Abishek — Independent Phonetic Evaluation by Jane Timokhin, Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics

Student and assessment information

Student testimonial

LinkedIn

AbishekData Science Engineer
Tamil and Indian
English speaker

“I feel confident enough to speak American English!”

Interactive American Accent Training

9monthsof hard work and dedication

Month 1Confident speaker

Before trainingIndependent evaluation62/100

Listen to the starting point0:00

After trainingIndependent evaluation84/100

Listen to the result0:00

Pronunciation scores by Jane Timokhin, Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics

100 represents a reference benchmark for General American English pronunciation. Scores come from an independent phonetic evaluation, not a standardized test.

Professional phonetic evaluationRead Jane Timokhin’s Full Sound-by-Sound Phonetic Evaluation →

LinkedIn

Prof. AlexPh.D. Accent Coach,
Doctor of Education,
and professional linguist

MyAccentWay pronunciation training incorporates educational conditions developed and experimentally investigated in Prof. Alex’s doctoral research. The following before-and-after recordings document individual students’ pronunciation development through personalized instruction based on these research-informed principles.

This before-and-after comparison documents Abishek’s individual pronunciation development in MyAccentWay’s research-based pronunciation training, which incorporates educational conditions developed and investigated in Prof. Alex’s doctoral research. It is an individual student case, not part of the original experiment.

Book 1 Hour Evaluation Session

Evaluation methodology

Comparative auditory-phonetic analysis of two speech recordings, in Jane Timokhin’s words: “I evaluated the pronunciation characteristics demonstrated in two recordings using a weighted, five-category auditory-phonetic framework. I considered both segmental production (consonants and vowels) and suprasegmental features (stress, intonation, rhythm, and connected speech). The same categories and maximum scores were applied to both recordings.”

The evaluator listened to both recordings and assessed the pronunciation features below against a General American English reference, identifying the sounds produced accurately, the sounds showing non-native phonetic influence, and the differences between the two recordings.

Scores describe pronunciation relative to the specified reference, not overall English proficiency or communication ability.

Consonant-by-consonant evaluation

Vowel and diphthong evaluation

Word stress, rhythm, and connected speech

American intonation and speech melody

Scoring framework and results

Criteria applied

• Consonant production (25%): accuracy and consistency of consonant articulation, voicing contrasts, consonant clusters, and phonemic distinctions.
• Vowel production (25%): vowel quality, tense–lax contrasts, diphthongs, duration, and consistency of vowel distinctions.
• Word and sentence stress (15%): lexical stress, prominence, stressed and unstressed syllables, and vowel reduction.
• Intonation and rhythm (20%): pitch contours, timing, rhythmic organization, and distribution of prominence.
• Connected speech (15%): linking, reductions, assimilation, and transitions between sounds and words.

Interpretation

The first recording received 62/100 and the second received 84/100, a difference of 22 points (approximately 35.5% relative to the first score). Scores increased in all five categories. These ratings describe pronunciation performance within this assessment framework; they are not standardized measures of native-speaker equivalence. Comparison of two recordings alone does not establish which instructional intervention caused the differences.

Independent professional findings

1. Which pronunciation characteristics differ most noticeably between the recordings?

Vowels, American R, TH, consonants, stress, rhythm, intonation, connected speech, and fluency.

2. Which Tamil- and Indian English-influenced patterns are present in Recording A?

Less American vowel contrast, fuller unstressed syllables, more syllable-by-syllable timing, dental and retroflex consonant placement, a less stable American R, substitutions for TH, /v/–/w/ overlap, weaker aspiration, and lighter final consonants and clusters.

3. Which of those patterns changed in Recording B?

Clearer vowels, more stable R, better TH targets, stronger final consonants, and more natural American aspiration and consonant placement.

4. What differences are evident in American intonation, rhythm, and speech melody?

Smoother connected speech and more natural American rhythm and intonation.

5. Which pronunciation characteristics remain different from the General American reference?

After approximately nine months of training, Abishek’s overall pronunciation rating increased from 62/100 to 84/100. The approved evaluation identifies five remaining differences from General American targets: (1) variable rhotic resonance in connected speech, including words such as brother and warning; (2) inconsistent dental placement and frication for TH sounds, as in brother and thought; (3) inconsistent context-appropriate /t/ articulation, including the flap target in water; (4) variable front-vowel height and quality affecting the /æ/–/ɛ/ distinction, as in had and head; and (5) remaining differences in contrastive stress, unstressed-word reduction, and pitch movement across phrases. These findings describe refinement priorities, not measured error rates for individual words.

6. What is your overall professional interpretation of the comparison?

The change is best understood as a full sound-system transformation, not a single sound correction. The comparison shows a shift from English that is clear enough to communicate, but still shaped by the speaker’s original pronunciation system, toward speech that uses more of the pronunciation, rhythm, stress, vowel, and connected-speech patterns associated with General American English.

Independent evaluator’s conclusion

Professional summary of findings: Abishek’s pronunciation moved from moderately accented English toward substantially more native-like General American pronunciation, with a 22-point improvement on the evaluation scale. The overall pattern shows a shift from more noticeably accented English toward clearer, more stable General American pronunciation.

Evaluator’s declaration

I confirm that the scores, category weights, and assessment descriptions above accurately represent my independent professional evaluation of the recordings. I did not participate in the student’s pronunciation training. My conclusions are limited to the speech samples assessed.

I have disclosed whether I participated in the student’s training and any relevant relationship with MyAccentWay.

The conclusions are based on the pronunciation features identifiable in the recordings. They do not, by themselves, establish the effectiveness of any particular teaching method or represent a standardized clinical or scientific pronunciation test.