115
The style of academic writing
as we have noted earlier. As the case studies have demonstrated, there are also
numerous practical difficulties that can complicate a social worker’s intention
to work alongside service users, acting as far as possible in accordance with
their wishes.
There is no single way if managing service user engagement, a message that
is made clear from a variety of different pieces of research. There will be nu-
merous sets of circumstances where the actions one takes as a social worker
will contradict an individual’s expressed desires, or will not balance the com-
peting preferences of users and carers, or when the evidence from other forms
of knowledge would strongly suggest a course of action that a service user does
not welcome. In such circumstances, the challenge will be to reach a solution
that respects the desires of each individual even if it does not equate with that
person’s wishes (Beresford et al., 2007).
(Adapted from Wilson et al., 2008: 428)
Example: conclusion 3
In terms of pronunciation, what the discussion in this chapter indicates is the
need for some sort of international core for phonological intelligibility: a set of
unifying features which, at the very least, has the potential to guarantee that
pronunciation will not impede successful communication in EIL [English as
an International Language] settings. This core will be contrived to the extent
that its features are not identical with those of any L1 or L2 variety of English.
As we will see in Chapter 6, a phonological core of this kind already exists
among all L1 speakers of English, whatever their variety. A core of sorts also
exists among L2 speakers, insofar as speakers of all languages share certain
phonological features and processes. However, this shared element is limited.
Thus, while we can build on what L2 speakers already have in common
phonologically, we must take the argument one very large step further by
identifying what they need to have in common and contriving a pedagogic
core that focuses on this need. However, such a core, while necessary, will not
alone be sufficient to achieve the goal of preventing pronunciation from
impeding communication. Mamgbose makes the obvious yet frequently
missed point that ‘it is people, not language codes, that understand one
another’ (1998: 11). Participants in EIL will also need to be able to tune into
each other’s accents and adjust both their own phonological output and their
respective expectations accordingly.
In Chapters 6 and 7 we will look more closely at these two approaches to EIL
communication and consider their pedagogic implications. Chapter 6 is both a
discussion of the complex issues involved in the establishing of a core of
phonological intelligibility for EIL, and a presentation of the core being pro-
posed here. Then, in Chapter 7, we move on to a consideration of how best
to both promote learners’ productive and receptive use of this core, and to
encourage the development of speaker/listener accommodative processes
which will facilitate mutual intelligibility in EIL. But first, in the following
chapter, we will consider in detail the relationship between L1 phonological
transfer and EIL intelligibility.
(Adapted from Jenkins, 2000: 95–6)
M04_BEGL1703_00_SE_C04.QXD 5/15/09 7:19 AM Page 115