TESOL Atlanta March 13, 2019

Pronunciation Teaching Approaches: Considering the Options

Martha C. Pennington <mp64@soas.ac.uk>

University of London

(SOAS and Birkbeck College)

Pronunciation is ...

A complex, multi-functional and multi-dimensional aspect of speech involving the ability of a speaker:

to perceive and produce communicatively relevant cues and contrasts in individual phonemes and larger prosodic patterns of connected speech,

as these relate to linguistic and broader kinds of social meaning in context, and

to do so in real time,

while also balancing a large number of other linguistic and situational factors and constraints.

A speaker’s pronunciation articulates a message not only in the sense of defining how much of it is intelligible, but also in the sense of giving a certain impression of the speaker that contextualizes the message and how it is received by the listener.

Background This contrastive 5-part scheme incorporates my thinking and practice in pronunciation teaching since the 1970’s up to the present time, including

Teaching segmental and suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation in a classroom without technology supplemented by teaching in a language laboratory and soon with Visi-Pitch and then many other kinds of technology (Pennington & Esling, 1996);

Top-down versus bottom-up pronunciation teaching (Pennington, 1989); Teaching of pronunciation from a second-language versus a

multilingual/plurilingual perspective (Pennington, 2015a,b). __________________________________________________________________________ [Pennington, M. C. (1989). Teaching pronunciation from the top down. RELC Journal, 20(1), 20-38. Pennington, M. C. (2015a). Research, theory, and practice in second language phonology: A review and directions for the future. In J. A. Mompean & J. Fouz (eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Current trends and directions (pp. 149-173). Palgrave Macmillan. Pennington, M. C. (2015b). From L2 phonology to pluriphonology: A new perspective on pronunciation theory, research, and practice. Refereed Paper. Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Toronto. March. Pennington, M. C., & J. Esling. 1996. Computer-assisted development of spoken language skills. In M. C. Pennington (ed.), The power of CALL pp. 153-189). Athelstan.]

Background [cont'd] Other ideas were developed in writing and then later reflecting on sections of this book:

Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Contemporary Perspectives. Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics series. Palgrave Macmillan.

Offers contemporary perspectives on English pronunciation teaching and research in an environment of increasing multilingualism and English as an international language.

Reviews theory and practice in pronunciation pedagogy, language learning, language assessment, and technologies.

Presents an expanded , sociolinguistically informed view of pronunciation in communication, L1 and L2 teaching and learning, and work environments.

See especially Chapter 4, "Pronunciation in the Classroom: Teachers and Teaching Methods" (pp. 187ff).

Teaching Approaches for Pronunciation

1) Micro-focused vs. Macro-focused

aka Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down or Segmentally Oriented vs. Suprasegmentally or Prosodically Oriented

2) Meaning-focused vs. Form-focused

3) Explicit (Metacognitive) vs. Implicit (Cognitive)

4) Without Technology vs. With Technology

5) Second-Language vs. Multilingual/Plurilingual

Micro-focused Teaching of Articulation

Input from a teacher in the way of verbal instructions and demonstration;

Static forms of visual input such as cut-away visuals of the vocal tract; or

Animated forms visual input, such as videos of articulatory motions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYwk07QM4rc

Integrated Bottom-Up Approach

1) Teaching individual sounds and phonemes,

and then leading systematically into

2) Teaching connected speech involving coarticulation, articulatory setting, stress, and intonation in syllables, words, phrases, and larger discourse units.

Such an approach could logically start with phonemes and finish with communicative functions of intonation.

Top-Down Curricular Sequence TOP LEVEL Focus on broad functions and features of message

pragmatics and communicative framing through discourse structure and global features of prosody.

BOTTOM LEVEL Focus on details of linguistic form and mechanics at the word and phoneme level.

This top-down order of focus matches the order in which communication planning and performance proceeds, from the most global or macro discourse level and then proceeding to each more micro in succession, resulting ultimately in the detailed mechanics of sequential articulation (Levelt, 1989, 1999).

___________________________________________________________ [ Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). From Intention to articulation. MIT Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83-122). Oxford University Press.]

Integrated Top-Down Approach 1) TOP LEVEL Discourse intonation (Brazil, Coulthard, & Johns, 1980), voice

quality (van Leeuwen, 1999), accents/varieties (Wells, 1982), speech styles (Eckert & Rickford, 2001; Rampton, 1999).

2) MIDDLE LEVEL Connected/running speech phenomena - "phonological fluency” (Pennington, 1989), involving coarticulation, articulatory setting, stress, and intonation in clauses, phrases, words, and syllables.

3) BOTTOM LEVEL Details of articulation and linguistic form, allophonic as well as regional and social variants of phonemes with reference to intelligibility as well as communicative impact and effectiveness.

_________________________________________________________________ [Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R. (2001). Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press. Pennington, M. C. (1989). Teaching pronunciation from the top down. RELC Journal, 20(1), 20-38. Rampton, B. (1999). Styling the other: Introduction. Special issue on Styling the Other. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 421-427. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Voice quality and timbre. In Speech, music, sound (pp. 125-156). Palgrave Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge University Press.]

Micro-focused vs. Macro-focused What Does the Research Say?

Hahn (2004): Instruction on suprasegmentals is more effective.

Levis (2005) and Saito (2014): Segmentals may be easier to teach and learn than suprasegmentals.

Derwing & Munro (1997): Improved comprehensibility is more likely with improved grammatical and prosodic proficiency than with sole focus on correction of phonemic errors.

____________________________________________________________ [Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201–223. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16. Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. Saito, K. (2014). Experienced teachers’ perspectives on priorities for improved intelligible pronunciation: The case of Japanese learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 250–277.]

Micro-focused vs. Macro-focused What Does the Research Say? [cont'd]

Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe (1998): Suprasegmental instruction resulted in higher comprehensibility scores than segmentally focused instruction.

Lee, Jang, and Plonsky (2015): Effects of pronunciation instruction are greater if instruction combines segmentals and suprasegmentals.

Hardison (2004): A focus on suprasegmental or prosodic aspects of pronunciation has a payoff also at the segmental level.

_____________________________________________________________ [ Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. E. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410. Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer‐assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning and Technology, 8(1), 34–52. Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–66.]

Connecting the Bottom and Top Levels of Pronunciation Teaching

A focus on segmentals would show how the most micro elements of language, phonemes—or phonetic variants—link up with each other and with features of stress and intonation to create what speakers produce and listeners perceive as syllables, words, phrases, clauses, and discourses (i.e., what they perceive as discriminable and meaningful units of language) A focus on suprasegmentals would show how such features as intonation, rhythm and phrasing, articulatory setting and voice quality realize the pragmatic framing of a message in terms of politeness, seriousness or playfulness, sincerity or irony,

condescension or sarcasm; broad communicative functions (e.g., asserting versus proposing,

suggesting, or questioning); discourse structure (e.g., turn opening, continuation, completion ); and also how the macro prosodic features influence the articulation of individual phonemes in context, such as through the effects of stress and coarticulation, or the choice of one or another phoneme variant.

Types of Form-Focused Instruction [FFI]

Pre-input background information, preview activities, and preliminary practice to raise awareness, focus attention, and guide performance, e.g., “giving a rule or procedure to follow, modeling, or…opportunities to practice within a limited context” (Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019, p. 196); “input flooding" (Doughty & Williams, 1998); or “high variability perceptual/phonetic training” (HVPT; Logan, Lively, & Pisoni, 1991).

In-process input, including form-focused aspects of performing instructional tasks, e.g., corrective feedback during task-based language teaching (TBLT; Long, 2015) and other meaning-focused interaction or exercises bridging between form and meaning (Muller Levis & Levis, 2016).

Post-input or output-focused input, e.g., post-task teaching, post-reflection, and delayed corrective feedback (Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019, p. 196).

_____________________________________________________________________________ [Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–262). Cambridge University Press.

Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /ɹ/ and /l/: A first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.

Muller Levis, G., & Levis, J. (2016). Intonation bridging activities: Meaningful practice for final intonation. In J. Levis, H. Le, I. Lucic, E. Simpson, & S. Vo (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 229–235). Iowa State University.

Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Contemporary Perspectives. Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics series. Palgrave Macmillan. ]

Form-Focused Instruction: What Does the Research Say?

Norris & Ortega (2000); Spada & Tomita (2010); Goo, Granena, Yilmaz, & Novella (2015): Meta-analytical studies showing positive effects of focus on form in Long’s sense and for other kinds of explicit instruction with a focus on forms.

_________________________________________________ [Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In P. Rebuschat (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.]

Form-Focused Instruction: What Does the Research Say? [cont'd]

Lyster, Saito, & Sato (2013); Saito (2011, 2013); Saito & Lyster (2012): Corrective feedback in combination with other kinds of FFI is an effective approach to teaching segmental aspects of pronunciation, and explicit feedback is more effective than implicit feedback in raising awareness of errors.

_____________________________________________________________ [Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1 –40.

Saito, K. (2011). Effects of FFI on L2 phonological development of / ɹ / by Japanese learners of English. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.

Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–29.

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633.]

Form-Focused Instruction: What Does the Research Say? [cont'd]

Saito and Saito (2016): significantly improved comprehensibility and prosody based on pre-input instructional information and practice, and in-process corrective feedback in meaningful interaction.

Gordon, Darcy, & Ewert (2013): CLT for 3 groups, G1 - explicit instruction on segmental features (pairs of commonly confused vowel phonemes), G2 - explicit instruction on suprasegmental features (stress, rhythm, linking, reductions), G3 - no explicit instruction on these features. Only G2 showed significant improvement in comprehensibility.

_____________________________________________________________ [Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013). Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, August 2012 (pp. 194–206). Iowa State Univ. Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 21, 589–608. ]

Form-Focused Instruction: What Does the Research Say? [cont'd]

HVPT focuses learners’ attention on pronunciation using speech samples from a variety of speakers and phonetic contexts.

It is highly effective for improving learners’ ability to discriminate different phonemes (Thomson, 2011; Wang & Munro 2004); and

It can have lasting effects on learners’ performance (Bradlow et al.,1999; Lambacher et al., 2005).

________________________________________________________ [Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., G. M., Pisoni, G. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985. Lambacher, S. G., Martens, W. L., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C. A., & Molholt, G. (2005). The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(2), 227–247. Wang, X., & Munro, M. J. (2004). Computer‐based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32, 539–552.]

Explicit (Metacognitive) vs. Implicit (Cognitive) Critical Listening (Couper, 2011; Fraser, 2009) Metacognitive - Explicit learning through narrow form-focused "micro-listening"

Extensive Listening (Pennington & Körmücü, 2018) Cognitive - Implicit learning through broad unfocused "macro-listening"

Shadowing (Kusumoto, 2015; Foote & McDonough, 2017) Half-way Between - Explicit-implicit learning through broad form-focused "macro-micro listening" ____________________________________________________________________ [Couper, G. (2011). What makes pronunciation teaching work? Testing for the effect of two variables Socially constructed metalanguage and critical listening. Language Awareness, 20(3), 159–182. Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to improve L2 pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 34–56. Fraser, H. (2009). Pronunciation as categorization The role of contrast in teaching English /r/ and /l/. In A. Mahboob & C. Lipovsky (eds.), Studies in applied linguistics and language learning (pp. 289–306). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pennington, M. C, & Körmücü, S., (2018). Trialing a pedagogy designed to minimize L1 phonological transfer Student and teacher responses to a curriculum for teaching Turkish first by ear and then by eye. Kusumoto, Y. (2015). Exploring the effects of Shadowing on prosody. Proceedings of the 4th International conference on English Pronunciation (EPIP4) (pp. 82–85). Prague.]

Input via Pronunciation Technologies

quick and repeatable precise, reliable, and authoritative highly salient multi-modal individual extensive and variable

AND THEREFORE

Motivates and stimulates Raises awareness and increases understanding Enhances learning and develops skills Increases precision and automaticity of performance Builds interest and confidence _______________________________________________________________ [Pennington, M. C. (1999). Computer-aided pronunciation pedagogy Promise, limitations, directions. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 427–440. Adapted from p. 430.]

Examples of Technological Resources for Pronunciation

Protea Textware Connected Speech

Richard Caudwell's Cool Speech app https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUcWrEoq-bU

English Learning Pronunciation Power

Rosetta Stone Tell Me More

Cambridge University Clear Speech app.

ELSA Corp. ELSA Speak app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=us.nobarriers.elsa&hl=en_US

Oxford English File Pronunciation

Ron Thomson’s (2012) English Accent Coach https://www.englishaccentcoach.com/vowels.aspx

University of Iowa Sounds of Speech https://soundsofspeech.uiowa.edu

George Mason University Speech Accent Archive http://accent.gmu.edu/browse_language.php

Pronunciation Technologies: What Does the Research Say?

Effectiveness has been shown for both commercial software designed specifically to work on pronunciation and for applications of other online tools adapted to work on pronunciation (e.g., Fouz-González, 2015, 2017)

Meta-analysis of pronunciation effectiveness studies shows greater effects for human than computer-based pronunciation instruction (Lee, Jang, & Plonsky, 2015).

________________________________________________________ [Fouz-González, J. (2015). Foreign language pronunciation training with affordable and easily accessible technologies: Podcasts, smartphone apps and social networking services (Twitter). Ph.D. thesis. Univ Murcia. Fouz-González, J. (2017). Pronunciation instruction through Twitter: The case of commonly mispronounced words. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 631–663.]

Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–66.]

Second-Language vs. Multilingual/Plurilingual

Second-language approaches to pronunciation focus

on accuracy or intelligibility.

Multilingual / plurilingual approaches to pronunciation might focus on aspects of identity tied to pronunciation, aiming to develop a broad repertoire of pronunciation features and competences usable in contexts of multilingualism, plurilingualism, and translanguaging.

Multilingual / plurilingual approaches to pronunciation are translingual in that they reference leaners' knowledge of more than one language.

Activities using Learners' Multilingual/Plurilingual Competence

Comparing and contrasting the pronunciation of L1 loanwords and their

English equivalents;

Listening to, imitating, and discussing impressions of accents;

Imitating a high-profile speaker from a recording or video and adjusting performance until listeners (e.g., classmates) rate the match as good;

Imitating different English accents;

Imitating careful, form-focused vs. casual pronunciation;

Altering prosody in tasks in which a speaker is to diverge or converge with other speakers in a group (e.g., angry vs. conciliatory, excited vs. calm, accepting vs. questioning, highly engaged vs. disengaged);

Roleplaying to practice style-shifting and projecting different identities associated with different features of pronunciation and accent. (Adapted from Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019, pp. 2-13-214)

____________________________________________________________________ [Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Contemporary Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.]

General Advice for Teaching Pronunciation

1. Connect the Binaries, in These Orders Top to Bottom [macro before micro features of language]

Meaning-focused to Form-Focused [communicative function before form]

Implicit to Explicit [extensive listening before teacher instruction]

With Technology to Without Technology [media input before human input]

Multilingual / Plurilingual to Second Language [translanguaging focus before second language focus]

General Advice for Teaching Pronunciation [cont'd]

2. Teach Pronunciation in Context Meaningful communication Natural speech samples Diverse speech samples [multiple speakers, accents, contexts] Running speech

3. Use Implicit Teaching (e.g., extensive listening) as Background / Reinforcement for Explicit Teaching

4. Use Technology (e.g., for student use outside class) as Background / Reinforcement for Human Teaching

5. Use Translanguaging for Gaining Student Interest and Investment in L2 Pronunciation (e.g., by comparing L1 and L2, considering issues of pronunciation related to identity, speaking style, and impression on listeners)