Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
Vol. 3:2 (2017) ► pp.267–287

Establishing an empirical basis for priorities in pronunciation teaching

| | Northern Arizona University |
| | Brock University |

The central purpose of this study is to illustrate how ESL instructors can take a principled approach to setting pronunciation instruction priorities for learners. Elicited speech samples from 30 adult English learners were analysed for suprasegmental and segmental pronunciation features. Guided by Levis’ (2005) intelligibility principle, results of the analysis led to recommended foci for pronunciation instruction. The study’s participants come from three distinct first language (L1) backgrounds (Mandarin Chinese, Colombian Spanish, and Slavic), reflecting the type of linguistic breadth found in typical ESL classrooms. It is recommended that problematic features observed in the speech of participants from all three L1s be addressed as a whole group, with each L1 group also receiving separate instruction for their specific difficulties. Finally, results of the speech analysis are compared with previously published material describing L1-specific pronunciation difficulties.

Keywords: pronunciation, needs analysis, intelligibility, ESL, L1-influence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Intelligibility
    • 2.2Research-based priorities for ESL pronunciation instruction
    • 2.3Functional load
    • 2.4L1-specific pronunciation difficulties
    • 2.5Opacity in English orthography and orthographic depth distance between L1 and English
  • 3.Data and analysis
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Analysis
      • 3.2.1Suprasegmental analysis
      • 3.2.2Segmental analysis
  • 4.Results and recommendations for pronunciation instruction priorities
    • 4.1Inter-rater agreement
    • 4.2Suprasegmentals
    • 4.3Segmentals
    • 4.4Comparison of observed divergence and published L1-specific descriptions
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Practicality of published L1-specific divergence descriptions
    • 5.2Limitations of the current study and future directions
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.2.05mca
References
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K.
(1992) The relationship between native speaker judgements of nonnnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audacity Team
(2014) Audacity (Version 2.0.0) [Computer program]. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from 〈[URL]〉
Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S.
(1992) Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benrabah, M.
(1997) Word-stress: A source of unintelligibility in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35(3), 157–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A.
(2003) The inter language speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bent, T., Bradlow, A., & Smith, B.
(2007) Segmental errors in different word positions and their effects on intelligibility of non-native speech. In M. Munro & O. Bohn (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 331–347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., Lemhofer, K., & Mani, N.
(2011) Perceiving unstressed vowels in foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(1), 376–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.
(1988) Functional load and the teaching of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 593–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J.
(1987) Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation: A systemic description of English phonology. In J. Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp. 87–100). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J.
(2010) Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(1996) The past, present and future of English rhythm. Speak Out, 181, 8–13.Google Scholar
Derwing, T.
(2010) Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, September 2009 (pp. 24–37). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M.
(1997) Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Rossiter, M.
(2002) ESL learners' perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30(2), 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dich, N., & Pederson, B.
(2013) Native language effects on spelling in English as a foreign language: A time-course analysis. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Erdener, V., & Burnham, D.
(2005) The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55(2), 191–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, J.
(2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L.
(2013) Second language acquisition: An introductory course (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E.
(1984) The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilner, L., & Morales, F.
(2010) Functional load: Transcription and analysis of the 10, 000 most frequent words in spoken English. Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 135–161.Google Scholar
Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J.
(2011) Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue. Computer Speech and Language, 25(3), 601–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H.
(2011) Understanding phonology. London, UK: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.
(2000) The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, O.
(2013) Relative impact of pronunciation features on ratings of non-native speakers’ oral proficiency. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, August 2012 (pp. 10–15). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Levis, J.
(1999) Intonation in theory and practice revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mei, L., Xue, G., Lu, Z., He, Q., Zhang, M., Xue, F., Chen, C., & Dong, Q
2013 Orthographic transparency modulates the functional asymmetry in the fusiform cortex: An artificial language training study. Brain and Language, 125(2), 165–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M.
(2011) Intelligibility: Buzzword or buzzworthy? In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, September 2010 (pp. 7–16). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Munro, M., & Derwing, T.
(1995) Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, M., Derwing, T., & Thomson, R.
(2015) Implications of naturalistic segment development for pronunciation teaching technology. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(1), 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neef, M., & Balestra, M.
(2011) Measuring graphemic transparency: German and Italian compared. Written Language and Literacy, 14(1), 109–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sewell, A.
(2010) Research methods and intelligibility studies. World Englishes, 29(2), 257–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shokeir, V.
(2008) Evidence for the stable use of uptalk in South Ontario English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected papers from NWAV36, 14(2), 14–24.Google Scholar
Tajima, K., Port, R., & Dalby, J.
(1997) Effects of temporal correction on intelligibility of foreign-accented English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R., & Derwing, T.
(2015) The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
(2012) Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, R.
(2010) Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winters, S., & O’Brien, M.
(2013) Perceived accentedness and intelligibility: The relative contributions of F0 and duration. Speech Communication, 55(3), 486–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yavaş, M.
(2011) Applied English phonology. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zielinski, B.
(2008) The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36(1), 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar