-ia;it"i'r'trtil r,r F td I JtF .iJrF)* f J j.Jj J,J*j,JJ jjrt2 n i' r fl Et'i F i i i iF-1! ; -i -f __F rii i-\ Fr;: r ij siri "t\pprler BOOK DISK rl{ Un Grbl rn Eunson a2a .34 i,ANE !-irlrla !-arrtE 5*riv* I*i:*r: il" gti*gfl*t; iJri,r'*xrr VOWEL CONSONANT SYMBOLS EXAMPLE SYMBOLS EXAMPLE tiyl see, prece lpl past, pepper hl sit, give tbl box, number leyl say, break ttl time, most lel rest, head tdl date, hard lal map, laugh tkl king, come lal shut, ago lsl get, dig lol hot, father lel think, author luwl boot, shoe t6l this, other ["] book, could tfl fair, rough lowl go, road lvl vote, ever lrl bought, Iaw lsl same, nice layl buy, side [z] zoo, reason la*l house, now tJl shop, nation loyl toy, voice l:l pleasure, beige thl hear'y, ahead ItJ] check, watch tdrl joke, age lml mail, summer lnl now, know tll sing, tongue Id rent, borrow trl Iast, collect tyl year, young lwl west, away Contents t About the Series English lan[iuagc teachers alwa)'s appreciare and enjov professional reference books with prnctical classroonl approaches that are firmlv grouncled in current peclagogical r.escarcl.r. Tips for:Ie.ching is a responsc to this demancl in the form of a series of books on a varicty of topics of pmctical classroom-centcred interest. Designed for teachers of ESL in nativc Engrish speakinlr countries as welr as teacrrers of EFL in non-native English-speaking countries, z?sfar r Teacbrng acrdresses aucliences in secondarl' schools, colreges, and aclult education courses with students at var).ing levels of prolicicncy. Each book in the series is a pftrctical m:rnual that provicles teachers with clearly conceived firethodological ideas, approaches, tasks, activitics, anal,/or techniques to better accomplish their pedagogical goals. tlsers may be novice teachers seeking pr;ctical guidelines for instfuction in a specilled area, or cxperiencetl teachers in need of relicshing new ideas. Each book in the series is committed to offering soundli. conceived, realisric approaches to classroon instruction. There is some treatment of r-lndedl,inla pedagogical principles of language learning and teaching in clearr), comprehensible terms.These treat- ments arc brief and concise but not rrivial.The metho dology of rips I()r Teachitlg is based, on communicative ancl/or. task-based language teaching foundations. Sftrclent centered, interactive classroom activities fecciye primary fbcus, but not at the expense of appro_ priate tercher-cente|ed approaches or tasks fbr indi\-idual in class or homework :rctivit\r We're very pleased to present the most reccnt vohrfire in this series, this time on pro_ nunciatiur.In Tips for Teaching pronu.ncicttion. .nuthor Lincla Lanc l.ras provicled rcaders $'ith the best of cuttin€i edgc r.escarch on tlte acquisition of phonology, along with prac_ tical teclx qucs for inproving rearners' pronunciation. c)nc of the first things y'ti will notice is that the sequencing of chapters does n ot begin witl] the more traditionxl con- sonants lnd vowels. Recent research ancl practice have shown that adult learners of English find significanrl-y greater bcnelit in a primary fbcus on the prosodic elements of phonology. As thc author notes in hcr text, most misunderstendings of learners. speech production stem from $ord stress, rlr{hln, and intonation. Anothcr imporrant feature of rips for Tbaclsing pronunciation is its focus on intel- ligibilit\', comprelicnsibiliq', acccnt, and voice quality. Recognizing that achieving a ffue "nativelike" accent is an unrealistic goal for adult students, Lanc offers a common-scnse Vi AboLt! the Se es approach that encoumges teachers to work $'ith their students on the many aspects of pronunciation that inpede a listener's clear understanding of the learner's speech A third refreshing perspective provicled by thc author is her recognition of a myriad of variables that can affect a learner's oral production, not al$'ays in sJ'stematic or pre- clictxble ways. It is now well known that age, personaliq', motivation, learning style, amount of exposure, native language background, and other factors can all affect a learner's success in clifferent r.a_vs. ancl therefore eech inclividual may present a uniquc set of circumstances for the teacher to address. The author provides readers with an abunrlance of practical options to approach sr-rch variabiliry Finalll', teachers will be pleased to see in Tips for Teqcbing Pronunciation an emphasis on helping learners to become responsible for theif own linguistic der-elop- ment, so that they can eYentually wean themselves from the teacher and classroom' Exercises on selimonitorin€i range from the segmental leatures of speech to global char- acteristics of speech in a context of natural discourse And, recognizing that teachers cannot always be available for correction of student errors, Lane provides the feader with options for self- and peef-corre(:lion. Teachers who use this volume not only gain acccss to a multitude of pfactic:rl tech- niques for teaching pronunciation, but also acquire awarencss of the rationale behind such techniques. This unclerlying knowledge enables teachers to adapt techniques to their own cofltexts. Teachers will also find Tips.for TeaclJing Pronunciation to be an invaluable hamlbook of information that is easily accessed through chaptef headings, an index, and a u\ehrl bibliogr:rPh1. Best wishes as )'ou usc the tips in this book to help -vour learners achieve their goals' Dr H. Douglas l3rown Professor Elneritus, San Francisco State Uniuersity Series Edilor I NTRO D U CTIO N TEACHING NUNCIATION Reccnt lears hare scen I rcncwecl rccolaritioll that pronuncietion js :r cnlcial clement of effccti!,.e contml'llticati(nt and that proltunciation teachhg belor]gs in nlainstrc:rm. conrn ll'ri.rtiv. I:SI- classlooms ESL students pl:rcc a l-righ pfiorit\ on irst^rction in pronunciation. At the sarlc time. EsL tcacbcrs'rav fecl urcasv ab'ut teaching pronunciation becausc the) lack training in phoncti!^s or linguistics or cxperiencc in texching pronunciatiou. As a rcsult, in spitc of its rccognizccl importance to comrrunication. pronunciation is still a natginalized skill in manr ESL progruls. It should not be. Pronunciation is inti'rarcl,v linked to other oral,/;r.ml sklls, both inllucncing an<l influenced b\'listcning co',prchension a'd fl.e'cr,. Gilbcrt describcs thc rclatioflshi1t betn ccn promutciation al]d listcning comprehcnsion ils a ..speech loop betrveen spcaker and listcncr" (1987. -lJ): instruction in onc intpro\es pcdbrmancc in thc olher. for c\amplc. the reductjons that nativc speakers use in both frrrmal and infornral spcakiig arc in sl.raq) contrast to their word list pronunciati(xrs: comparc thc pronllltciation of czl promruncecl alone encl its prorunciatioll in Bed cdtt ligbt tbe bc.{con ligl.rt (/bivkat laYt 6r bi,vkan laytl). The rvord list pr(nrLrnciation. ho$.e\.er. is thc one that ntost stuclents learn first ancl the one the] expcct to hear ir.l spcaki|rg. "Xlicroieyel' listening tasks can make studcnts awarc of ltow grammar wofds like cdl/ sour]al in conltected speech ald thus il]lprol e corlprehensiotl (Choi 19f38. Murph,v 1991.). In addition, Xlichaud and l{eed nainrain thar pronunciation irNtruction can lead to inproYelnent in \\,riti1lg b_v naking students morc aw:rre of er()rs thilt occuf in borh sPcaking ancl $riting, like nissing $()rd endings (2(X)8). In this Inlroductioll. we discuss the goals of pronunciation teaching. f-actofs that aft'ect lcarning a new pronunciation. pronunciation s\.llabi, gcncral tyl)cs ol' pronunci;rtior.l excrcises and actiYities. scll-monitoring, and fccclback. C.OAIS OF PRONLINCIATION TEACHING Studcnts who lcarn Enlilish as aclnlts Or $'h0 are adults wtcn significant exposure to English begins \['ill probabll'never speak jt \1,irh a nati\.e acccnt (br.tt sec Bonlaacrts et al. 1997). A natiYelike accent is not a realistic goal ii)r studcnts. t.tor t{ Icr. hrn,g fr',nunci.rtion is it a necessaq' one for effcctive commlrnication in English More fealistic pronunciation go: s afe intelligibilit\'. confidence in speakinl], an(l a reduction of accent features that distract the listener's attention fiom intelligible mcss:rlacs (Modey 1994, Gilbert 1980, (lelce-Murcii et al. 1996). A gcntlc accent, together with accuracy in other areas of English (grammar', word choice), can even be an advxntage, conferring on thc speaker positil'e qualities like sophistication and irtclligence. While these are not modest goals and not all students achieYe them, most stlrdents can (and do) learn to speak lnore clearl)'and conlidently Intelligibility, Cornprehensibility, Accent, and Yoice Quality Intettigibitity refers to the dellrcc to $'hich a listener can recognize words, phrascs. and utterances (smith and Nelson 1985, smith 1992, Derwing alld Munro 1997).In research, it is rtsuallJr measured by asking listcners to tmnscribc nonnativc spe€ch ancl comparing thc worcls listeners recognize with the words speakers intend. Another term, comprehensibili4,', descrlbcs the easc with which listeners can understand a nonnative speaker (llerwing and Munro 2005). "Confortable intelligibility" is also usecl in this sense (Abercrombie 1949, Kenworthv 1987, 16). Accent refers to noticeable differences betwccn native and nonnative pronunciations. Wlile htelligibilit)', compre hensibiliq', and accent are interwoven, they are also, to a certain extent, indePendent lt is possible, fbf example, fbr even heavily accented spcech to be intelligible. Vrtice quality refers to pronunciatiol.) features that arc gcnerall,v present in nativc speech, like averagc level of'Pitch The goal of inte lligibilit.Y is uncontroYersial: Without intclligibilit t', conlnlunication is impossible. Considering all areas of language, errors s-ith pronunciation and worcl choicc (the choice of an inappropriate word to exprcss a speakcr's meaning) afe the rwo t,vpcs of errors most likely to nake a student incompre hensible (Gass ancl Sclinkcr 2001, 266). Grammatical errors, such :rs omitting tlre past tense in a selltence (c.g ,I'ast nlght I go to d lnof ie) rarel-v lead to unintelligibiliry althou€lh a ltrrge number of grammatical errors, togethcr witl.I pronunciation cffors, can reduce comprehensibilitv (Varonis ancl Gass 1982), as can ronpronunciation discortrse etrors ('Nler 1992) Research on the contribution of pronturciation to intelligibilit]' has asked which t'catures of pronunciation havc the greatest impact Accurate use of suprasegmentals (stress, rhlthm, and intonatiort appears to have a grcater impact on intelli€libility assessments b)' rrative listencrs than accruate promrnciation of consonanis and vorvels (see, for example, Anclerson Hsieh et al. 1992, Derwing, Munro and Wicbe 1998. Hahn 2004). Tllese strtdies havc inYestigated the pronuncietion of primarily intefnediate ancl athanced ESL learners, and it is tlot clear whether the same finclings wor'rld hold lbr studcnts at lowcr levels of proficienc)'. In addition, experjirental conditions can be far removcd from real situations in which two per)ple try to unclerstand each othcr Assessmcnts of illtelligibilitv also dePcnd on w-ho the Listeucrs ere Most research on intelligibiliq' hes usecl mtive Englisll listel]ers When nonnative listeners iudge thc Teaching Pronunciation 3 intelligibility of norxratiye speakers, their assessments are sometimes based on aspects of pronunciation that are not importanr to native listeners Oenkins 2000, 2002; Field 2005).I'he familiarity of the listener with nonnati\,e speech in gene ral, with a particular foreign accent, and with a particr- ar nomative speaker also ailbcts ;rssessments of intelligibility: Thc greater the familiarity, the more intelligible the speech (Gass and Varonis 1984). Because of this, ESL teachcrs may not be the best judges of their students' intelligibility. Kenworth,v suggests that teachers sct higher standards for intelligibilit!' than what they themselves actually require in the classroom (1987).Much as our students like us, they are probabl_v not taking English so that they can ralk to us. Stuclies of comprebensibility (easc of untlerstanding) show that listcners' judgments depend on both segmental (consonants and vowels) and supfascgmental (stfess, drythm, and intonation) errofs (Dcrwing and Munro 1997). In addition to efrors in pronunciation, many other factors have an effilct (nr compre he nsibility: Speaking rate, effors in granmaq word choice, cliscourse markers, the age at which English is learned, the amount of exposure the learner has had to natively spoken English, the extent to wltich learners use English, and the listenef's familiariw with the topic of conversation have all bcen shown to affect comprehensibility (Hinfotis anti Bailey 1981, Anclerson-Hsieh and Koehler l988,Varonis and Gass 1982. Gass and Selinker 2001, cass and Varonis 1984, Flege et al. 1995). Accent tefefs to djffefences between native and nonnative pronunciations that are noticed by native listeners (Derwing, Munro, andWiebe 1998,396). The degree of accent is xssociated y/ith segmental, supr.rse€imental, and yoicc quality features.r Although accented pronunciations do not necessarily intedere with inre lligibiliqr, distracting, stigmatized, or stereofi?ed pronunciations should be addressed by pronunciation teachers. Even fu y htelligible pronunciations can be evaluated negatively by native speakers because of accent (?ermington 1998, Levis 2005, Riney et aI.2000). For example. the substitution of /d/ for /6/ iJ.:,ttle word tbem (e .g.,Bring dem lserc),whtle tnderstandable, is stigmatized (for native Enlllish listeners) because it is a dialect feature of nonstandard English. The substitution of /z/ for /6/ in tbem G.g., Bring zent beA, on the other ltand, simply marks the speaker as nonnative . Distracting or stereotyped pronunciations can affect intelligibiliry by dmwing the listener's attention away from the message to the mispronunciation itseli Examples of distracting or stcrcotyped pronunciations inclucle the confusion of /n/ and /l/ by speakers of some Cantonese dialects (e.g., He nooked at tbe uoman instezd, of He looked at tbe u)ornan); conftrsion of /r/ /l/ (tbe sterectLyped, flie.l ^fld Iice fot fried rice) forJapanese ESL students; and the confusion of /y/ /d3/ (jess for !es, jesterda! for lesterda!) for Spanish ESL students. These are p^rnodn unciation problems that can and should be addressed. The pronunciation of the vowels in beach, sbeet, and Jbcu' words which have caused corntless ESL students embarrassment. should also be addressed. listeneii do not (Rine,v et al 1005) . 4 Teachinp, Pronunciation Voice quality settll1gs are pronllnciatioll features that are present most of the time in the speech of native spelll<ers some languages, for example, are tlpically spoken at lower levels of pitch (e.g., Dutch) and others at higher lcYels of pitch (e g , Japanese) relative to a particular Lurguagc (e g.' English) In one language, words may be spoken with greater ovenll musclllar tension and witll less in another language;the lips may be more olten spread (or roundcd), or speech may havc a generzlly "creat<yl' "breathll'or modal (neutral) sound (see, for example' I'aver 1980, Esling and wong 1983, EsLing 1994, Keating and Esposito 2007). Esling a]1d Won€l suggest thxt ESL studcnts become familiar with a broad model of voice quality settin€ls for Nofih American Englisl.r (NAE), but note that not all dialects shxre these characteristics: spfead hps, open jaw, palatalized (fronted) tongue body position, retrof'lex articulation (the tong.,. tlp ftrrns up and back), nasal voice , lowerecl larynx (lower o\'-erall pitclt, and cfeakyVoice(1983,91)'The)'offbfsevel?lwaysinwhichStudentscanbecomeaware of voice qriality settinlis;for exrmple, students speaking differert native languages can say a shon phnsc in their native language and <lifferences can be conpared (19a3,94)' Although there is Iittle doubt that Yoice quali$ plays a role in accent, more Stud-Yisneeded.Notonlyarethefedi-fferencesintheVojceqllalitySettingsof speakers of the same language, there is also not alwa-vs agreement about which pafriculaf settings are pfesent or absent (Keating and Esposito 2007). Mofe fesearch using larger numbers of speakers is neecled befbre teachers can confidently apply these findings in the classroom FACTORS THAT AFFECT PRONI-NCIATION LEARNING The degree of success that learners achieve in adopdng a ncw pronunciati')n is influenced by many elements, irlcluding age and social-psychological factors' amount of exposurc to the second language (L2), amount of use of the L2, the native language to€lether with univcrsals, ancl personaliry Many of these factors (such as age and native language) are beyond the control of the classroom teecher and the learner Age and Social-Psychological Factors Lenneberg (1967) proposed thlt there is a "critical period" for learning a language natively, which exten.ls up to puberty: Neurobiological chanlaes in the bfaintl]atculmiflateatpubert-vblocktl]enativc.llLngualieleafningability thereafter.2 In the area of grammatical learning, .Iohnson and Newpoft found evidenceforagraclualcleclineinlanguageleafningabilitiesduringthecfitical period rather than an abrupt fall off at the end (1989)' social'psychologicaldiffbrerrcesbetweenadultsandchilclrcnhavealsobeen ollerccl to explain the effect of age Aclults are assumcd to have a deeper and stfonger attachrnent to their natiYe culture than children, which ma,v consciousb' or 'Tliis clllln is.Luestioned Lrr (r:rsltert, l9li. Tead)ing Pr()nuncialian 5 unconsciously prevent the adults from fully adopting the norms of a new language :rnd culture (catbontin, Trofimovich, and Majid 2oo5,Jenkins 2005, Leyis 2005). One of my students was very conscious of the conflict between English anct his native language (culture) and stated that he did not want to sound like a.fake American.,, Another explanation of the age effect may be that adults'greater cognitive abilities (cspecially anah.tic abilities) are less effective in learning a new pronunciation tltan the mofe natural abilities found in young cl.rildren. Exposure and Use Pfonunciation learninti is also affected by tlte amount of exposure lcafners have to the new language and the extent to which they use it (see Trofimovicl.r and Baker 2006 for a review of research on these factors). It is not surprising that students who have spent three years in the United Srates typicalli, pronounce English bcttef than those who have spent three months. Similafly, students who use English a great deal in drcir daily actiYities are likely to pronounce the language better than tltose who rarely use it. Native-I-anguage Backgfound arrd Linguistic Universals The ability of natiye speakers to recognize specific foreign accents once they have expefience with them attests to the influence of the native language on pronunciation of a new language. The native-language sound q/stem (consonants, vowels, stress, rhlthm, intonation, and voice quality) affects not only how learners pronounce English but how they hear it. For example, the two vowels in the English words sceze and slz correspond to a single vowel in Spanish. Bcginning ancl low- intermediate Spanish-speaking stndenrs arc likel,v to haye difficulfl hearinE! the difference between sc?n e and sl, and may transfer their native{anguage vowel into the pronunciation of these words. As proficiency increases, students becomc better able to hear differences and notice pfonunciations that are not present in their native languages. Similafities between a natiye language and English can either facilitate or hindcr learning. Lee, Guion, and Harada (2006) for-lnd that Japanese ESL learners were better able to lengthen stressed English \.owels and shorten unstressed vowels than Korean ESL learners. They attributed this result to the fact that, while neither language is similar to English in terms of word stress,Japanese uses long and shoft vowcls to contrast some words (e.g., stt and szzr-,,numbef,,) while -"vinegar" Korean does not.3 Because vowel length is impodant in Japanese, the Japanese learners may have been prirned to notice diJlerences in vowel length in English. On the othef hand, if learners interpret a similafity as an equivalence, tlte,v may be unable to noticc the differences between sin lat but not identical, pronunciations i Sone dialecLs of Korean conlr?Lst long end shofl vo,x€Ls, but l€ leatu€$ in lhei,ee et al. stud\ werr: not sp€rkeN 0f dtos€ dixlecll (2006. 49r.