Phonological Deviations in Georgian EFL Learners’ Pronunciation within Academic Discourse

Abstract

This study investigates phonological deviations in the English pronunciation of Georgian EFL learners, focusing on vowel production and its influence on oral fluency within academic discourse. Although fluency is often seen as a measure of language proficiency, pronunciation remains a persistent challenge for Georgian learners due to limited contact with native speakers, cross-linguistic transfer from Georgian, and interference from English orthography. Unlike English, Georgian lacks reduced vowels and phonemic vowel length distinctions, while its transparent orthographic system encourages learners to associate spelling with sound. These structural differences often lead to mispronunciations that decrease clarity in academic contexts. The research was conducted at Tbilisi State University with 20 undergraduate participants enrolled in a Practical Phonetics course. Data were collected through classroom observations, audio recordings, and an error focused checklist across 14 sessions, totaling approximately 200 minutes of student speech. A mixed-methods approach combined quantitative categorisation of frequent vowel errors with qualitative thematic analysis. The checklist targeted monophthong/diphthong quality, vowel length, and schwa realisation, allowing systematic identification of patterns and their possible causes. Results revealed several consistent tendencies. High-frequency monophthong-to-monophthong substitu tions often affected meaning (e.g., word → ward). Schwa was particularly unstable, often replaced by full vowels or diphthongs in suffixes (e.g., dangerous → /ˈde nd ro s/, government → /ˈg v rm nt/). Overgeneralisation of suffix pronunciation, such as treating -ate endings as verb forms (climate → /ˈkla me t/), further highlighted orthographic influence. Vowel length inconsistencies, especially the substitution of /iː/ with / /, indicated difficulties in perceiving and producing length contrasts absent in Georgian. Learners also displayed varying strategies with diphthongs: both monophthongisation (most → /m st/) and diphthongisation (country → /ˈka ntri/) were observed, reflecting unstable phonological representations. The analysis suggests these deviations originate from interactions of first-language transfer, reliance on spelling, and developmental interlanguage processes. While some patterns align with global EFL trends, others are specific to the Georgian phonological system, notably the absence of vowel reduction and the strong grapheme-phoneme correspondence in Georgian. Pedagogically, the findings highlight the importance of targeted instruction prioritising intelligibility over native-like accuracy. Explicit training in vowel length distinctions, schwa usage, and stress placement should be combined with perception-based methods and contextual listening practice. Raising awareness of irregularities in English spelling–sound correspondence can reduce overreliance on orthography. Additionally, fostering learners’ ability to perceive and produce high-functional-load vowel contrasts will likely improve overall communicative effectiveness. In conclusion, the study emphasises both universal and Georgian-specific pronunciation challenges, offering empirical evidence for curriculum development and teaching strategies in EFL contexts. Future research with larger samples and automated acoustic analysis is recommended to validate these findings and monitor developmental changes in learners’ phonological competence.