1. Do ‘hall’ and ‘hole’ still matter
Do ‘hall’ and ‘hole’ still matter?: Perceptions of Sri Lankan English pronunciation
Dinali Fernando
University of Kelaniya
8th International SLELTA Conference
3 October 2014
Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, Colombo

2. Background
SLE pronunciation described by several researchers (C Fernando 1977, S Fernando 1985, Gunesekera 2005)
Variation in pronunciation within SLE
Gunesekera (2005) identified variation within SLE as standard and non-standard features based on social class: “SSLE is spoken by the elite”
Studies mainly focus on segmental features

3. Some features codified as SSLE (Gunesekera 2005)
the replacement of diphthongs [eɪ] and [aʊ] with [eː] and [oː]
The replacement of interdental fricatives [ð] [θ]with dental plosives [d̪] [t̪]
The replacement of the labiovelar approximant [w] with the labiodental approximant [ʋ]

4. Features considered non Standard SLE (Gunesekera 2005):
Confusing [o] and [ɔ] hall/hole
Confusing [f] and [p] fan/pan
Insertion of the close front vowel [I] before consonant clusters stay, school
Use of [s] in place of [z] zoo, zip
Use of [ʃ] in place of [s] seat, sell
Use of [æ] in place of [ə] address, advantage

5. Subsequent studies have contested some of these classifications:
Replacing [ɔ] with [o] is now widely observed among the educated and professional elite (Fernando 2008)
Initial [æ] was also observed among senior academics in three universities (Liyanage 2010)
The changing elite reflected in SLE phonology
Largely made up of speakers of SLE as an L2

6. Limitations in SLE pron studies
Except for Liyanage’s (2010) very small sample of nine respondents, most SLE phonology studies are based on researchers’ informed, but subjective observations
Very little is known about how speakers themselves perceive these features
The lack of evidence in the form of large-scale studies, empirical data has been highlighted by researchers themselves (Parakrama 1995, Gunesekera 2005, Mendis and Rambukwella 2010, Liyanage 2010)  
This study is therefore a preliminary attempt to understand the views of SLE speakers who can be described as part of the changing elite
– proficient L2 speakers located outside the urban centres who will be the new gatekeepers of language usage

7. Methodology A quasi-verbal guise test – a ‘spoken’ questionnaire
3 SSLE and 8 NSSLE features tested for acceptability with a Lickert scale
Group administered

8. Participants
University students studying English Outside the traditional ‘centres of the English speaking class - Gatekeepers of English usage in the future N= 63 Age: Over 95% % female students, 5% male students Almost all L2 speakers of English: L1 No
Sinhala 61
Sinhala/Tamil 01
English 1

9. Participants’ hometowns
Galle (10)
Kandy (9)
Matara (6)
Kurunegala (4)
Horana (3)
Kegalle (2)
Matale (2)
Wariyapola (2)
Kadawatha (2)
Akuressa (1)
Anuradhapura (1)
Badulla (1)
Bibile (1)
Colombo (1)
Ganemulla (1)
Homagama (1)
Kaduwela (1)
Kalutara (1)
Kelaniya (1)
Kottawa (1)
Kuliyapitiya (1)
Makola (1)
Malabe (1)
Moratuwa (1)
Mulleriyawa (1)
Narammala (1)
Negombo (1)
Nikaweratiya (1)
Pannipitiya (1)
Piliyandala (1)
Wattala (1)

10. Findings

11. The codified SSLE features were largely endorsed as acceptable by the participants%
the replacement of diphthongs [eɪ] and [aʊ] with [eː] and [oː] 98
The replacement of interdental fricatives [ð] [θ]with dental plosives [d̪] [t̪]
The replacement of [w] with the labiodental approximate [ʋ] 96

12. Some NSSLE features were rejected by the participants%
[s]  [ʃ] seat, cell and support as [ʃiːt], [ʃel] and [ʃʌpoːt] 90
[f]  [p] fan, fail and physical as [pæːn], [peːl], and [pɪsɪkəl]
[p][ f] airport, pancake and professor as [ejɑ:foːt], [fæːnkeːk] and [frofesə] 82
Insertion of the close front vowel [I]
school and station as [ɪskuːl] and [ɪsteːʃən] 74
[z]  [s] zoo, zip and zebra as [suː], [sɪp] and [siːbrɑ] 54

13. Some NSSLE features were accepted by the participants%
[ɔ]  [o] top, caught, and fall as [top], [koːt] and [foːl]
90%
[o]  [ɔ] total, telephone, and hotel as [tɔtl] [telɪfɔn] and [hɔtel]
92%
[ə]  [æ] assistant, advantage and address as [æsɪstənt], [ædvɑːnteːdʒ], & [ædrəs]
80%

14. Participant comments
Several participants stated that possible miscommunication was the reason for rejecting a feature as an error (fan/pan)
Many participants endorsed SLE pronunciation – easier, more suitable, our identity
One participant stated that her choices of correctness was influenced by her own pronunciation

15. Conclusions
Although several NSSLE features have also been rejected, a significant, much debated feature has been accepted
“hole” and “hall” don’t matter to the future gatekeepers
The study confirms Fernando’s (2008) observation
Further questions the wrongness traditionally ascribed to this feature
Further study needed to explore these initial impressions

16. References
Fernando, C. (1977). English in Si Lanka: A case study of a bilingual community. Language in Society 6 Fernando, S. (1985). Changes in Sri Lankan English as reflected in phonology. University of Colombo Review 5, Fernando, S. (2008). When is a ‘hall’ a ‘hole’: Issues and Guidelines in Sri Lankan English Pronunciation. In (eds.) D. Fernando and D. Mendis, English for Equality, Employment and Empowerment: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Sri Lanka English Language Teachers’ Association, Colombo, Sri Lanka Gunesekera, M (2006). The postcolonial identity of Sri Lankan English. Katha Publishers: Colombo. Liyanage, S. S. D. P. (2010.) A Study of the pronunciation of the /ǝ/ phoneme among university academics. The SLELTA Quarterly, 9/ Mendis, D. and Rambukwella, H. (2010). Sri Lankan Englishes. In (ed) A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Routledge: Abingdon Parakrama, A. (1995). De-hegemonising Language Standards: Learning from (post) colonial Englishes about ‘English’. London: Macmillan

17. Thank you
Questions, comments: