Prosodic Features of Jonglish Community: An Effort to A Glocalization

Keywords: glocalization, Jonglish, prosodic features


The current study aims to glocalize the Jonglish community by comparing the pitch and intensity of the accents of native English speakers and Javanese speakers. Thirty-two university students whose first language was Javanese, coming from seven different regencies in Central Java, became the respondents. They are all first-semester students from various Java Island regencies, ranging in age from 19 to 21. The research instrument comprised an oral test of 10 academic vocabulary words and 5 phrases or sentences. Using PRAAT software, the oral test result is examined for the pitch and volume of the sound. The data show each respondent's and native speaker’s average, lowest, and maximum pitch and intensity. The average pitch of the respondents increased by 127.57 Hz, whereas a natural speaker’s pitch is 198.25 Hz. The average Javanese accent's intensity was measured at 65.11 decibels, while a native English speaker's accent was measured at 70.85 decibels. According to the results, there is no discernible difference between the native English speaker and the Javanese accent in terms of pitch or intensity. Even if there are imperfections in individual sounds, listeners may still understand and perceive speech as fluent as long as the prosodic features are well-executed. Consequently, it is acceptable to speak English with a Jonglish accent. Additionally, it might have an impact on cross-cultural communication strategies, foreign language teaching techniques, and linguistic studies on English-Jonglish prosody blending.


Anderson-Hsieh, J. J. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of non-native pronunciation and deviance in segmental, prosody, and syllable structure. Language learning, 539-55.
Ardini, S. N., WL, M. Y., & Ouwpoly, N. L. (2016). Error analysis of phonetic fossilization uttered by English department students University of PGRI Semarang. Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya, 6(1), 1-8.
Ardini, S. N., Priyolistiyanto, A., & Cuong, V. H. (2022). Fossilization analysis on segmental and suprasegmental features of EFL learners (Javanese-English): A comparative study. KnE Social Sciences, 299-310. DOI:
Asghari, S. Z., Farashi, S., Bashirian, S., & Jenabi, E. (2021). Distinctive prosodic features of people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Scientific reports, 11(1), 23093.
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2019). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches. 5th ed. University of Nebraska: Lincoln.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 1-16.
Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2003). The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied language learning, 13(1), 1-17.
EF-Education-First, 2020. EF English proficiency index. Available at epi/.
Gorjian, B., Hayati, A., & Pourkhoni, P. (2012). Using Praat software in teaching prosodic features to EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, pp. 34-40.
Gutzman, C. (2000). Lingua franca. The Routledge encyclopaedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge, 356, 359.
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press.
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). The phonology of rhythm. Cambridge University Press.
Hart, G. (1975). Accent and rhythm: Prosodic features of Latin and Greek: A study in theory and reconstruction. Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, M. I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T. S., Saul, L. K. (1999). An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Mach. Learn, 37(2), 183–233.
Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554-566.
Kang, O. (2008). Ratings of L2 oral performance in English: Relative impact of rater characteristics and acoustic measures of accentedness. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 6, pp.181-205.
Khondker, H. H. (2004). Glocalization as globalization: Evolution of a sociological concept. Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology, 1(2), 1-9.
Kirkpatrick A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Li, D. C. (2006). Problematizing empowerment: On the merits and demerits of non-native models of English in the EIL curriculum. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 112-131.
Lim, L. (2004). Singapore English: A grammatical approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lim, L., Pakir, A., & Wee, L. (2010). English in Singapore: Modernity and management (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.
Mary, L., & Yegnanarayana, B. (2008). Prosodic features for language identification. International Conference on Signal Processing, Communications and Networking, 57-62. DOI 10.1109/ICSCN.2008.4447161
Mirfendereski, Y., & Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2021). Exploring Iranian EFL teachers’ perspectives on techniques of teaching prosodic features of speech. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 159–170.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
Purwaningsih, R., & Nurdiawati, D. (2020). The influence of Javanese accent toward the Students’ English consonant pronunciation at English education study program of Universitas Peradaban: Array. Jurnal Dialektika Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 8(1), 55-68.
Robentson, R. (2015). Beyond the discourse of globalization. Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics, and Innovation, 1, p.1-14. DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Robertson, R. (2000). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Shankar, S. (2008). Desi Land: Teen culture, class, and success in silicon valley. Duke University Press. DOI:
Sharifian, F. (2018). Glocalization of English. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-12.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Senowarsito, S., & Ardini, S. N. (2019). Phonological fossilisation of EFL learners: The interference of phonological and orthographic system of L1 Javanese. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(2). DOI: https://doi. org/10.26877/allure. v1i2, 10726.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014). Accent and identity: Exploring the perceptions among bilingual speakers of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(5), 544-557. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.837861
Suzukida, Y., & Saito, K. (2022). What is second language pronunciation proficiency? An empirical study. System, 106, 102754.
Wang, Y. (2013). Non-conformity to ENL norms: A perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), 255-282.
Wardani, N. A., & Suwartono, T. (2019). Javanese language interference in the pronunciation of English phonemes. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 6(2), 14–25.
Widdowson, H. G. (2002). The ownership of English. In Enriching ESOL pedagogy (pp. 405-416). Routledge. [Online Video]. Available:
How to Cite
Ardini, S., & Senowarsito, S. (2023). Prosodic Features of Jonglish Community: An Effort to A Glocalization. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 8(2), 379-394.