As Zhao (1997) and Blau (1990) noted, the inconsistent and incomparable results shown in the previous rate studies were led by the varying speech rate categorization adopted by different researchers. Two perspectives on categorizing speech rate can be
identified. The following will first address the learners’ perspective that categorizes speech rate based on learners’ perceived speech rate. Afterwards, the textual
perspective focusing on the text types from which the standard speech rate
categorization was measured will be elucidated. Finally, a summary regarding these two perspectives is presented
2.4.1. Speech Rate Categorized by Learners’ Perspective
In response to the growing attention to the student-centered concept in the field of language teaching and learning, this approach proposed that there is an absence of the optimal speech rate that could be generalized to all learners as fast, slow, or normal due to individual differences, thus defining speech rate via learners’
perspective (Zhao, 1997; Chaudron, 1983). Nevertheless, empirical evidence has indicated a discrepancy between learners’ perceived speech rate and the actual condition of the listening input (Drewing & Munro, 1997, 2001; Hasan, 2000). In other words, the speech rate perceived as fast or slow by language learners might not correspond to what actually happened.
To solve the inconsistent, incomparable results among the previous rate studies that resulted from the wide discrepancy predefined by researchers for speech rate, Zhao (1997) suggested that the issue be approached form learners’ perspective since the fast and slow speech rate would differ from learner to learner. Chaudron (1983) also advocated this contention and added that the categorization of speech rate could be quite different across language learners due to different proficiency level. Although these statements may sound logical, there is a great possibility that the speech rate could be perceived as slow or fast due to many other unknown factors as reported by two anonymous reviewers in Flowerdew’s book (1994) that “the speed of delivery is an effect of difficulty in comprehension, not a cause, i.e. non-native speakers have
problems understanding and, therefore, perceive speech as fast, even though
objectively it is not” (p.36). Drewing and Munro (1997, 2001), and Hasan (2000) also indicated that language learners may think the speaker spoke too fast as the reason for their difficulty in comprehending the text, while in fact the speech rate was not the main cause but some other features such as pronunciation, hesitation, pauses, and varied accents. Whether it was the speech rate, or any other variables that made language learners interpret the delivery speed as fast or slow become unknown, resulting in the speech rate exploited as the single, main variable in rate studies impossible to attain.
Additionally, the non-existence of generalized speech rate implied by the learners’ approach presents a great obstacle for researchers in categorizing, or defining, the speech rate objectively, that in turn hinders the exploration of the physical phenomena and the conceptualization of feasible theory that implements practical pedagogical approaches.
In short, in order to investigate speech rate as the main variable in listening comprehension and to construct a feasible pedagogical practice, the learners’
perspective for speech rate might be problematic.
2.4.2. Speech Rate Categorized by Textual Perspective
The researchers embracing speech rate categorization based on the textual perspective pay careful attention to the source one utilizes for determining certain speech rate as fast or slow. To justify the adoption of the speech rate categorization, the same text type between the texts used to map out a standard speech rate
categorization and the texts used to be categorized by the standard speech rate categorization is emphasized, e.g. if the standard speech rate categorization was measured from news, the listening texts have also to be news in order to use the
standard speech rate categorization to categorize the speech rate of the listening text.
From the textual perspective, speech rate varies in different text types. Therefore, the validity of the results in Dunkel’s (1988) study might be in question since the texts used are lectures, and yet the speech rate categorization applied was Pimsleur’s (1977) categorization, based on a corpus data collected from the radio announcers. This adoption is illegitimate from the textual perspective because the news and lecture are different text types, and the standard speech rate is likely to differ among various circumstances (Tauroza and Allison,1990).
Besides from criticizing the illegitimate adoption of speech rate categorization, Tauroza and Allison (1990) also pointed out that Pimsleur’s (1977) speech rate categorization could not suffice for defining English speech rate because it was based on a speech rate analysis of 15 American and 15 French radio news announcers.
Tauroza and Allison (1990) thus conducted a speech rate analysis on the news announcer of English speakers to provide a standard speech rate categorization for English. Mismatch was found between the categorization illustrated by Tauroza and Allison (1990), and Pimsleur et al. (1977). The fastest speech rate in the
categorization mapped out by Tauroza and Allison was much slower than that mapped out by Pimsleur et al. (1977). The terms used for the fastest and the slowest speech rate were also different. The “fast” and “slow” in Pimsleur’s (1977) categorization were termed “faster then normal” and “slower than normal” in Tauroza and Allison’s categorization. (Pimsleur’s speech rate categorization is delineated in Table 1; Tauroza and Allison’s speech rate categorization is illustrated in Table 2). Considering the fact that Tauroza and Allison’s speech rate categorization was mapped out based on the speakers of English, the target language in this study, it is employed in this study as the standard speech rate categorization.
2.4.3. Summary
Building upon previous review of the learners’ perspective and the textual perspective on categorizing speech rate, it is apparent that the reliability and the validity of rate studies hinges on their perspective on speech rate categorization. With regard to the learner’s perspective, it could be too subjective and is not reliable due to its dependence on the learners’ perception. An objective, legitimate outcome could only be obtained by adopting the textual perspective that validly categorizes the speech rate as fast or slow for research purpose.