Beyond 'Listen and Repeat': Pronunciation
Teaching Materials and Theories of
Second Language Acquisition
System 25:1. 103-112.
Rodney H. Jones
Department of English
City University of Hong Kong
Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
enrodney@cityu.edu.hk
ABSTRACT
Materials for the teaching of pronunciation have
changed significantly over the past fifty years from emphasizing the accurate
production of discrete sounds to concentrating more on the broader, more
communicative aspects of connected speech. For many commercially produced
materials, however, while the phonological focus has changed, the teaching
techniques and task types presented continue to be based on behaviourist
notions of second language acquisition, largely relying on imitation and discrimination
drills, reading aloud and contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 sound systems. This
paper briefly reviews recent research into the acquisition of second language
phonology and examines if and how these research findings are reflected in
currently used pronunciation teaching materials. Suggestions are made for the
future production of materials which incorporate activities more fully
addressing the communicative, psychological and sociological dimensions of
pronunciation.
1 Introduction
Over the past 50 years the fortunes of
pronunciation teaching have waxed and waned. Irrelevant in the
grammar-translation approach, pronunciation grew in prominence with the rise of
the direct method and audiolingualism, only to be pushed again to the sidelines
with the ascendency of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and the Natural
Approach (Krashen 1982). Today, pronunciation teaching is experiencing a new
resurgence, fuelled largely by the increasing awareness of the communicative
function of suprasegmental features in spoken discourse (Brazil, Coulthard
& Johns 1980, Brown and Yule 1983). In the late 80's, researchers called
for a more 'top-down' approach to pronunciation teaching (Pennington &
Richards 1986, Pennington 1989) emphasizing the broader, more meaningful
aspects of phonology in connected speech rather than practice with isolated
sounds, thus ushering pronunciation back into the communicative fold. Materials
writers responded with a wealth of courses and recipe books focusing on
suprasegmental pronunciation (Bradford 1988, Gilbert 1984, Rogerson &
Gilbert 1990). A closer look at such materials, however, reveals that, with
notable exceptions (Bowen & Marks 1992, Bowler & Cunningham 1991), most
commercially produced course books on pronunciation today present activities
remarkably similar to the audiolingual texts of the 50's, relying heavily on
mechanical drilling of decontextualized words and sentences. While professing
to teach the more communicative aspects of pronunciation, many such texts go
about it in a decidedly uncommunicative way. The more pronunciation teaching
materials have changed, it seems, the more they have stayed the same.
Meanwhile, research into second language phonology
has suggested a wide range of factors affecting the acquisition of
pronunciation beyond the behaviourist notion of habit formation, including
those relating to cognitive development, linguistic universals and
psychological and sociological conditions. This paper examines the extent to
which the results of such research have made their way into commercially
produced pronunciation materials and suggests ways in which materials can be
brought more in line with research findings.
2 Pronunciation Teaching
and Theories SLA
2.1 Can Pronunciation Be
Taught?
Arguments against the explicit teaching of
pronunciation rely on two basic assumptions about the acquisition of second
language phonology: the first, based on the critical period hypothesis,
claims that it is virtually impossible for adults to acquire native-like
pronunciation in a foreign language; and the second, arising primarily from the
work of Krashen (1982), insists that pronunciation is an acquired skill and
that focused instruction is at best useless and at worst detrimental.
A number of studies have supported the popular
notion that children enjoy an advantage over adults in learning the
pronunciation of a second language (Asher & Garcia 1969, Scovel 1969,
Seliger, Krashen & Ladefoged 1975). Such studies, however, fail to prove
that it is impossible for adults to acquire native-like pronunciation, and
several researchers have presented strong evidence to the contrary (Neufeld
1980, Tarone 1978). A widely cited study by Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977)
found that adults were actually superior to children in the areas of
pronunciation and sound discrimination, at least in the first stages of
learning, and, although children excelled in later stages, the only subject in
the study identified as acquiring native-like pronunciation was the teenager.
Flege (1987:174), in a review of the literature, notes that the results of many
empirical studies are 'inconsistent with the expectations generated by the
critical period hypothesis' and points out that the hypothesis itself is
difficult to test as it is hard to isolate speech learning from other factors
associated with age. Others have suggested age related differences might be due
to wider socio-cultural and general maturational variables (Leather & James
1991), or differences in learning strategies among different age groups. The
social pressures for phonological conformity and the ways these are manifested,
for instance, might be different for children than for older learners (Tarone
1978). It has further been pointed out that adults and adolescents have skills
such as 'ability to compare and contrast and recognise patterns in speech' not
available to children (Pennington 1994:102). The implication of such research
on the development of pronunciation teaching materials is not that adults
should be denied pronunciation training, but that learners of different ages
may respond differently, both emotionally and cognitively, to different kinds
of teaching approaches and task types: whereas imitation activities might be
more successful with younger learners, older learners might benefit from a more
descriptive or analytic approach (Brown 1992).
The second argument against pronunciation teaching
claims that the factors affecting second language pronunciation are chiefly
acquisition variables, which cannot be affected by focused practice and the
teaching of formal rules (Krashen 1982). The enormous influence of this
argument is evidenced by the virtual disappearance of pronunciation work in
'communicative' course books of the 70's. Proponents of this idea often point
to a study by Purcell and Suter (1980) which concludes that the factors which
most affect the acquisition of L2 phonology (native language, aptitude for oral
mimicry, interaction with native speakers and motivation) 'seem to be those
which teachers have the least influence on' (285). 'Teachers and classrooms,'
Purcell and Suter claim, 'seem to have very little to do with how well our
students pronounced English' (285). The problems with Purcell and Suter and
other studies that support this claim are that, for the most part, they have
focused on acquisition in a second-language environment, and that they tend to
underestimate the effect teachers and classrooms can have in the areas of
motivation and exposure. Again, the implication for materials is not that
pronunciation should be ignored, but that pronunciation teaching methods should
more fully address the issues of motivation and exposure by creating an
awareness of the importance of pronunciation and providing more exposure to
input from native speakers.
2.2 Listen and Repeat:
Phonology and Behavioursim
Perhaps the oldest method of teaching pronunciation
involves exercises in elocution: imitation drills and reading aloud. The
popular image of students chanting 'the rain in Spain falls mainly on the
plain' is still the reality of many language classrooms. With the development
of recording technology and the rise of audiolingualism, such methods became
the stock and trade of language teaching, and, while now widely discredited in
the areas of grammar and vocabulary teaching, the 'listen and repeat' approach
has persisted in the teaching of pronunciation. Even materials which claim to
be communicative often offer only a variation on this approach in which simple
dialogue reading or practice with minimal pairs is passed off as 'communicative'
(see, for example, Gilbert 1984, 1993). Part of the reason for the focus on
habit formation in acquiring L2 phonology is the special characteristics of
pronunciation which, unlike other language skills, involves both cognitive and
motor functions: few would deny that repeated practice of motor functions
results in increased dexterity. Recent research, however, has revealed the
limitations of this approach, finding that, as with grammar, students who
exhibit accuracy in controlled practice may fail to transfer such gains to
actual communicative language use (Cohen, Larson-Freeman & Tarone 1991),
and that accuracy of pronunciation varies according to the type of task
learners are engaged in (Dickerson 1975). Others have pointed out that the benefits
of imitation drills may depend on learners' aptitude for oral mimicry. For
learners without 'good ears', drills may cause production to stabilize before
reaching the target (Kenworthy 1987).
Central to this debate is the question of which
half of the 'listen and repeat' equation results in increased accuracy:
perception or production. Some teaching materials emphasize the importance of
sound discrimination, insisting that students who cannot hear a particular
English contrast have no chance of reproducing it (O'Connor and Fletcher 1989).
Several studies, however, suggest that this is not the case. Goto (1971), in
his examination of Japanese learners' ability to produce and perceive the r/l
contrast, found that some subjects with poor discrimination could still
pronounce the sounds correctly, suggesting perception may not precede
production and that kinaesthetic sensation may be at least as important as
auditory feedback. Similarly, Leather and James (1991:320) found that 'training
in one modality tended to be sufficient to enable a learner to perform in
another'. Listening and repeating seems to be a two way street: focused
listening can improve oral production and practice in oral production can
improve auditory perception (Pennington 1996).
It appears that while both imitation and
discrimination drills have an important place in the teaching of pronunciation
as a means to help articulation become more automatic and routinized, they are
best seen as a step towards more meaningful, communicative practice (Pennington
1996). To be truly effective, drills have to move beyond the simple
identification and mimicking decontextualized sound contrasts to the perception
of more meaningful, communicative characteristics of input (Wong 1987) and the
ability to move beyond accurate production of discrete sounds to integrating
those sounds into effective communication. Drills can also be made more lively
and memorable by concentrating not just on oral and aural modalities but also
including visual representations and training in the awareness of kinaesthetic
sensation (Acton 1984, Pennington 1996).
Many materials have sought to integrate perception
and production as equal components in pronunciation training. Gilbert
(1984,1993) and Rogerson and Gilbert (1990) promote their books as both
pronunciation and listening comprehension courses. Other materials writers have
begun to recognize the importance of other modalities (visual and kinaesthetic)
in pronunciation training, combining pictures, gestures and physical activities
(like the stretching of rubber bands) with drills, along the lines of Total
Physical Response (Acton 1984, Gilbert 1993, Pennington 1996).
2.3 Interlanguage
Phonology
It is a widely held belief that interference from
learners' first language affects the acquisition of the second language sound
system more than other systems (like grammar)(Kranke and Christison 1983). This
belief is reflected in the large number of pronunciation teaching materials
which include sections on contrastive analysis (Baker 1977, Bowler &
Cunningham 1991, Kenworthy 1987, O'Connor and Fletcher 1989). These sections,
however, usually alerting teachers to 'special problems' likely to be
encountered by particular L1 speakers, are often simplistic and misleading,
treating the production of specific sounds and sound contrasts divorced from
the natural stream of speech and usually ignoring suprasegmental features of
non-native accents.
The extent to which interlanguage phonology is
affected by L1 transfer, and the relative value of providing L1 specific
pronunciation practice is very much in debate. Tarone (1978) suggests that
there is a universal tendency in language acquisition to reduce complex forms,
and that 'transfer is only a part--and often a small part--of the influence on
interlanguage phonology' (15), with other factors like overgeneralization,
approximation and avoidance being much more significant. It may be that the
influence of learners' native language on their pronunciation is not really
stronger than on other areas of language use, but simply more noticeable to the
casual observer.
Recently contrastive analysis has given way to the
more sophisticated theories of equivalence classification, whereby learners
approach a new sound system by mapping it onto their L1 sound system, using
existing categories where similarities exist and creating new categories for
unfamiliar features (Flege 1981), and 'markedness' (Eckman 1977), which posits
that certain features are inherently more difficult than others, regardless of
the learners' language backgrounds. Several researchers claim that universal
constraints of human speech production and perception and non-phonological
developmental characteristics might be much more important than L1
interference. Maken & Ferguson (1987) point out, for example, that
phonological processes like substitution, assimilation, deletion and
reduplication, evident in L1 acquisition, are also present in L2 acquisition,
suggesting that acquisition of a second language sound system may involve
continued operation or reactivation of universal phonological processes.
Furthermore, episodes of overgeneralization and experimentation in
interlanguage phonology indicate that the process of building a phonological
system 'is not an automatic one, but rather an active one' (Maken &
Ferguson 1987:17)
In light of these findings, materials writers
should approach predicting pronunciation problems based on learners' native
language with caution. On the one hand, activities and methods that encourage inappropriate
equivalence classification, such as overemphasis on orthography or use of
simplified systems of phonetic transcription based on the L1, should be avoided
(Pennington 1996). On the other hand, L1 transfer should not be automatically
seen as something negative, but rather as a natural stage and valuable strategy
in the process of the acquisition of the L2 sound system (Kenworthy 1987,
Tarone 1978). Consciousness raising activities which sensitize learners to the
differences between L1 and L2 systems and the L2 system and their own
interlanguage might more beneficial than error correction.
2.4 Phonology and the
Monitor
Since the publication of Morley's classic, Improving
Spoken English (1979), there has been increased attention in pronunciation
materials to training students to monitor their production through the teaching
of formal rules, feedback and reflective activities (Acton 1984, Bradford 1988,
Crawford 1987, Firth 1987, Pennington 1996, Wong 1987). This trend is based on
the assumption that 'pronunciation improves through gradual monitoring of the
acquired system based on conscious knowledge of the facts learned about the
language' (Crawford 1987:109). Krashen and his colleagues, of course, would
argue against training which strengthens the monitor as useless for improving
spoken language which normally does not involve enough time for the monitor to
operate. In fact, such training, they might add, could actually encourage
'monitor over-use' resulting in a decrease in fluency. Other theories
incorporating the monitor model, however, (such as that suggested by Bialystok)
posit a more porous boundary between learned and acquired systems through which
'information stored in explicit linguistic knowledge may become automatic and
transferred to implicit linguistic knowledge after continued use via the
monitor' (Crawford 1987:113). Dickerson (1987), in a study involving Chinese,
Japanese and Korean learners, found that formal rules do result in improvement
when used for monitoring speech, and, although they can interfere with
production when used for initiating speech, subjects gained in both fluency and
accuracy after a period of 'covert rehearsal'. He hypothesized that formal
rules may help acquisition by 'generat(ing) input for the acquisition device'
in the form of learners 'talking to themselves'(134), and calls for a 'better
balance in our instructional activities between supplying ideal input and
equipping learners to supply their own ideal input' (137).
Similarly, Jones, Rusmin
& Evans (1994) found that students with prior exposure to
phonological rules and principles, while not always producing more accurate
pronunciation, seem to be better equipped to assess their own speech and more
aware of their particular pronunciation problems. Acton (1984), suggests
'post-hoc monitoring', where learners reflect on the accuracy of their
productions after the fact, and 'kinaesthetic monitoring', where learners
attempt to monitor their output based on correct 'feel' rather than auditory
feedback.
While rule teaching that is too complicated or
elaborate, like all the varied rules governing intonation in discourse, might
overwhelm the monitor and thus be detrimental (Kenworthy 1987), there seems to
be no justification for denying learners linguistic information which may
empower them to improve on their own. The explicit presentations of rules has
been a standard feature of pronunciation textbooks for the past twenty years,
ranging from detailed explanations of phonological concepts (O'Connor 1980) to
simple, graphic representations of articulatory processes (as in Baker 1977).
Most of these materials, however, fail to take Morley's (1979) lead and go
beyond abstract presentation to the application of rules in follow-up
activities such as self or peer monitoring. Furthermore, most rule teaching
focuses on single narrow models (such as RP) to the exclusion of local
varieties, and is laid out in a deductive, prescriptive fashion. A particularly
intriguing direction taken by some materials writers is to present rules more
inductively through 'discovery activities' in which students listen and attempt
to articulate the rules governing what they have heard with the help of cues,
or collaborate with their classmates to find patterns in written or spoken
text. This technique has many advantages: it can make rules more memorable to
learners as they are formulated by themselves, it can increase awareness of the
communicative aspects of pronunciation, and it can provide an opportunity for
communicative practice as learners interact with their peers (for examples see
Bowler & Cunningham 1991, Bradford 1988).
2.5 Communication and
Contextualization
Perhaps the most criticised aspect of pronunciation
teaching materials is their widespread reliance on decontextualized language
and lack of grounding in the realities of actual communication. It is one of
Krashen's (1982) chief tenets that
language is best taught when
it is being used to transmit messages, and this sentiment has been echoed in
relation to pronunciation teaching by such researchers as Pennington and
Richards (1986), who point out that it is 'artificial to divorce pronunciation
from communication and other aspects of language use' (208). 'In order to
become a competent speaker and listener,' writes Pennington (1996), 'a language
learner needs to attend to not only the strictly mechanical, articulatory
aspects of pronunciation, but also to the meaningful correlates of those
articulatory features in the immediate linguistic context, as well as the
larger context of human communication'. Pica (1984) goes so far as to attribute
the widespread ineffectiveness of pronunciation training for adults to the
failure of teachers and materials writers to approach the skill
communicatively.
Some, though not many, materials writers have
attempted to incorporate a more communicative dimension in their design of
tasks and activities. Bradford (1988), for example, organizes her course
according to discourse functions (highlighting, telling and referring, etc.)
rather than the traditional phonological categories. Other writers have
included interactive activities where there is a phonological 'information gap'
such that only proper pronunciation and perception can lead to the correct
outcome in the task (see, for example, Gilbert 1993).
There has also been an
attempt to make repetitive practice of rhythm and sound more natural and
meaningful through the use of poetry and song (Gilbert 1993, Maley 1987).
Finally, several materials writers have attempted to integrate pronunciation
practice into broader communicative activities by either finding
lexical/grammatical contexts with naturally occurring instances of target
sounds or features (Celce-Murcia 1987) or simply altering the language in texts
used in such activities (such as the names of dishes on a menu or the names of
streets on a map) to include target sounds. A large number of materials,
however, offer activities which, while at first glance seeming more communicative,
are actually just more elaborate forms of drilling, such as dialogue reading
and highly structured pair practice like questionnaire completion, which
learners are able to engage in without attending to meaning or communication at
all. In Gilbert's (1993) widely used Clear Speech, for example, over a
quarter of the activities are discrimination or repetition drills using
decontextualized words, phrases or sentences; another 25% of the activities are
reading tasks in which students read aloud printed words, sentences, dialogues,
poems or paragraphs; and only about 2% of the activities in the book actually
involve meaningful interaction and the transfer of information beyond one or
two sentences.
Absent from most materials is the opportunity for
freer practice which allows students to participate in discourse situations
that exemplify a variety of suprasegmental features, such as the free
conversation and 'fluency workshop' activities advocated by Wong (1987).
It is obvious that creating a stronger link between
pronunciation and communication can help increase learners' motivation by
bringing pronunciation beyond the lowest common denominator of
'intelligibility' and encouraging students' awareness of its potential as a
tool for making their language not only easier to understand but more
effective.
2.6 Psychological and
Sociological Factors
Two aspects of pronunciation teaching that have
been virtually ignored in teaching materials are the psychological and
sociological dimensions. The way one speaks has a great deal to do with the
impression he or she wants to create in a particular context. It has been
claimed that the more learners identify with native speakers of a second
language, the more likely they are to sound like native speakers. Conversely,
learners who wish to retain identification with their own culture or social
category may consciously or unconsciously retain a foreign accent as a marker
of in-group affiliation. Such L2 social marking can occur even in the very
early stages of second language acquisition (Dowd, Zuengler & Berkowitz
1990). Consequently, a number of researchers have claimed that work on
pronunciation 'needs to be tied in with work on the individual's value set,
attitudes and socio-cultural schemata' (Pennington 1994:104), and that targets
for pronunciation teaching should be appropriate for the particular
sociological context in which the teaching takes place (Brown 1989).
Similarly, the way an individual pronounces has
much to do with his or her personality and psychological or emotional state at
any given time. Acton (1984) sees preparing students psychologically as a
necessary correlate to improving their pronunciation. Phonology, he says, has
both 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' dimensions which function in a kind of loop:
'Not only does personality or emotional state show in pronunciation...but the
converse is also true: speakers can control their nerves or inner states by
speaking properly. This is the basic tenet of successful programs in voice
training and public speaking' (75). Others (like Guiora & Schonberger 1990)
point to the importance of empathy and the development of a 'second-language
ego'.
Finally,
learners' reasons for learning a second language and the uses they plan to put
the language to can have an effect on how native-like they may want or need to
sound. Learners who expect to have a large amount of interaction with native
speakers in business or professional contexts, for example, will have different
needs and expectations than learners who plan to use the language primarily for
communication with other non-native speakers.
Of course, it is difficult for teaching materials
prepared for an international market to cater to learners with different needs,
personalities, learning styles and cultural backgrounds. Some writers, however,
have attempted to include opportunities for personalization and student-centred
learning in their activities (Bowen & Marks 1992, Kenworthy 1987, Morley
1979). Such opportunities can be realized through questionnaires asking
learners to reflect on their attitudes towards non-native like pronunciation of
their own language, their pronunciation needs in their future careers, and
their perceptions of their ability to change their pronunciation, as well as
activities in which learners are asked to comment on their impressions of
recordings of speakers with different varieties and degrees of foreign accent.
3 Conclusion:
Pronunciation Teaching Materials in the Future
Contemporary materials for the teaching of
pronunciation, while still retaining many of the characteristics of traditional
audiolingual texts, have begun to incorporate more meaningful and communicative
practice, an increased emphasis on suprasegmentals, and other features such as
consciousness raising and self-monitoring which reflect current research into
the acquisition of second language phonology. Much however remains to be done
to bring materials in line with SLA research findings.
Writers of pronunciation teaching materials in the
coming years will likely pay more attention to learners' sociolinguistic
situations and the political implications of attitudes towards non-native
accents. They will also increasingly find ways of dealing with the
psychological aspects of pronunciation training, integrating confidence
building and reflective activities into their courses. More attention will also
be given to the order in which phonological principles are presented, with
increased focus on the broader, more communicative aspects of pronunciation
like 'voice quality' (Jones & Evans 1995). Like other aspects of language
teaching, pronunciation materials must adapt to changes within ESL, addressing,
for example, the more specialized needs of ESP, and the changing role of the
learners in Self-Access Language Learning (SALL) (Rogerson-Revell & Miller
1994). Listening will continue to play a large part in pronunciation training,
with perhaps more authentic listening tasks with a variety of accents. The
explicit teaching of rules will remain, but will be tempered with more and more
opportunities for free practice, and training the monitor will continue to be
emphasized with exercises in self-assessment. Finally, pronunciation will,
whenever possible, be taught in concert with other skills, not as a separate
entity, but as another string in the communicative bow.
REFERENCES
Acton, W. (1984) Changing fossilized
pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly. 18(1), 69-83.
Asher, J. & R. Garcia (1969) The optimal age to learn a
foreign language. Modern Language Journal. 53, 334-341.
Baker, A. (1977) Ship or Sheep. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bowen, T. & J. Marks (1992) The Pronunciation Book.
London: Longman.
Bowler, B. & S.
Cunningham (1991) Headway:
Upper-intermediate Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, B. (1988) Intonation in Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brazil, D., M. Coulthard
& C. Johns (1980)
Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.
Brown, A. (1989) Models, standards,
targets/goals and norms in pronunciation teaching. World Englishes. 8(2),
193-200.
Brown, A. (1992) Twenty questions. In Brown, A.
(ed) Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching. London: MacMillan.
Brown, G. & G. Yule (1983) Teaching the Spoken Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burrill, C. (1985) The sensitive period
hypothesis: A review of literature regarding acquisition of a native-like
pronunciation in a second language. Paper presented at a meeting of the
TRI-TESOL Conference, Bellevue, WA, November 15.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1987) Teaching pronunciation as
communication. In J. Morley (ed) Current Perspectives on Pronunciation. Washington
D.C.: TESOL.
Cohen, A.D., D.
Larson-Freeman & E. Tarone (1991) The contribution of SLA theories and research to teaching
language. A paper presented at the Regional Language Centre Seminar on Language
Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore, April 22-26.
Crawford, W.W. (1987) The pronunciation monitor: L2
acquisition considerations and pedagogical priorities. In J. Morley (ed) Current
Perspectives on Pronunciation. Washington D.C.:TESOL.103-121.
Dickerson, L. (1975) The learner's interlanguage as
a set of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly. 9(4), 401-408.
Dickerson, W.B. (1987) Explicit rules and the
developing interlanguage phonology. In James, A. & J. Leather (eds) Sound
Patterns in Second Language Acquisition. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris
Publications.
Dickerson, W.B. (1987) Empowering students with
predictive skills. In Morley, J. (ed) Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory.
Washington, D.C.:TESOL.
Dowd, J., J. Zuengler
& D. Berkowitz
(1990) L2 social marking: Research issues. Applied Linguistics. 11(1),
16-29.
Eckman, F.R. (1977) Markedness and the contrastive
analysis hypothesis. Language Learning. 27, 315-330.
Firth, S. (1987) Developing self-correcting and
self-monitoring strategies. TESL Talk. 17(1), 148-152.
Flege, J. (1987) A critical period for learning
to pronounce second languages? Applied Linguistics. 8, 162-177.
Gilbert, J.B. (1984) Clear Speech: Pronunciation
and Listening Comprehension in American English (First Edition). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J.B. (1987) Pronunciation and listening
comprehension. In Morley, J. (ed) Current Perspectives on Pronunciation.
Washington D.C.:TESOL.
Gilbert, J.B. (1993) Clear Speech: Pronunciation
and Listening Comprehension in North American English. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Goto, H. (1971) Auditory perception by normal
Japanese adults of the sounds 'l' and 'r'. Neuropsychologia. 317-323.
Guiora, A. & R.
Schonberger (1990)
Native pronunciation of bilinguals. In Leather, J. & A. James (es) NEW
SOUNDS 90: Proceedings of the 1990 Amsterdam Symposium on the Acquisition of
Second-Language Speech. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Jones, R.H., Rusmin, R.
& Evans, S. (1994)
Self-assessment of pronunciation by Chinese tertiary students. In Nunan, D.,
Berry, R. & Berry, V. (eds) Language Awareness in Language Education:
Proceedings of the International Language in Education Conference 1994. Hong
Kong: Department of Curriculum Studies, The University of Hong Kong.
Jones, R.H. & Evans,
S. (1995). Teaching
pronunciation through voice quality. ELT Journal 49/3:244-251.
Kenworthy, J. (1987) Teaching English
Pronunciation. London: Longman.
Kranke, K. & M.A. Christison. (1983) Recent language research and
some language teaching principles. TESOL Quarterly. 17(4), 635-650.
Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and Practice in
Second Language Acquisition. Fairview Park: Pergamon Press.
Leather, J. & A. James (1991) The acquisition of second
language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13, 305-331.
Maken, M.A. & C.A.
Ferguson (1987)
Phonological universals in language acquisition. In Ioup, G. & S.H.
Weinberger (eds) Interlanguage Phonology. Cambridge: Newbury House.
Maley, A. (1987) Poetry and song as effective
language learning activities. In Rivers, W.M (ed) Interactive Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morley, J. (1979) Improving Spoken English.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Neufeld, G.G. (1980) On the adult's ability to
acquire phonology. TESOL Quarterly. 14, 285-298.
O'Connor, J.D. (1980) Better English Pronunciation
(2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Connor, J.D. & C.
Fletcher (1989) Sounds
English. Harlow: Longman.
Pennington, M.C. (1989) Teaching pronunciation from the
top down. RELC Journal. 20(1), 20-38.
Pennington, M.C. (1994) Recent research in L2
phonology: implications for practice.
Pennington, M.C. (1994b) Phonology in language
teaching: Essentials of theory and practice. In Bardovi-Harlig, K. & B.S.
Harford (eds) Beyond Methods: Companion Components in Language Teacher
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pennington, M.C. (1996) Phonology in English
Language Teaching: An International Approach. London: Longman.
Pennington, M.C. &
J.C. Richards (1986)
Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly. 20(2), 207-225.
Pica, T. (1984) Pronunciation activities with
an accent on communication. English Teaching Forum. 22(3), 2-6.
Purcell, E. & R. Suter (1980) Predictors of pronunciation
accuracy: A reexamination. Language Learning. 30 (2) 271-287.
Rogerson, P. & J.B.
Gilbert. (1990) Speaking
Clearly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scovel, T. (1969) Foreign accents, language
acquisition and cerebral dominance. Language Learning. 19(3), 245-253.
Siegler, H.W., S.H.
Krashen & P. Ladefoged
(1975) Maturational constraints in the acquisition of second language accent. Language
Sciences. 36, 20-22.
Snow, C.E. & M.
Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977)
Age differences in the pronunciation of foreign sounds. Language and Speech.
20, 357-365.
Tarone, E. (1978) The phonology of interlanguage.
In J.C. Richards (ed). Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wong, R. (1987) Learner variables and
prepronunciation considerations in teaching pronunciation. In J. Morley (ed) Current
Perspectives on Pronunciation. Washington D.C.:TESOL.