Hi Alex,

that's a very good point, the descriptors are quite vague and, at least by
default, they are native-speaker referenced. I can't quote them exactly (for
confidentiality reasons, although also due to a poor memory!), but the
description of prosody (in the higher bands) is mainly in terms of discourse
'chunking' and only talks about it being 'acceptable'. I'm sure you are right
that examiners would interpret 'acceptable' to mean 'the way native speakers do
it.'

Although fairly vague, the 'revised pronunciation scale' (2007) is a vast
improvement on the old scale, which was extremely vague. It's available here for
anyone who is interested: http://www.ielts.org/PDF/UOBDs_SpeakingFinal.pdf

Steph

--- In iatefl_pronsig@..., "pronsig_mod" <pronsig_mod@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steph,
>
> I think the fact that prosodic features are 'tested' in oral exams is an
important point. The problem is deciding which aspects of prosody should be
measured. The definitions used in international exams and in the Common European
framework are incredibly vague - generally they just say that intonation must be
correct!
> Oral examiners are experienced teachers and are given training, but intonation
seems to be judged subjectively with little indication of what counts as a
significant error. If intonation patterns are just about 'sounding like a
native' then surely we should drop them completely from tests that are supposed
to be measuring communicative competence.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
> --- In iatefl_pronsig@..., "stephanie gilkes" <stephaniegilkes@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just wanted to add a minor point to this discussion. Regarding item 5
'intonation doesn't really matter': on a practical note, it does matter for
people intending to take the IELTS exam. In the new pronunciation scale,
prosodic features are essential criteria for bands 7 to 9.
> >
> > Steph
> >
> > --- In iatefl_pronsig@..., jmtiziani@ wrote:
> > >
> > >