lexicon, discrete
pronunciation, and even applied in creative writing in English by Filipino writers.
Schneider (2016) added that Philippine English (PE) differs from other World Englishes in terms of its
characteristics, functions, and forms. These include Malaysian English, Thai English, and Singaporean
English. While Filipino English speakers find its qualities new to them, they find its inclusion justified
and necessary. As a result, these phonological elements and facets should continue to be studied.
Studies on PE phonology have increased and extended dramatically as a result of the past work of
various Filipino experts. This research area has broadened its focus and investigated the inclusion of its
other characteristics. Several studies relating to PE phonological analysis have been notable in recent
years. To name a few, Tayao’s (2004) research focused on summarizing the evolution of PE
phonological research throughout the past three decades before her study. She also discussed the
findings of a recent data-driven study on PE accents belonging to the three distinct types of speakers:
the basilect, mesolect, and acrolect. The results provided a description of the distinct phonological traits
shared by and among the speakers of each of the languages. Furthermore, the report suggested that
future research should focus less on ‘standard’ Philippine pronunciation and more on offering
descriptions of a wide range of dialects, which can be distinguished based on location and social group
membership.
De Leon (2016), moreover, conducted a study on the intelligibility of PE to a variety of Southeast
Asian listeners, taking into account the elements that influenced PE intelligibility. PE, according to the
findings, is less than 50% comprehensible for EFL or English as a Foreign Language listeners, but PE
is more than 60% intelligible for ESL or English as a Second Language listeners. Filipino listeners
rated PE as quite understandable. Furthermore, PE has less than 50% rate of intelligibility, which is
lower despite other research findings showing greater intelligibility rate. The results also demonstrated
that, despite their low proficiency than acrolectal speakers, mesolect speakers have the highest
intelligibility rate among PE speakers (acrolect, mesolect, and basilect). The used and speaking rate
were other prevalent characteristics that improved PE’s intelligibility. In terms of speaker
considerations, intelligibility can also be enhanced or hindered by pronunciation, but it all depends on

97
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

the acceptability of the speaker’s pronunciation, while listeners need consider aspects like accent and
strategy familiarity.
Tuplano’s (2011) efforts also resulted in the execution of another study about the phonological aspects
of John Clements Inc. prehires. The researcher’s attempt revealed solid evidence that the respondents
exhibit numerous variations from Standard American English (GAE). Interdental variations were found
to be very common, with substitution of voiced and voiceless /th/ by /t/ and /d/, replacement of vowel
/u/ by /U/, conflation of long /i/ and short /I/, restructuring of /ae/ and confusion of initial aspirated /t/
with non-articulation initial plosive sounds /t/, restructuring of /ae/ to /a/, replacement. The presence of
stress-timed and syllable-timed intonation combinations, as well as word stress misplacement in some
words, further complicated things. As a result, the author proposes that the information gleaned from
this study be used as one of the foundations for developing an English language program that is
specifically tailored to contact center language requirements.
Flores (2016) investigated the phonological properties of basilectal Philippine English by replicating
the data collection processes of Tayao (2004) and Llamzon (1997). Tupaz’s (2004) task of performing
PE studies in characterizing English of the educated (the mesolect and acrolect speakers) and language
practices of the marginalized speakers (the basilect) in the Philippine setting led to the completion of
this study (Llamzon, 1997; Tayao, 2004). Participants in the study were Basilect speakers from a
certain region such as market vendors, janitors, nannies, and jeepney drivers, as well as Cebuano
language speakers from Region 7. This was done with the goal of producing data that differed from
earlier Luzon-only investigations. Furthermore, the study encouraged future studies to pursue PE
phonology, with an emphasis on the spectrum of segmental and suprasegmental traits of Filipino
basilectal speakers of Philippine English.
Nicanor’s (2014) research is equally important to mention. His case study focused on the detection of
English segmental elements as exhibited by three Filipino professors from a public university. The
sociolectal technique was also employed to describe the respondents’ phonological characteristics
based on a study of the audio-recorded poem they read. The findings revealed that first language
interference, as well as the fossilization of their pronunciation ‘lapses,’ influenced sound segment
substitution, addition, and deletion. The Communicative Model should be strengthened by English
language teachers to enable students to have more access to many varieties of English, particularly
Philippine English. From these research trends, it appears that the spotlight is totally directed on studies
of PE phonological features, however, delving into this topic in Metro Manila- centric remains
underexplored in the country.
The study of Torres et al. (2021) also confirmed the disparity between Philippine English (PE)
phonology and the GAE phonology. This was corroborated through their re- validation of the
phonological description of Philippine English specifically in the production of vowel and consonant
sounds by lectal speakers in the Luzon area. It was revealed that lesser deviation from the GAE
phonology was marked in the mesolect speaker. It was also found out that the basilect speaker had the
98
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

highest phonemic substitution in both vowel and consonant sounds, which was then followed by the
speaker representing the mesolect group, while the acrolect ranked as third. Thus, the findings attested
the unique features of PE phonology.
In a different vein, the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which is widely used around the world,
provides a sort of standardization, essentially a standard description of all sounds in line with General
American English (GAE). The combination of two English letters “th” is one of the sounds in the IPA.
The way it articulates is fricative, and the place where it articulates is interdental. It can be voiceless (θ)
or voiced (ð). On one hand, fricatives are created when the active articulator is close to, but not in
contact with, the passive articulator. Close approximation means that as air escapes, it is forced via a
tight route between the articulators, causing significant friction. Interdental, on the other hand, refers to
the sound made by pressing the tip of the tongue against the rear of the upper teeth.
While these facts do provide thought-provoking insights about PE phonology, the purpose of this study
was to show that an up-to-date analysis and explanation of voiced and voiceless interdental fricatives
“th” amongst and within three lectal types of speakers is of significant interest. Furthermore, when
someone else (for example, a non-native speaker) pronounces anything correctly or poorly, one can
detect it. The IPA can be used to determine if the speaker/s applied the phonological rules correctly or
not.
Therefore, the present researchers considered this issue to be the heart of phonological feature analysis
in PE. The two research studies done by Tayao (2004) and de Leon (2016) both point to the variety of
ways by which to analyze PE phonology. Hence, guided the present study.
1.1 Research Questions
Generally, this paper aimed to analyze the phonological features of the speakers in three lectal
categories – acrolect, mesolect and basilect.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:
1. How frequent did each speaker deviate from the GAE to a new variety of pronouncing
words in terms of:
a. voiced interdental fricatives; and
b. voiceless interdental fricatives?
2. Which among the lectal categories of speakers conformed to the GAE pronunciation?
3. Which of the three lectal categories of speakers has the fastest rate of speaking?
1.2 Theoretical Framework
This research is based on Tayao’s (2004) societal framework, which was also employed in de Leon’s
dissertation. In addition, this research is governed by the International Phonetic Association’s (IPA)
conventions and symbols for interdental fricative voiced (ð) and interdental fricative voiceless (θ)
consonants. IPA provides a standard sound description in accordance with the General American
English (GAE).

99
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

2. Methodology
This section presents the participants, design, instrument, data gathering procedure and data analysis of
the study.
2.1 Research Participants
Shown in Table 1 is the demographic profile of the respondents. Six participants were chosen and were
categorized using Tayao’s (2004) classification of lectal speakers in the Philippines. Their category was
based on their educational attainment and present occupation. Moreover, their ages ranges from 25- 30.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Participants

Lectal Category of Educational Home Spoken
Age Gender Occupation
the Respondents Attainment Language Language/s
College Call Center English/Filipino/
Acrolect 25 Male English
Graduate Agent Spanish
College Call Center
27 Female English English/ Filipino
Graduate Agent
Master’s Language Filipino/
Mesolect 30 Female Filipino
Degree Teacher English
College Language
28 Male Filipino English/ Filipino
Graduate Teacher
High school
Basilect 29 Male Janitorial Filipino Filipino
Graduate
High school
28 Female Janitorial Filipino Filipino
Graduate

There were two acrolectal respondents who participated in this study. One is a male and 25 years old,
and one female who is 27 years old. Both are college graduates, presently working as call center agents
in Metro Manila, and use English as their home language. Since Tayao (2004) characterized acrolect
group as people who use English as home language and are compelled to work in fields where the
dominant language used for communication is English, participants 1 and 2 were, therefore,
categorized as acrolectal speakers.
Whereas, participant 3 is a female and 30 years of age, while participant 4 is a male and 28 years of age.
Participant 3 is a master’s degree holder while participant 4 holds a bachelor’s degree. Both are
currently employed as language teachers in one of the prestigious universities in Metro Manila. They
speak Filipino and English, but consider Filipino as their first language. These participants are
considered mesolectal speakers because according to Tayao (2004), the mesolect group is composed of
professionals who utilize English in their line of work, but rarely use it in other domains.

100
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

Finally, participants 5 and 6 are male (29 years old) and female (28 years old), high school graduates
and presently employed as janitors in a top university. They speak Filipino at home and use this
language in their day-to-day communication. These participants are what Tayao (2004) has referred to
as basilectal speakers because she described this category as group of non-professionals who never use
English at home. If required to speak English in dealing with superiors and other job-related topics, this
group’s command of English is found to be influenced by their native language.
2.2 Research Design
The design employed in current study is descriptive- quantitative. In determining the occurrences of
deviations from the GAE standard to a new variation of pronunciation demonstrated by the participants,
frequency counts and percentage computations of the coded deviations were done. The researchers later
did an analysis to identify the speaker who conformed to the GAE standard of pronunciation.
2.3 Research Instrument
The instrument utilized in this study was a poem entitled Brush Up On Your English from the
Manchester Guardian. This poem is a six-stanza free verse with four lines in each stanza. The
researchers’ basis in the selection of this reading material is due to the fact that it contains words with
voiced and voiceless th sounds. After scrutinizing carefully every word from each line of the poem, the
researchers found 11 words with voiced th sound and seven (7) words with voiceless th sound. These
words were marked to guide the researchers as they conduct the data gathering.
2.4 Data Collection
After preparing the instrument for data collection, the researchers immediately looked for target
respondents who would qualify to the categories of the lectal groups. The researchers then were able to
spot potential participants and asked if they are willing to sit down with the researchers and do the oral
reading of the poetry. Upon convincing the participants, the researchers gave them instructions and
informed them that the reading exercise will be audio-recorded for the purpose of phonetic
transcription. The oral reading of the poem by each participant ran from one to two minutes only. After
that, the researchers played the collected audio corpus and examined the reading speed. They also
studied how those words in every line of the poem, particularly those with th sounds, were pronounced
according to the General American English (GAE) standard.
2.5 Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the IPA- GAE standard of pronunciation. Coded deviations of each of
the three speakers were counted and percentages were also computed.

3. Results and Discussion

This section confers the results of the study and how they were analyzed and interpreted. The findings,
analysis, and interpretations are organized according to the research’s specific problems.

101
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

Table 2. Frequency of Deviation/s from the GAE to a New Variety of Pronouncing Words
(Voiced ‘th’ Dental Fricative)
Lectal Categories of Speakers Number of Deviation/s
f %
Acrolect
P1 1 9.09
P2 1 9.09
Mesolect
P3 0 0.00
P4 0 0.00
Basilect
P5 11 100.00
P6 11 100.00
Legend: Total no. of words = 11

Table 2 exhibits that from the six lectal categories of speakers, basilectal speakers produced the most
frequent deviations of pronunciation with 11 (100%) each, followed by acrolectal speakers with one (1)
or 9.09% each. The least was done by the mesolectal speakers having no deviation at all. It is clear,
therefore, that mesolectal speaker as opposed with the acrolectal and basilectal speakers pronounced
the words in conformity to the IPA- GAE standard. This contradicts the lectals’ consonant inventory
mentioned by Tayao (2004), in which acrolectal speakers are expected to fully conform to GAE
pronunciation. In the case of mesolectal speakers, inventory affirms that they have a high incidence of
variable occurrence of /th/ substituting interdental voiced /ð/ with /d/, however, this attribute did not
exist in this study.

Table 3. Presentation of the Deviation/s and/or Conformity Done by the Speakers in the Voiced
‘th’ Interdental Fricative
Philippine English Pronunciation Variety
GAE Phonetic
Voiced th Acrolect Version Mesolect Version Basilect Version
Transcription
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Others /əðərz/ /əðərz/ /əðərz/ /əðərz/ /əðərz/ /adIrs/ /adIrs/
That /ðæt/ /ðæt/ /ðæt/ /ðæt/ /ðæt/ /dat/ /dat/
They /ðe/ /ðe/ /ðe/ /ðe/ /ðe/ /de/ /de/
Mother /məðər/ /məðər/ /məðər/ /məðər/ /məðər/ /madɛr/ /madɛr/
Bother /baðər/ /baðər/ /baðər/ /baðər/ /baðər/ /badɛr/ /badɛr/
Brother /brəðər/ /brəðər/ /brəðər/ /brəðər/ /brəðər/ /bradɛr/ /bradɛr/

102
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

There /ðɛr/ /ðɛr/ /ðɛr/ /ðɛr/ /ðɛr/ /dɛr/ /dɛr/

Then /ðɛn/ /ðɛn/ /ðɛn/ /ðɛn/ /ðɛn/ /dɛn/ /dɛn/
there’s /ðɛrz/ /ðɛrz/ /ðɛrz/ /ðɛrz/ /ðɛrz/ /dɛrs/ /dɛrs/
These /ðiz/ /ðiz/ /ðiz/ /ðɛrz/ /ðɛrz/ /dIz/ /dIz/
Them /ðɛm/ /ðɛm/ /ðɛm/ /ðɛm/ /ðɛm/ /dɛm/ /dɛm/

Table 3 summarizes the list of words with interdental fricative voiced th extracted from the poetry and
the corresponding pronunciation variety of each lectal representative. Each word is transcribed
conforming to the General American English (GAE) International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)
transcriptions.
The Philippine English (PE) pronunciation variety is represented by the six participants dubbed as
acrolect, mesolect and basilect. The results of the oral reading exercise revealed that basilectal
speakers have the highest number of deviation from the GAE pronunciation standard in the oral
production of voiced th [ð] interdental fricative. Words such as others [əðərz], that [ðæt], they [ðe],
mother [məðər], bother [baðər], brother [brəðər], there [ðɛr], then [ðɛn], there’s [ðɛrz], these [ðiz],
and them [ðɛm] were found to have variations in the basilectal versions. The word others is
pronounced as aders [adIrs], that is dat [dat], they is dey [de], mother is mader [madɛr], bother is
bader [badɛr], brother is brader [bradɛr], there is der [dɛr], then is den [dɛn], theirs is ders [dɛn], these
is dis [dIz], and them is dem [dɛm]. As observed, the basilectal speakers have altered the production of
voiced th [ð] sound by substituting it with the d consonant sound.
This case is supported by the findings of Tuplano (2011) in her study on “Phonological Features of
Philippine English: The case of prehires of John Clements Consultants, Inc.” which exposed that
basilect speakers have the larger tendency to commit errors that lead to the creation of another variety
of sound. In her study, respondents’ deviation pattern, both for voiced /ð/ and voiceless /θ/, can be
indicated in the absence of these interdental sounds in one’s native language (L1). Hung (2000) also
explained that basilectal speaker’s mother tongue has a significant influence on the second language
acquisition, which in this case is English.
In the case of the acrolectal and mesolectal speakers, the study reveals that the GAE interdental
fricatives voiced and voiceless th obviously exist in their phonological repertoire based on their manner
of articulation. The study of Tayao (2004) supports these findings and confirmed that the case of
mesolect and acrolect groups exposes the interdental fricatives occurrences, with however, few variable
manifestations in the mesolectal pronunciation.

103
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

Table 4. Frequency of Deviation/s from the GAE to a New Variety of Pronouncing Words
(Voiceless ‘th’ Dental Fricative)
Lectal Categories of Speakers Number of Deviation/s
f %
Acrolect
P1 0 0.00
P2 0 0.00
Mesolect
P3 0 0.00
P4 0 0.00
Basilect
P5 7 100.00
P6 7 100.00
Legend: Total no. of words = 7

Table 5. Presentation of Deviation/s and/or Conformity Done by the Speakers in the Voiceless ‘th’
Interdental Fricative
Philippine English Pronunciation Variety
GAE Phonetic
Voiceless th Acrolect Version Mesolect Version Acrolect Version
Transcription
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Thorough /θəro/ /θəro/ /θəro/ /θəro/ /θəro/ /trukud/ /trukud/
Through /θru/ /θru/ /θru/ /θru/ /θru/ /tru/ /tru/
Threat /θrɛt/ /θrɛt/ /θrɛt/ /θrɛt/ /θrɛt/ /tret/ /tret/
Moth /mɔθ/ /mɔθ/ /mɔθ/ /mɔθ/ /mɔθ/ /maut/ /maut/
Both /boθ/ /boθ/ /boθ/ /boθ/ /boθ/ /but/ /but/
Broth /brɔθ/ /brɔθ/ /brɔθ/ /brɔθ/ /brɔθ/ /brɔt/ /brɔt/
Thwart /θwɔrt/ /θwɔrt/ /θwɔrt/ /θwɔrt/ /θwɔrt/ /twart/ /twart/

The above data reveal that there is also an absence of voiceless th in the basilectal pronunciation which
is evident in the overall deviation from the GAE standards and the substitution of consonants t and d.
Moreover, deviation is not only an issue in this case since the speakers distorted most of the words
from the list. In addition, lack of exposure and familiarity to the words due to limited formal education
caused him to overtly mispronounce the words. Acrolectal and mesolectal speakers, however,
demonstrated that they have the ability to produce the voiceless th sound because of their perfect
enunciations of the words.

104
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

In light of the findings in connection to the first research question, the researchers deduced that
between and among the six lectal speakers, it was the mesolectal speaker who conformed and observed
well the General American English (GAE) standard of pronunciation. It is evidently seen in the
transcription of their pronunciation committing no deviations both in voiced and voiceless ‘th’
interdental fricatives.
Conversely, the acrolectal speakers deviated in only one of the total number of words with voiced ‘th’
interdental fricative. While, in the case of the basilectal speakers, the tend to pronounce the words with
the influence of their home language (Filipino) exhibiting its syllable- timed feature and due to the
absence of the sound ‘th’ in their native tongue.

Table 6. Rate of Speaking of the Lectal Speakers

Lectal Categories of Speakers Rate of Speaking
Acrolect
P1 1 min and 11 secs
P2 1 min and 20 sec
Mesolect
P3 1 min and 26 secs
P4 1 min and 34 secs
Basilect
P5 2 mins and 5 secs
P6 1 min and 56 secs

Table 6 above displays that in terms of the rate of speaking; the result is not so surprising because the
two acrolectal speakers (P1 and P2) recorded a rate of one minute and 11 seconds and one minute and
20 seconds, respectively, thus making them the first and second fastest among the six speakers.
Mesolectal speakers landed third (P3) and fourth (P4) with a time of one minute and 26 seconds and
one minute and 34 seconds, respectively, while the basilectal speakers noted two (2) minutes and five
(5) seconds for P5 and one minute and 56 seconds for P6. This is due to the fact that acrolectal speakers
are accustomed to speaking English because it is their native and home tongue.

4. Conclusion
The researchers’ enthusiasm to provide evidence pushed them towards a deeper understanding and
analysis of the data. Thus, the present study holds some implications.
The findings suggest that each speaker belonging in each of the three lectal categories has differences
with regard to their way of pronunciation. Obviously, their manner of pronouncing the words, with
voiced and voiceless ‘th’ interdental place of articulation and fricative manner of articulation,

105
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

respectively, from the given reading material has resulted to either following the GAE standard or not.
Hence, the findings also reveal some interesting data. It should be noted that mesolectal speakers came
out to be the most conforming to the GAE standard of pronunciation as opposed to the expectation that
it should be the acrolectal speakers since English is primarily their home language.
The present study makes it clear that having English as one’s home language is not a guarantee to
sound like the native speakers. The lack of knowledge about the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)
is somehow a factor in the failure of the speakers to pronounce such words similar to the GAE norm.
Moreover, it is also found out that the acrolect speakers appeared to be the fastest in terms of speaking
rate.
Consequently, the phonological features of PE speakers coming from the acrolect, mesolect, and
basilect groups, justly vary from one another. The researchers believe that findings of the study are
suggestive rather than conclusive. They accept also the limitations of their paper considering the
number of participants involved. They, therefore, recommend that an increase in the representatives in
each of the three lectal categories should be considered for future researchers who would want to
extend studies along this topic. Also, it is suggested that future research should look into the factors
affecting the rate of speaking which was not as well investigated in this paper.
Overall, this study could serve as an eye- opener that in reality, phonology of PE is still a field to be
further explored.

References
Bautista, M. L. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features.
Manila, the Philippines: De La Salle University Press.
Bolton, K., & Bautista, M. L. (2009). Philippine English: Linguistics & Literary Perspectives. Pasig
City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing Inc.
Dayag, D. (2012). Varieties of English around the world. In E. L. Low, & A. Hashim (Eds.), English in
Southeast Asia: Features, policy, and language use. Armsterdam (pp. 91-100). The Netherlands:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
de Leon, K. D. (2016). The Intelligibility of Philippine English to selected Asean Countries
(Unpublished Dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila
Flores, E. R. (2016). Phonological Features of Basilectal Philippine English: An Exploratory Study.
Presented at DLSU Research Congress 2016.
Hung, T. (2000). Towards a phonology of Hongkong English. World Englishes, 19(3), 337-356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00183
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the
outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the
language and the literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

106
Published by SCHOLINK INC.
 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt Studies in English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 2, 2022

McKaughan, H. (1993). Toward a standard Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 24(2),
41-45.
Nicanor, G. (2014). Segmental features of English modeled by selected professors in a state university
in the Philippines: Implications in teaching English. International Journal of Research Studies in
Language Learning, 3(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2013.475
Tayao, M. L. (2004). The Evolving Study of Philippine English Phonology. World Englishes, 23(1),
77-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00336.x
Torres, J. M., Matildo, R. M. E., Somblingo, R. A., Delos Santos, M., & ALieto, E. (2021). Another
look at the Phonological Features of Lectal Speakers: Re-validation of the Description of the
Philippine English’s Phonology. TESOL International Journal, 16(4.3), 103-114.
Tuplano, M. V. (2011). Phonological Features of the prehires of John. Retrieved from
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/4140

107
Published by SCHOLINK INC.

View publication stats