System, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 545-560, 1997
Pergamon
P I I : S0346-251 X(97)00043-2
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0346-25 IX/97 $17.00 + 0.00
KEEP T H E M TALKING! A P R O J E C T F O R I M P R O V I N G
S T U D E N T S ' L2 P R O N U N C I A T I O N
HELEN KENDRICK
Hurtwood House College, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NU, UK
This paper describes a substantial research project which looked at the effectiveness of different methods of improving the pronunciation of E F L learners,
and evaluated the significance of instruction as one of the factors affecting the
acquisition of L2 pronunciation. Following quantitative and qualitative analysis, the research resulted in the following observations: (1) learners' L2 pronunciation did appear to improve; (2) the greatest improvement appeared to
be in segmental features; (3) suprasegmental aspects had a greater effect on
listeners; (4) improvement varied depending on individual learners, time of
year within the course, and type of task; (5) successful acquisition of L2 pronunciation appeared to be affected by training, aptitude for oral mimicry and
talkativeness. In short, the proven positive effects of training and talkativeness
should encourage educationalists to... K E E P T H E S T U D E N T S T A L K I N G !
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
THE PROBLEM
Amidst the wealth of materials and educational and psychological research
gone into the question of pronunciation teaching, it is perhaps surprising
should prove to be relatively little study of the long-scale improvement of
speakers' pronunciation of English. There are plenty of suggestions in text
rently on the market telling us what to do, how and why but the evidence as
and why students' pronunciation actually improves is relatively limited.
which has
that there
non-native
books curto whether
This coincides with a clear emphasis, in recent discussion of pronunciation, on the need
for more controlled studies of how learners' pronunciation actually changes as a result of
instruction, e.g. Pennington and Richards (1986: p. 221), Morley (1991: p. 512). It is
within this framework that the research described in this paper was undertaken.
R E V I E W O F L I T E R A T U R E : DOES T R A I N I N G I M P R O V E P R O N U N C I A T I O N ?
The teacher has just completed a successful pronunciation lesson using minimal pairs of words to teach the
sounds [r] and [1].The students have correctly repeated such minimal pairs as read/lead, red/led and rick/
lick. All the students are able to manage the distinction by the end of the class. Then, as the students leave,
one says, "So rong!" (Gilbert (1987) quoted in Scarcella and Oxford (1994: p. 228)).
545
546
HELEN K E N D R I C K
Gilbert's anecdote rings very true, and generates a number of pedagogical questions: How
effective is pronunciation teaching? How long-term is the effect of any perceived
improvement? Is it better to concentrate on suprasegmental features rather than phonemes? Are minimal pair drills like the one quoted above, "techniques of the past which
have never yielded very good results" (Celce-Murcia, 1987: p. 5) since they are not in tune
with the communicative approach to language teaching?
Research evidence regarding the effectiveness of instruction on L2 pronunciation acquisition shows neutral as well as positive results. Some pedagogues and researchers believe
that pronunciation cannot be taught, or that other factors--age, social, aptitudinal and
psychological factors are more significant predictors of success than instruction. (Scarcella
and Oxford, 1994). This latter claim is borne out by recent researchers, e.g. Macdonald,
Yule and Powers (1994), Thompson (1991), Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), Yule,
Hoffman and Damico (1987), Major (1987), Madden (1983), Krashen et al (1982). Oyama
(1976: p. 280) even claimed that for adult Italians, learning to pronounce English like a
native "seems as rare as the ability to run the 4-minute mile".
Conversely other educationalists stress the positive effects of working at pronunciation
improvement by establishing basic discriminatory skills and providing specific practice for
pronunciation items which the learner finds difficult (e.g. Gimson, 1980).
Recent researchers make claims of significant positive changes in either segmental or
suprasegmental features after specialised courses of instruction (e.g. Dunkel et al., (1991),
Pennington (1984, 1991), Molholt (1988), de Bot (1983), de Bot and Mailfert (1982),
Murakawa (1981), Gilbert (1980), Neufield and Schneidermann (1980), Neufield (1978),
Snow and Hoefnagel-H6hle (1977), Hill (1970). According to Acton (1984), even fossilized pronunciation can be changed effectively.
In short then, we cannot assume on the basis of the research available that training will
inevitably affect learners' long-term pronunciation accuracy positively, since there is some
evidence to suggest that pronunciation instruction is not significantly effective. Conversely
there is evidence to show that it is. As teachers, our instinct and experience assure us that
it must be, but research suggests that in fact this is far from certain!
B A C K G R O U N D TO THE PROJECT
Given the importance of this kind of research in the field, I set out to investigate ways in
which pronunciation could be improved in practice. The research method adopted was as
follows. A small group of EFL learners was monitored for approximately nine months.
During this period they were observed, recorded and tested a number of times in an
attempt to assess:
1. the effectiveness of various learning procedures,
2. progress in acquisition of second language pronunciation,
3. aptitudes and independent variables which could have a significant influence on
pronunciation improvement.
KEEP THEM T A L K I N G !
547
Analysis of results was both qualitative and quantitative. Broad phonemic transcriptions
were made of many recordings, and comparisons were made with impressionistic assessments from 20 independent raters. Background and attitudinal variables were examined,
taking into account students' responses to questionnaires. In addition Pearson's product
moment correlation coefficients were calculated.
The subjects
The subjects were eight non-native teenage students resident in an English boarding
school, all following a curriculum of immersion teaching in which they studied a limited
range of subjects. Their level of English was roughly intermediate. There were five girls
and three boys, of the following nationalities: Japanese (3), Russian (1), Korean (2),
Taiwanese (1), Thai (1). This was a real-world sample of students with variables accordingly, linguistic, cognitive and attitudinal. All followed a main English course (FCE or
UETESOL) taught by colleagues, and in addition attended varying numbers (from 1 to 4)
of my oral/aural language classes weekly for three academic terms, starting in September
(month 1). These classes lasted for 40min with part of the teaching time devoted to
pronunciation.
L E A R N I N G PROCEDURES
Students were exposed to a wide variety of learning procedures, with regard to individual
needs and priorities. Attention was given to speech sounds, spelling of sounds, connected
speech, stress and rhythm, intonation and voice quality. A top-down approach was
incorporated, using drama and oral mimicry, and individual material was recorded for
each student on tapes. Detailed data and discussion can be consulted in Kendrick (1995).1
The activities listed below were considered by teacher and/or students to be particularly
effective.
1. Exercises in discrimination and production of segments, and learning how sounds
are made.
2. Exercises which developed awareness of weak syllables.
3. The speech rhythm exercise--The House that Jack Built.
4. Independent work on individual tapes.
5. Exercises on prominent word stress.
6. Drama and role-play activities.
These activities are described in greater detail below.
1. Exercises in discrimination and production of segments, and learning how sounds are made
The Korean and Taiwanese students were familiar with phonemic symbols, and others
studied and referred to them during the course. Fletcher's (1991) illustrated cards facilitated learning the symbols. Students quickly recognised the advantages of being able to
check dictionary pronunciations against the inconsistencies of English spelling. Having
observed Underhill (1994) demonstrating his Sound Foundations chart, I attempted to
use his technique to build student awareness of sounds and for self-correction.
548
HELEN K E N D R I C K
Students were recorded regularly, and early diagnosis enabled me to give specific practice
in the discrimination and production of problem sounds, using a variety of methods, ideas
and practical tips, many of which were drawn from materials currently on the market.
Students put hands on throats to feel vibrations of voiced consonants, and used a mirror
to see tongue or mouth positions. We sang songs to practise problem sounds, e.g. "Oh no,
John," for/ao/. Exercises often used minimal pairs separately and in context, but much
work on phoneme awareness and correction was integrated into interactive oral activities.
For example, to practise final s/z, groups would compile a shopping list of plural items:
cake/s/, egg/z/, crisp/s/etc., and decide the correct pronunciation collectively, thus learning in a communicative framework.
2. Exercises which developed awareness o f weak syllables
The schwa. In Baker's (1977: p. 61) short passage "Barbara", the schwa /a/ is printed
phonemically replacing weak vowel sounds. I used this text to introduce the concept of the
schwa and to emphasise the frequency with which it occurs. Subsequently students identified it themselves. Other useful material was taken from Kenworthy (1987: p. 84).
One student's speech was especially badly "seasoned" with intrusive /a/s. I devised a
paired sequence activity of the type used by Gilbert (1993). Student A pronounces one of
two sentences, and student B has to respond appropriately with one of two answers,
depending on what he/she heard, e.g.
A: Paula looks around. B: What is she looking at?
A: Paul_ looks_ round. B: He should go on a diet!
3. The speech rhythm exercise--The House that Jack Built
Kenworthy (1987: p. 37) highlights the potential of the rhyme, "This is the house that
Jack built" as an exercise in weak and strong forms as well as rhythm.
4. Independent work on individual tapes
At the start of the course students were given individual tapes to motivate them to take
responsibility for pronunciation improvement, to develop self-evaluation and self-correction, to provide a record and proof of progress, and to reflect the teacher's concern
about pronunciation. The tapes contained a variety of recordings of teacher and pupil,
practice in segmental features, readings and phrases for students to study. Some were
transcribed phonemically and highlighted where individuals deviated from the native
speaker version.
5. Exercises on prominent word stress
Stress results from the combined effect of various factors: loudness, pitch, duration and
quality (Roach, 1991: p. 86). It is so crucial to the intelligibility and Englishness of the
spoken language that I considered time to be profitably spent on: activities and exercises
which involved identifying syllables, perceiving stressed syllables, understanding dictionary stress markings, marking word stress, prominent word stress within sentences, and
contrastive stress. The concept of stressing prominent "meaning" words was exemplified
by writing telegrams and news headlines.
KEEP THEM T A L K I N G !
549
Contrastive stress was practised communicatively in real-life situations, e.g.
"Yin is going to Thailand . . . .
"Is she going in April? . . . .
No, Pear's going to Thailand."
No, she's going in June." etc.
Various techniques were employed to make stress audible or visible: rapping, stretching
elastic bands for long syllables, as advocated by Wong (1987), and using long and short
cuisenaire rods (Bowen and Marks, 1992). In practice, long pencils and short rubbers were
more readily available!
6. Drama and role-play
Intonation is not easy to teach. Given another year, I might have done it justice! As it was, a
number of exercises were completed: listening for rise and fall and using gestures or patterns
to illustrate pitch changes, but most intonation training was implicit, by example, in the form
of voice shadowing (tracking), drama, and listen/mimic activities, which were part of a TopDown Approach (see Pennington, 1989; Thornbury, 1993). Thus an attempt was made to
incorporate a holistic view of pronunciation to run parallel with the more segmental
approach, and to embrace such important features as voice quality/articulatory setting as
well as the other suprasegmental elements discussed. To this end, drama and role-play
activities were included which encouraged learners to "let themselves go", which was
exactly the objective: to let their L1 characteristics go, in favour of the target L2 characteristics. Short plays were used such as the Radio Play in "Act English" (Watcyn-Jones,
1978), "The Marriage Bureau" (Swan, 1983) and "The Cinema", from "After Liverpool"
(Saunders, 1973). They introduce intonation patterns reflecting attitudinal changes from
pleasure to fear, disinterest and uncertainty to irritation and anger, as well as the need for
contrastive stress to express the differing wishes of characters.
Other activities involved students "performing" speeches, composed by themselves, and
mimicking each other's languages, which sensitised us to contrasting articulatory characteristics.
RESEARCH
The following areas were researched with regard to students:
(A) the effect of activities,
(C) aptitudes,
(B) progress,
(D) additional material.
A. Observation of the effect of activities
The value of the activities described above was assessed by both teacher (critical observation) and students (by questionnaires at the start and end of the course). Any immediate
improvement which was apparent to the teacher was noted after each activity. The longer
term cumulative effect was measured in the Tests of Progress described below.
B. Tests of progress
Details of tests of progress. Tests of Progress were repeated two or three times, in identical
or similar format, so that any improvement could be assessed with regard to prosodic and
segmental aspects of pronunciation. Tests of Progress were as follows:
550
Prl:
Pr2:
Pr3:
Pr4:
Pr5:
Pr6:
HELEN K E N D R I C K
Interview (a general oral English t e s t - - n o t specific to pronunciation)
General Conversation (free speech on general topics)
Directed Speech (giving street directions)
Directed Speech (picture story about a bank robbery)
Reading (a passage from FCE course book, Morris and Stanton, 1993).
Reading List (shopping list containing a wide range of phonemes in context, Swan
and Smith, 1987: p. 265).
Rating the tests of progress by analysis of transcriptions
Objective analysis of foreign speech samples for rating purposes presents problems too
numerous to detail in this paper. They are explained in Kendrick (1995). Suffice it to say
here that great care was taken to establish a consistent marking scheme, and to counteract
any shortcomings by carrying out a wide range of tests and analysing many speech
samples. Decisions had to be made on questions such as:
* What is "correct/acceptable" English pronunciation?
* What weighting should be given to the various overlapping segmental and suprasegmental features? For instance marks for stress in free speech tended to be comparatively
high since in many syllables, placing of stress or unstress was optional. For example in the
sentence, "It's not very large," students could not lose marks for either a stressed or an
unstressed version of "not", "very" or "large".
* How much should hesitations and repetitions be taken into account, bearing in mind
Fayer and Krasinski's (1987) study emphasising their irritant effect?
* Where do the boundaries come between errors of pronunciation, and mistakes due to
poor language control? (Should the student who says "He work" instead of "He works"
be penalised for omitting "s"?)
* Should allowance be made for the fact that some mistakes are less serious than others?
Pronouncing "ze" instead of "the" is communicating more effectively than pronouncing
"how" instead of "who".
Add the complication that free and directed speech do not provide uniform data, and one
sees why oral assessment is so often done by impression! It was not practicable to find a
second phonetician willing to carry out independent transcriptions for check purposes,
but a number of tests were assessed by twenty independent raters.
Rating the tests of progress by independent raters
The identity of the raters was considered to be important, since there is disagreement
among specialists as to whether ordinary individuals or language experts are more reliable
in detecting foreign accents. Thompson (1991) quotes research projects and opposing
views. Thus it was decided that two types of rater should be included in this study 10
inexperienced (friends/relations) and 10 experienced. The experienced group were all language teachers, mainly EFL, unknown to the students.
Taped recordings assessed by the 20 raters
Two tapes were produced, each lasting approximately 30 min.
Tape 1 presented speech samples of each student recorded at the end of the course.
Three sections comprised: (1) Reading; (2) Directed speech (narrating a picture story);
(3) General conversation. Raters used a 5-point scale to judge degree of foreign accent.
KEEP THEM T A L K I N G !
551
Tape 2 was heard by raters some months later. Like the first tape, it presented student
speech samples in three sections: (1) Reading (same text); (2) General conversation;
(3) Directed speech (giving street directions). Unlike Tape 1, it presented two short
recordings of each student in each section, an early and a late recording. Listeners compared recordings and decided which of the two was the more accented, using a 5-point
scale. Raters had no way of knowing which was the later recording since the order
varied. There was a possibility that listeners would rate second recordings higher because
they had become accustomed to the accent. (See Gass and Varonis 1984: pp. 65-89). To
counteract this possibility I was careful to arrange the order to ensure a fair distribution
of first and second position recordings.
C. Tests of aptitude
Details of tests of aptitude.
Apl and Ap2: Aural Discrimination (stress, vowels, consonants.)
Ap3: Wepman Auditory Discrimination (recognising identical or non-identical pairs.)
(See Brutten et al., 1985: p. 311).
Ap4: Aptitude for Oral Mimicry and Memory (repetition of increasingly long "chunks"
of "This is the house that Jack built." Kenworthy (1987: p. 37).
Ap5: Nonsense Mimicry (repetition of nonsensical utterances.)
Ap6: Rhythm (clapping rhythm after hearing a short piano melody played twice, as in the
Associated Board of Royal Schools of Music aural tests.)
Ap7: Pitch and Volume (responding to pairs of notes by identifying the higher or louder
note).
Rating the tests of aptitude
Aptitude Tests Apl, Ap2, Ap3 and Ap7 were marked objectively by the researcher.
Percentage results were noted, as well as group ranking order. Tests Ap4 and
Ap5 (the Mimicry Tests) were transcribed and analysed. The native speaker version
was considered as the standard. In Test Ap4 marks were awarded for phonemes,
stress and short-term memory. In Test Ap5 phonemes, primary stresses and intonation were considered. Test Ap6 (rhythm) was the only aptitude test rated by
impression from recordings. Further information about these tests is given in Kendrick
(1995).
D. Additional material
Additional material was gathered regarding students' background and attitude by questionnaires, discussions, notes from school reports, observations from the researcher as
well as from house staff and subject teachers.
1. Background: Information was collected on the following subjects: (a) Sex, (b) Age,
(c) Nationality, (d) First Language, (e) Age when first started to learn English, (f) Number
of years of English pre-September 1993, (g) Length of residence in England pre-September
1993, (h) Musical ability.
2. Attitude: The factors (i) to (n) below were measured on a 5-point scale.
(i) Importance of English. Students rated themselves in response to discussion and
questionnaires.
552
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
HELEN K E N D R I C K
Students' concern for pronunciation accuracy. Students responded to statements,
e.g. "I don't mind if I sound foreign". An independent assessment was made by
teacher's observation.
Motivation. Evaluations were made with reference to students' own feelings and
empirical gradings from English staff.
Use of English. Students estimated the amount of time they spoke English at school
and during holidays.
Talkativeness. Students rated themselves for talkativeness in L1. A teacher assessment was made of talkativeness and risk-taking in English, consulting subject teachers and house staff.
Attitude to English-speaking countries, and preference for accent. Some students
reported equal preference for American and English English.
In addition, notes were made concerning school programme and progress in all subjects.
From this wealth of data, it was hoped that some patterns would emerge with regard to
factors affecting the acquisition of L2 pronunciation.
FINDINGS
There were significant findings with regard to:
(A) the effect of activities,
(B) tests of progress,
(C) tests of aptitude,
(D) additional material.
A. The effect of activities: summary of key findings
1. Students gave high ratings to exercises in discrimination and production of segments,
and learning how sounds are made. The value of these activities was confirmed by
research. (Students' rating and researcher's observation).
2. Exercises which developed awareness of weak syllables seemed to have a significant
effect on pronunciation improvement. (Teacher's observation).
3. The speech rhythm exercise--The House that Jack Built--provided valuable training in
perception and production of appropriate speech rhythms. (Teacher's observation).
4. Pronunciation appeared to be positively affected by students working independently on
tapes. (Teacher's observation). Students acknowledged the usefulness of individual
tapes. (Students' rating).
5. Exercises on prominent word stress appeared to make a significant contribution to
improving the intelligibility of students' spoken language. (Teacher's observation).
6. Drama and role-play activities produced significant improvement in intonation and
stress. (Teacher's observation).
B. Results of tests of progress
1. Results from analysis of transcriptions. Results of students' progress are detailed in
Kendrick (1995). The earliest and latest results available are recorded in percentage form
for the six tests of progress. There is an improvement for each student on each test.
Results of Progress Test Pr5 (Reading), where there was a full analysis of suprasegmental
KEEP THEM TALKING!
553
features as well as phonemes, showed significant improvement in both phonemes and
suprasegmentals. The combined significance factor was < 0.05, with details for phonemes
and suprasegmentals as follows:
Phonemes
Jan to Mar (month 4-6) <0.001"**
Mar to May (month 6-9) < 0.05
Jan to May (month 4-8) <0.01
Suprasegmentals
Jan to Mar (month 4-6)
Mar to May (month 6-8)
Jan to May (month 4-8)
<0.05
0.509
<0.05
***This suggests that the greatest improvement was in phonemes, January to March (months 4 to 6). This was
very highly significant at < 0.001.
It is important to note that the correlations measure general patterns of improvement, and
do not take into account variance in individual performances. As regards individuals, the
degree of improvement in both segmental and suprasegmental features tended to be
greater for those with the lowest starting points, since students who start higher can more
quickly reach a learning plateau.
2. Tests of progress." results from independent raters
It is interesting to note that the 20 raters' perception of students' improvement tallied substantially with my analysis. There was evidence to suggest that results from the experienced
raters were slightly more reliable. For one test (Test Pr3) no early recording was available of
one student to compare with the late one. I decided to use two parts of the same recording,
the late one made in month 8. Experienced raters were more astute than the inexperienced
in recognising the similarity between these two recordings made at the same time.
It seems that the improvement in suprasegmentals made more impact on raters. Comments from raters noted some phonemic errors, but most were general observations
relating to prosody and included criticism of poor communication strategies such as
hesitation, sound insertions, repetition.
The most significant correlation between ratings and my (HK) analyses was for the experienced raters and my marking of suprasegmentals for the reading test. Students' ranking
order was identical, and the correlation was very highly significant (factor of < 0.001). This is
consistent with much current pedagogical thought which stresses the importance of suprasegmental elements of pronunciation, since these can direct listeners to what is important
in an utterance. Researchers, however, disagree regarding the severity of segmental and
prosodic errors, (Munro and Derwing, 1995: p. 76; Fayer and Krasinski, 1987).
C. Results of tests of aptitude
Test results of students' aptitudes are summarised in Kendrick (1995). Although students'
ranking order varied considerably over the different tests, two students (AG and YT) are
shown to be of a generally higher standard than the others. It is worth noting that A G
and YT attained the highest scores on the two oral mimicry tests, which discriminated
well and proved to be the most reliable predictors of pronunciation accuracy.
D. Additional material: findings
Details of students' background and evaluation of attitudinal variables, in Kendrick
(1995), took on particular significance when correlations were explored between talkativeness, motivation etc. and pronunciation acquisition.
554
HELEN KENDRICK
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
I shall concentrate this discussion on what appear to be the most significant points, having
studied and set aside those which are of less consequence, (though see Kendrick, 1995 for
more detail). The following questions will be discussed, in the light of the research already
outlined.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Did the students' pronunciation improve?
Which aspects of pronunciation improved most?
Did degree of accentedness vary according to task?
Was the pattern of improvement uniform during the year?
What caused the improvement?
1. Did the students' pronunciation improve?
Key point 1. Yes. According to analysis (HK), all students' pronunciation improved significantly on all tests.
2. Which aspects of pronunciation improved most?
Key point 2. It would seem that both segmental and suprasegmental aspects improved significantly. The greatest overall improvement was in phonemes between months 4 and 6,
although it appeared to be improvement in suprasegmentals which made the greater impact on
listeners.
(a) Improvement in segmental features
Variation was observed between students and nationalities. A detailed summary is to be
found in Kendrick (1995). Salient points are noted below. With regard to vowels, the most
significant improvement was appropriate use of schwa /o/ in unstressed words such as
"and", "of", "was" etc. These are comprehensible in citation form, but the effect of using
strong forms is noticeably "un-English."
With regard to consonants, the most general improvement was appropriate use of voieed
consonants, particularly final "s" in third person singular verbs and plural nouns, e.g.
"tins" originally/tins/was corrected to/tmz/. This accords with research into order of
acquisition of L2 phonology by Hecht and Mulford (1982) who observed voiceless consonants preceding voiced.
( b ) Improvement in suprasegmental features
Directing students to recognise and stress prominent words made a significant impact on the
communicative effectiveness of messages, and affected various aspects of pronunciation;
pitch movements accompanied stress; unstressed forms when correctly executed resulted
in phoneme changes. Improvement in general language proficiency affected learners'
ability to recognise the relative importance of parts of a message.
3. Did accentedness vary according to task?
Key point 3. Yes. Highly significant figures give evidence that the degree of accentedness
varied according to the type of task, with spontaneous speech being less accented than more
KEEP THEM T A L K I N G !
555
controlled speaking or reading. Scores recorded for month 8 (May) Progress Tests were
compared. Results showed that students' pronunciation was significantly more heavily
accented on other tests when compared with Test Pr2: Conversation. The results of correlations shown below illustrate how an "order of difficulty" was established, with the
"easiest;' (i.e. least accented) first.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Pr2:
Pr4:
Pr5:
Pr3:
Pr6:
Conversation
Picture Story
<0.05
Reading
- - < 0.05
Directions
- - < 0.01
Read List
<0.01
(0.021)
(0.012)
(0.0028)
(0.0017)
significant difference
significant difference
highly significant difference
highly significant difference .
These findings are consistent with those of Thompson (1991: p. 193). It is not surprising that scores for Test Pr6 were lower since this "Reading List", a shopping list,
(Swan and Smith 1987: p. 265) contained a high proportion of phonemes which proved
difficult to pronounce. Similarly, Test Pr3 (Giving Directions) necessitated using a high
concentration of potentially difficult phonemes, e . g . / ~ u / i n go, road, o v e r ; / a u / i n round;
/ 3 : / in turn; /r/ in right, round. Also the nature of this exercise caused students to
hesitate, searching for vocabulary, which in turn resulted in unnatural patterns of stress.
4. Was the pattern of improvement uniform throughout the year?
Key point 4. No. The pattern of improvement appeared to vary during the course, with a
higher general rate of improvement between months 4 and 6 (January and March) than
between months 6 and 8 (March and May).
This is not surprising since the most concentrated "treatment" of pronunciation teaching
aad general English teaching was from January to March, (months 4 to 6). Its short-term
effect should have been apparent. The March to May session contained fewer teaching
weeks, and 3 V2 weeks' holiday when students could speak first languages. Inevitably some
oral fluency was lost.
The observations above would suggest that the acquisition of L2 pronunciation is directly
affected by a combination of:
(i) exposure to an English-speaking environment, plus (ii) general English lessons, plus
(iii) pronunciation teaching. However, we cannot ignore the plateau effect, mentioned
earlier, which could also have caused learners to improve less in the latter part of the
course.
5. What caused the improvement?
Key point 5. Because of the small sample of learners under observation, we must be cautious
as to reasons for considerable variance between individuals. Nevertheless, significant correlations suggest that successful acquisition of L2 pronunciation is affected by talkativeness,
aptitude for oral mimcry and training. Learners' views accorded with this notion.
One would expect that studying in an English environment for a year should have an
improving effect on language and hence pronunciation. Similarly, the repetition of similar
tasks could in itself produce a positive result. But both exposure to an English environ-
556
HELEN K E N D R I C K
ment and task practice were common to all eight students. In this study, just as the
amount of improvement appeared to vary according to task and time of year, also there
was considerable variance between students, with some outstanding improvements. For
instance:
Test Pr6: AG improved phonemes
by 16% (Jan-May, months 4-8)
Test Pr5: YA improved suprasegmentals by 17% (Jan-March, months 4-6)
Test Pr5: YL improved suprasegmentals by 23% (Jan-May, months 4-8)
Test Pr5: PS improved suprasegmentals
by 27% (Jan-March, months 4-6)
Regarding achievement, YT attained outstanding final results in May (month 8), being
ranked first for tests Pr2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Having started higher, she had less room for
improvement. Other high achievers were: AG and YL.
One can speculate as to possible reasons for the success of these students. Attributes such
as general academic ability, motivation, musical ability and/or "favoured" first language
appeared to help some learners to improve. However, with such a small sample of individuals it is unwise to make generalisations. Nevertheless I shall select for discussion certain
variables which could be significant.
Talkativeness A greater number of significant correlations concerned talkativeness than
any other variable.
There were links between talkativeness and high achievement in various tests, taking into
account both phonemes and suprasegmentals. Also, talkativeness correlated with motivation and, not surprisingly, with Use of English. It is interesting to note here a study
carried out on a much younger age group by Strong (1983), recorded in Skehan (1989: p.
105), who found strikingly consistent correlations between pronunciation and both
talkativeness and gregariousness.
Aptitude for oral mimicry This was another variable which had significant correlations
with success in pronunciation.
Contrary to what one might expect, there were no significant links between motivation
and high final scores, nor between good aptitude for auditory discrimination and high
phoneme scores. This would appear to be consistent with Yule, et al., report, (1987: p. 765).
None of the other variables discussed earlier in this study appeared very significant except
for teaching time.
The effect of pronunciation teaching
There were highly significant correlations (< 0.01) between pronunciation teaching time
and improvement, as perceived by the raters. Improvement on three tests (Pr2, P3 and
Pr5) was totalled for each student, and correlated with estimated Teaching Time for each
KEEP THEM T A L K I N G !
557
student. Correlations were recorded comparing the number of exercises, number of
classes, and final estimate of teaching time, with improvement as perceived by inexperienced, experienced and all raters. In all cases the factor was highly significant at < 0.01.
The tests marked by discrete point analysis did not produce such striking results, but
showed the same positive trend.
Regarding the effectiveness of learning procedures, my observations were noted earlier.
Students responded positively to the wide range of activities, expressing faith in phoneme
practice. All acknowledged the value of having a native teacher who corrected their
pronunciation, and of speaking English as much as possible.
CONCLUSION
Amidst discussion in the pedagogical field as to the relative value of pronunciation
teaching, this study has shown that training can produce positive effects on pronunciation
in a reasonably short period of time, with intermediate students in a school setting. Given
the rarity of comparable studies, this is an important finding, of potential value to teachers who are uncertain of the value of their efforts.
It would be of interest to test whether the positive effects persist over time and carry over
to other situations before substantiating claims about the effectiveness of instructional
interactions, since indications of immediate or short-term improvement can diminish after
a time, leaving non-interventional variables to assume more lasting significance.
Talkativeness was another variable which correlated significantly with success in L2 pronunciation in this study, as did aptitude for oral mimicry to a lesser degree.
Pedagogical implications
Of the three variables cited above training, talkativeness and aptitude for oral mimicry, it
would seem that teachers can have least influence on the last two. Nevertheless, a sensitive
instructor can do much to encourage and engender talkativeness in class by providing
stimulating, motivating and effective material in a stress-free environment, with regard
for learner preferences. Oral mimicry aptitude is a quality which some fortunate
individuals possess to a greater degree than others, but all have learnt their native
language and must have this basic ability, which may be trainable, given the most effective
approach.
Recommendations
Approach and teaching. Current emphasis on a top-down perspective laudably focuses on
the importance of integrating prosodic and voice quality features into the pronunciation
programme as well as segmentals.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Let us therefore use drama and role-play activities, which have been shown to be
effective, but let us not run the risk of ignoring the segments!
Frequent short sessions of pronunciation training can be most beneficial.
An important focus of training should be on:
558
HELEN KENDRICK
(i) stress v a r i a t i o n as it affects the r e d u c t i o n o f w e a k syllables,
(ii) stress a n d pitch in a c c e n t u a l o p p o s i t i o n s , a n d
(iii) the l o c a t i o n o f pitch p r o m i n e n t syllables. S u c h t r a i n i n g has b e e n s h o w n to be
effective a n d the i m p a c t o n listeners is significant. T e a c h i n g c a n help l e a r n e r s
to r e c o g n i s e i m p o r t a n t " m e a n i n g " w o r d s a n d t h e r e b y i m p r o v e the c o m m u n i cative n a t u r e o f their l a n g u a g e .
(d)
(e)
6)
T e a c h e r s s h o u l d d r a w a t t e n t i o n to c o m m u n i c a t i o n strategies w h i c h affect p r o n u n c i a t i o n , e.g. h e s i t a t i o n , r e p h r a s i n g , r e p e t i t i o n , s o u n d i n s e r t i o n s a n d rate o f delivery,
since the c o m m u n i c a t i v e effectiveness o f a n u t t e r a n c e c a n be affected if a listener's
level o f t o l e r a n c e is exceeded.
Self-study t e c h n i q u e s (e.g. i n d i v i d u a l tapes) c a n be usefully i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o p r o nunciation programmes.
A b o v e all, it seems t h a t o u r first p r i o r i t y s h o u l d be to K E E P T H E S T U D E N T S
TALKING.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to my M.A. supervisor Stephen Bax of Canterbury Christ Church College,
Marion Ainsworth for statistical information, independent raters and the Headmaster, students and staff at
Hurtwood House, Holmbury St. Mary.
NOTES
]This research was undertaken as part of M.A. TEEL dissertation work at Canterbury Christ Church College,
Canterbury, U.K.
REFERENCES
Acton, W. (1984) Changing fossilized pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly 18(1), 71-85.
Baker, A. 0977) Ship or Sheep. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bowen, T. and Marks, J. (1992) The Pronunciation Book. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Brutten, S., Angelis, P. and Perkins, K. (1985) Music and memory: predictors for attained ESL oral proficiency.
Language Learning 35(2), 299 313.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1987) Teaching pronunciation as communication. In Current Perspectives on Pronunciation.
ed. J. Morley, pp. 1 12, Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
De Bot, K. (1983) Visual feedback of English intonation, 1: effectiveness and induced practice behaviour.
Language & Speech 26, 331 350.
De Bot, K. and Mailfert, K. (1982) The teaching of intonation: fundamental research and classroom applications. TESOL Quarterly 16, 71 77.
Dunkel, P., Johnson, K. and Rekart, D. (1991) The use of computer technology in ITA training programs. Paper
presented at the Third National Conference on the Training and Employment of Teaching Assistants, Austin,
TX.
Fayer, J. and Krasinski, E. (1987) Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation. Language
Learning 37(3), 313 327.
Fletcher, M. (1991) Phonetic Alphabet Cards. Power Learning. English Experience, Folkestone, Kent.
Gass, S. M. and Varonis, E. M. (1984) The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech.
Language Learning 34(1), 65-89.
Gilbert, J. B. (1980) Prosodic development: Some pilot studies. In Research in Second Language Acquisition, eds
R. C. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen, pp. 11(~117 Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
KEEP THEM TALKING!
559
Gilbert, J. B. (1987) Clear Speech. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gilbert, J. B. (1993) Clear Speech: Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in North American English
(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gimson, A. C. (1980) An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. Edward Arnold, London.
Hecht, B. F. and Mulford, R. (1982) The acquisition of a second language phonology: interaction of transfer and
developmental factors. Applied Psycholinguistics 3, 313-328.
Hill, J. (1970) Foreign Accents, language acquisition and cerebral dominance revisited. Language Learning 20,
237 240.
Kenworthy, J. (1987) Teaching English Pronunciation. Longman, London.
Kendrick, H. (1995) Factors affecting EFL learners' improvement in pronunciation. M. A. dissertation, Canterbury Christ Church College, UK.
Krashen, S., Scarcella, R. and Long, M. (eds) (1982) Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition.
Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman,
London.
Macdonald, D., Yule, G. and Powers, M. (1994) Attempts to improve English L2 pronunciation: the variable
effects of different types of instruction. Language Learning 44(1), 75-100.
Madden, E. (1983) The effect of training on pronunciation. ORTESOL Journal 4, 69-80.
Major, R. C. (1987) Phonological differentiation of a bilingual child. Ohio State University Working Papers in
Linguistics 22, 88 122.
Molholt, G. (1988) Computer assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English.
TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 91 111.
Morley, J. (1991) The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL
Quarterly 25(3), 481-519.
Morris, S. and Stanton, A. (1993) The Nelson First Certificate Workbook. Nelson, Walton-on-Thames, UK.
Munro, M. J. and Derwing, T. M. (1995) Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of
second language learners. Language Learning 45(1), 73-97.
Murakawa, H. (1981) Teaching English pronunciation to Japanese adults. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin, TX.
Neufield, G. (1978) On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in child language learning. Canadian
Modern Language Review 34, 163 174.
Neufield, G. and Schneiderman, E. (1980) Prosodic and articulatory features in adult language learning. In
Research in Second Language Acquisition eds R. C. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen, pp. 105-109. Newbury House,
Rowley, MA.
Oyama, S. (1976) A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psychological Research 5, 261 285.
Pennington, M. C. (1984) Can pronunciation be improved by instruction in pronunciation? Paper presented at
the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston, TX.
Pennington, M. C. (1989) Teaching Pronunciation from the top down. RELC Journal 20, 20-38.
Pennington, M. C. (1991) Computer assisted analysis of English dialect and inter-language prosodics. In Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice, ed. P. Dunkel, pp. 133-154. Newbury
House, New York.
Pennington, M. C. and Richards, J. C. (1986) Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly 20(2), 207 225.
Roach, P. (1991 ) English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Saunders, J. (1973) Games and After Liverpool, pp. 19-20. Samuel French, London.
Scarcella, R. C. and Oxford, R. L. (1994) Second language pronunciation: state of the art in instruction. System
22(2), 221 230.
Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. Edward Arnold, London.
Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-H6hle, M. (1977) Age differences in the pronunciation of foreign sounds. Language &
Speech 20, 357 365.
Strong, M. H. (1983) Social styles and second language acquisition of Spanish-speaking kindergartners. TESOL
Quarterly 17(2), 241 258.
560
HELEN KENDRICK
Swan, H. A. (1983) Act One in English 3. Hulton, Amersham, Bucks, Great Britain.
Swan, M. and Smith, B. (1987) Learner English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Thompson, I. (1991) Foreign accents revisited: the English pronunciation of Russian immigrants. Language
Learning 41(2), 177-204.
Thornbury, S. (1993) Having a good jaw: voice-setting phonology. EL T Journal 47(2), 126-131.
Underhill, A. (1994) Sound Foundations. Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Watcyn-Jones, P. (1978) Act English. Penguin, Harmsworth, UK.
Wong, R. (1987) Teaching Pronunciation. Focus on English Rhythm and Intonation. Prentice Hall, Englewood,
Cliffs, N.J.
Yule, G., Hoffman, P. and Damico, J. (1987) Paying attention to pronunciation: the role of self-monitoring in
perception. TESOL Quarterly 21(4), 765 768.