I am currently in Singapore, and it is fascinating to listen to the announcements on the MRT (Mass Rapid Transport, the underground train system). The announcer very carefully pronounces the [d] in 'mind the gap' and the final [t] in 'next' in the phrase 'next station', even though it would be normal for native speakers to omit these sounds. If retaining the [d] and [t] helps improve intelligibility, particularly in a noisy train, then such careful articulation is to be applauded.
One other area where the announcer deviates from native speaker pronunciation patterns is for phrasal sounds. For example:
Change here for the Circle LINE. (stressed on 'line')
whereas a native speaker would say:
Change here for the CIRCle line. (stressed on 'circle')
because 'Circle Line' is a phrasal noun that would normally be stressed on the first item.
But does stressing 'line' interfere with intelligibility? In the context of Singapore, where the special pattern of stress for phrasal nouns is not generally found, it probably makes little difference; and stressing 'line' rather than 'circle' helps to mark the end of the utterance, so it may actually play an important communicative role.
