Author
Pennsylvania State University, The Behrend College, Erie, USA
Abstract
Keywords
Main Subjects
Introduction
The effectiveness of teaching pronunciation
is a widely debated topic. Nevertheless,
second language fluency is not only based
on grammar, syntax, and discourse, but
pronunciation as well, which plays a vital
role in fluency. The prosodic aspects of
speech are often the most difficult to teach,
yet are a very important element for the
language learner to master. Stress, rhythm
and intonation differentiate the fluent from
the mediocre second language speaker, and
results in a native-like accent
which is
central to the successful use of a second
language. This report examines the
challenges facing the instruction of
This paper focuses on pronunciation from a strict
pedagogical point of view and does not have a
sociolinguistic perspective. That is why the
dichotomy ‘native/nan-native’ has been used. For a
sociolinguistic perspective in general and the
commodification of accents in particular, see
Blommaert (2010).
pronunciation to second language (L2)
learners and based on the examination of
current scholarly work, sets out to answer
the following question: What are the factors
that promote native-like pronunciation in L2
learners? Additionally, this paper explores
the role of pronunciation in current and past
language programs, recent research on the
elements of pronunciation of L2 learners,
and current pedagogical beliefs about
pronunciation teaching and learning.
While age is unmistakably a central aspect
in determining the probability with which
L2 learners will obtain a native-like accent,
researchers have found that some nonnative
speakers who began learning later in life are
sometimes identified as native speakers.
However, “this is a fairly exceptional
phenomenon” (Bongaerts, 1999, p. 154).
For the purpose of this essay, these
exceptions will not be examined. Rather, the
pronunciation of learners who begin to learn
their second language after the age of
twelve, the age where most find an accent
unavoidable, and face the pronunciation
challenges typical of second language
learners (O’Brien, 2004, p. 5), will be
considered.
Introduction to the study
Prosodic features can be realized at the
linguistic domain ranging from the shorter
lexical (phonemic) level to the longer
sentential level (Wu, Tu, & Wang, 2012).
The terminology used in this examination is
very field specific. An agreed interpretation
of these terms is necessary to understand the
positions presented. A Dictionary of
Linguistics & Phonetics (2003) discusses
prosody. In phonetics, the smallest
perceptible segment is a phone. Phonology,
a subfield of segmental phonology, involves
the analysis of speech into phonemes that
corresponds to phonetic segments of
analyzed speech. “A phoneme is an abstract
unit of speech sound that can distinguish
words is such that changing a phoneme in a
word can produce another word” (64).
Speakers of a particular language perceive a
phoneme as a distinctive sound in that
language. The prosodics of oral languages
involves variation in syllable length, pitch,
and loudness of speech sounds. Prosodic
features are suprasegmental in that they are
not confined to any one segment; rather,
they occur in a hierarchy of other levels of
an utterance. These prosodic units are the
actual phonetic spurts or chunks of speech.
They do not in general correspond to
grammatical units such as phrases or
clauses; hence they are more relevant to
pronunciation rather than meaning.
Typically, stress, length, intonation,
syllabification and tone fall under the
general heading of suprasegmentals,
reflecting a conceptual division of speech
into ‘segmental’ and ‘suprasegmental’ parts
(Crystal, 2003). However, this division is
not absolute, with phonetic correlates of
stress, intonation, etc. often manifesting in
the consonants and vowels at the segmental
level. Therefore, the term ‘prosody’ is often
and accurately interchanged with
‘suprasegmentals’ as it will be in this
examination.
Prosodic units are characterized by several
phonetic cues, such as a coherent pitch, and
the gradual decline in pitch and lengthening
of vowels over the duration of the unit, until
the pitch and speed are reset to begin the
next unit. Furthermore, an allophone is one
of several similar speech sounds (phones)
that belong to the same phoneme. An
allophone is not distinctive, but rather a
variant of a phoneme. Changing the
allophone will not change the meaning of a
word, but the result may sound non-native,
or be unintelligible (Crystal, 2003).
Furthermore, research has shown and
current pedagogical thinking on
pronunciation maintains that “intelligible
pronunciation is seen as an essential
component of communicative competence”
(Morley, 1991, p. 513). “The role of
pronunciation in the different schools of
language teaching has varied widely from
having virtually no role in the grammar-translation method to being the main focus
in the audio-lingual method where emphasis
is on the traditional notions of
pronunciation, minimal pairs, drills and
short conversations” (Otlowski, 1998, p. 2).
Though some instructors aim for a native-like pronunciation and have expectations of
near perfection, typically, there is one main
approach in pronunciation teaching:
understandable. The understandable
approach develops a pronunciation style that
is clear and understandable to both native
and non-native speakers, but not necessarily
native-like. This approach does not aim for
perfection, considering it too ambitious and
perhaps even an unattainable goal for most
learners (Chung, 2005, p. 3). Despite
advancements in teaching pronunciation,
near native-like fluency remains elusive to
most adult L2 learners. Though it may seem
that researchers have examined every facet
of language acquisition, pronunciation has
fallen to the wayside and has suffered from
serious neglect. “Neither the Europeans nor
the North Americans have devoted much
time to the study of acquisitions of sound
systems” (Elliot, 1997, p. 95). Furthermore,
Elliot maintains that “teachers tend to view
pronunciation as the least useful of the basic
language skills and therefore sacrifice
teaching pronunciation in order to spend
valuable time on other areas of language” (p.
531). Ironically, language learners
themselves often feel the most important
aspect of learning a language is
pronunciation and sounding native-like,
which reflects the position that intelligible
pronunciation is a fundamental element of
communicative proficiency. Consequently,
to serve the contemporary L2 learner’s
needs, the ultimate goal is not merely
‘understandable’, rather native-like.
The role of pronunciation in current and
past language programs
Current and past language programs have
varied widely as to their methods of
teaching pronunciation, and debates
continue as to the most effective method of
teaching pronunciation. Modern
pronunciation teaching methods sprung from
the classic audio-lingual method (ALM)
which was a direct result of the need for
foreign language proficiency in listening and
speaking skills during and after World War
II. Based on the principle that language
learning is habit formation, it makes drilling,
repetition, and habit-formation central
elements of instruction. However, ALM has
a tendency to focus on manipulation of the
target language and to disregard content and
meaning. Critics of the audio-lingual method
assert that this emphasis on repetition and
accuracy ultimately does not help students
achieve communicative competence in the
target language.
The antithesis and currently, “one of the
more prevalent approaches to teaching
pronunciation is communicative language
teaching (CLT), which requires teaching
methods and objectives that include whole-person learner involvement including three
important dimensions: the learner's
intellectual involvement, affective
involvement, and physical involvement”
(Morley, 1991, pp. 485-6). Teaching of
pronunciation shifts from an aspect of
phonological accuracy to a comprehensive
conversational competence and is thought to
be taught as an integral part of oral
communication (Pennington & Richards,
1986). It is seen as a by-product of teaching
speaking and listening (Murphy, 1991). The
learner's involvement in the learning process
as a partner with his instructor is
acknowledged as an effective techniques for
developing learner strategies. “With CLT
began a movement away from traditional
lesson formats where the focus was on
mastery of different items of grammar and
practice through controlled activities such as
memorization of dialogs and drills, and
toward the use of pair work activities, role
plays, group work activities and project
work” (Richards, p. 4, 2006). It can be seen
that the teacher's role is not only to teach but
to facilitate learning by monitoring and
modifying English at two levels, speech
production and speech performance.
However, controversy persists regarding the
much embraced CLT. Jenkins (2004) argues
that the claim of CLT’s integral instruction
is an act of marginalizing pronunciation in
the belief that it is peripheral to oral
communication. It superintends the critical
role pronunciation plays in communication.
In response, recent studies have shown some
support for the superiority of
suprasegmental instruction in ESL contexts
(e.g., Derwing & Rossiter, 2003). Jenkins
strongly suggests the need of a more
systematic training of prosodic features and
a return to the forgotten minimal pair drills.
Wider availability of curriculum and
software that make prosodic elements
discourse more accessible to teachers and
learners encourage work with
suprasegmentals (Levis, p. 369, 2005).
Finally, teachers’ understandings of CLT
appear to vary and, thus, the manifestations
of the approach in teaching pronunciation is
not as effective as intended. Nazari (2007)
differentiated two concepts of CLT as he
investigated teachers’ CLT beliefs and
practices: the narrower(vocabulary, forms,
and functions) and the broader (social-cultural aspects of language use). In his
study of three Iranian English teachers he
contends that the teachers’ implementation
of CLT practice appears to be based on a
narrower concept because of the
institutional constraints such as student
contact time, class size and prescribed
curriculum and because of the “teachers’
lack of distinction between the two types of
communicative competence (p. 210). In
regards to pronunciation teaching, though
certainly laden with advantages, CLT is not
necessarily a clear choice for language
teachers. Regardless, CLT with its heavy
emphasis on input should indirectly improve
pronunciation through target language
exposure. However, that improvement aims
for merely understandable pronunciation.
Challenges facing instruction of
pronunciation
Conservative and even antiquated beliefs of
teaching pronunciation to second language
learners persist. “The goal of pronunciation
should be changed from the attainment of
'perfect' pronunciation, a very elusive term
at the best of times, to the more realistic
goals of developing functional intelligibility,
communicability, increased self-confidence,
the development of speech monitoring
abilities and speech modification strategies
for use beyond the classroom (Otlowski,
1998, p. 2). However, these beliefs are
antithetical to today’s learners who yearn for
near native-like fluency in their second
language.
Research has uncovered numerous factors
inhibiting native-like pronunciation of L2
learners. One of the most formidable
challenges facing the L2 learner is his
language instructor. Many language learners
are hearing the target language modeled by
their instructor who is not a native speaker
and is not teaching the target language
accent free. “The average speaker of English
in Taiwan uses stereotyped and fossilized
pronunciations based on what they hear
from their teachers and peers” (Chung,
2005, p.2). The skills of listening
comprehension and pronunciation are
interdependent: “If they cannot hear English
well, they are cut off from the language. If
they cannot be understood easily, they are
cut off from conversation with native
speakers” (Otlowski, 1998, p. 2). The non-native instructors of pronunciation suffer
from prosodic challenges themselves, thus
they cannot model accurate phonemes. Also,
speech production is affected by speech
perception; the hearer has become an
important factor in communication
discourse. This illustrates the need to
integrate pronunciation with communicative
activities; to give students situations to
develop their pronunciation by listening and
speaking. The current research reveals a
reversal in the thinking about pronunciation
and shows a developing consensus that a
learner's pronunciation in a foreign language
needs to be taught in conjunction with
communicative practices for the learner to
be able to communicate effectively with
native speakers (Otlowski, 1998, p. 2-3).
Furthermore, Otlowski (1998) notes the
often cited view that little relationship exists
between teaching pronunciation in the
classroom and attained proficiency in
pronunciation, which was supported by
research done by Purcell and Suter (1980).
They concluded that pronunciation practice
in the classroom had little effect on the
learner's pronunciation skills and moreover,
“that the attainment of accurate
pronunciation in a second language is a
matter substantially beyond the control of
the educators” (Robertson, 2003, p.4).
Findings were qualified by stating that
“variables of formal training and the quality
of the training in pronunciation could affect
the results, as would the area of
pronunciation that had been emphasized,
that is segmentals (individual sounds of a
language) or suprasegmentals” (Olowski,
1998, p. 2). This leaves educators with the
conundrum of the influences of the
instructors’ own fluency with prosodics
when imparting pronunciation strategies to
their students often abandoning the fruitless
effort of pronunciation teaching.
Additionally, phonological intelligibility is
extremely difficult to isolate and pin down.
Thus, identification of essential elements in
teaching pronunciation can be a complex
process (Jenkins, 2002, p. 2). Augmentation
or modification of pedagogy is needed
because scholarly work supports that
repetition and drills are no longer a
satisfactory tool for either the educator or
the learner.
Recent research on pronunciation of L2
learners
Current research on factors that influence
native-like pronunciation aims for much
more than an indirect improvement in
pronunciation. “For several decades of the
20th century, the main interest of
pronunciation teaching research was in
applying contrastive analysis techniques to
the sound segments of the [the first
language] L1 and L2” (Jenkins, 2004, p.
109). Recently, researchers, including
Jenkins (2004) have ceased treating
pronunciation as an isolated, self-contained
linguistic and pedagogic phenomenon, and
are “embracing more sophisticated
approaches to inter-language phonology by
focusing increasingly on suprasegmental
features” (p. 109). As a stress-timed
language, English has a rhythm
characterized by alternations in degree of
stress, with stressed syllables significantly
longer and most vowels in unstressed
syllables reducing to a schwa, an unstressed
vowel sound. Although the distinction
between syllable- and stress-timed
languages has been debated, it is still
generally considered that most languages
fall somewhere along the syllable- and
stress-timed continuum (Trofimovich &
Baker, 2007, p. 251). Prosodic elements, the
stress and intonation patterns of an
utterance, and suprasegmentals, pertaining
to or noting features of speech, as stress,
pitch, and length, that accompany individual
consonants and vowels and may extend over
more than one such segmental element, have
been targeted for deeper examination in
understanding factors that promote near
native-like pronunciation of an L2 speaker.
In a study conducted by Trofimovich and
Baker (2007), the relationship between
suprasegmental accuracy and accentedness
in an L2 was examined. “The study
examined second language (L2) experience
effects on learners’ acquisition of fluency-
(speech rate, frequency, and duration of
pausing) and prosody-based (stress timing,
peak alignment) suprasegmentals. The
analyses established that amount of L2
experience influences learners’ acquisition
of L2 suprasegmentals, those that
characterize the prosody (stress timing, peak
alignment) and fluency (frequency, duration
of pausing) of L2 speech. What these
analyses did not establish, however, is the
importance of these suprasegmentals to the
native English listeners’ ratings of
accentedness in L2 speech. Results also
indicated that both fluency-based and
prosody-based suprasegmentals appeared to
determine the degree to which speech was
perceived as being accented. Native English
listeners appeared to consider a combination
of suprasegmentals: those that characterize
speech prosody (stress timing) and speech
fluency (speech rate, frequency and duration
of pausing)” (2006, p. 252).
The processing and learning of the
suprasegmentals characterizing speech
prosody, including stress timing and peak
alignment, likely reflect linguistic
knowledge that differs from language to
language and must be processed and stored
in a language-specific manner (Botinis,
Granstrom, & M’obius, 2001). By contrast,
“the suprasegmentals characterizing speech
fluency reflect rapid and efficient
functioning of several psycholinguistic
mechanisms at multiple levels of processing,
including those of lexical access and
conversion of a speech plan into articulatory
output, meaning understandable
pronunciation” (Trofimovich & Baker,
2007, p. 252). Therefore, moving from
understandable to native-like pronunciation
requires an emphasis on prosodics and
suprasegmentals in the language classroom.
Additionally, O’Brien’s 2004 study of
American students learning German,
concluded that “pronunciation for subjects
who received prosodic training improved
whereas that of a similar group who
received only segmental training did not” (p.
5). Furthermore, O’Brien determined that
segmentals and prosodic aspects are not
completely independent and that the
improvement of foreign accent does not
necessarily correlate with improvements in
individual segments. Therefore, if the goal is
to train L2 learners towards a native-like
accent, suprasegmentals must be
emphasized in the instruction (p. 6).
Furthermore, in her pronunciation research
(2002), Jennifer Jenkins analyzed
interactions between non-native speakers of
English. The aim was to describe which
features of English pronunciation are
essential for intelligible pronunciation, and
which are not. After examination, Jenkins
concluded:
All the consonants are important
except for 'th' sounds as in 'thin' and
'this.'
Consonant clusters are important at
the beginning and in the middle of
words. For example, the cluster in
the word 'string' cannot be simplified
to 'sting' or 'tring' and remain
intelligible.
The contrast between long and short
vowels is important. For example,
the difference between the vowel
sounds in 'sit' and seat.'
Nuclear (or tonic) stress is also
essential. This is the stress on the
most important word (or syllable) in
a group of words. For example, there
is a difference in meaning between
'My son uses a COMputer' which is a
neutral statement of fact and 'My
SON has a computer', where there is
an added meaning (such as that
another person known to the speaker
and listener does not use a computer)
(Jenkins, 2002, p. 3).
Other items which are regularly taught in
English pronunciation courses appear not to
be essential for intelligibility in interactions,
but could, if perfected, lead to native-like
pronunciation. These are:
The 'th' sounds (see above).
Vowel quality, that is, the difference
between vowel sounds where length
is not involved, e.g. a German
speaker may pronounce the 'e' in the
word 'chess' more like an 'a' as in the
word 'cat.'
Weak forms such as the words 'to',
'of' and 'from' whose vowels are
often pronounced as schwa instead
of with their full quality (Jenkins,
2002, p. 4).
Moreover, stress, tone and pitch must be
considered when examining pronunciation
teaching. Hyman (2006) explains that every
prosodic word contains one and only one
primary stress. While tone is related to pitch
features, stress relates to metrical
prominence (p. 231). Hyman further argues
that “pitch accent is not a coherent notion,
rather a pick-and-choose among the
properties in the prototypical tone vs. stress-accent systems” (p. 236). Other features of
connected speech such as assimilation,
where the final sound of a word alters to
make it more like the first sound of the next
word, so that, e.g. 'red paint' becomes 'reb
paint' lead to improved pronunciation
including the suprasegmentals of word
stress, pitch movement, and stress timing.
All these things are said to be important for
a native speaker/listener either because they
aid intelligibility or because they are thought
to make an accent more native like (Jenkins,
2002, p. 2-6).
Finally, research on pronunciation hovers
between two goals: native fluency or
relevant intelligibility. In today’s global
English world, some ELT researchers
believe that native-like pronunciation isn’t
necessarily and advantage when
communicating with World Englishes
speakers. The implications of Jenkins’
model for pronunciation teaching promote
the idea that students should be given
choice. “When students are learning English
so that they can use it in international
contexts with other non-native speakers
from different first languages, they should
be given the choice of acquiring a
pronunciation that is more relevant to
intelligibility than traditional pronunciation
syllabuses offer” (Coskun, 2011, p. 53).
Nevertheless, the nearer the traditional
pronunciation of the language, the more
readily understood a speaker is. Hence, the
value of focusing on suprasegmentals when
teaching pronunciation cannot be so easily
side-stepped.
Discussion
Drawing from the Hymes (1972)
communicative competence and on
contemporary research in discourse analysis,
the aim of teaching pronunciation is to make
the utterances intelligible. To become
intelligible, learners tacitly approximate the
target language norms as closely as possible.
The ultimate goal is for the learner to
develop spoken English that is easy to
understand, serves the learner's individual
needs, and allows a positive image of
himself as a speaker of a foreign language.
“The communicative approach to
pronunciation teaching requires prosodic
teaching methods and objectives that include
whole-person learner involvement” (Chung,
2005, p.2). Through the instruction of
suprasegmentals, the learner develops
awareness and monitoring skills above the
segment level that will allow learning and
self-correcting opportunities outside the
classroom environment. Undoubtedly, the
expanding global use of English has
heightened the demand for English teaching
and pronunciation. Research has shown that
explicit instruction in pronunciation is
essential in language teaching curriculum
(Fraser, 1999; Jenkins, 2002; Levis, 2005).
However, this idealized approach to
teaching pronunciation does not mean that
English language teachers need to abandon
the communicative approach, which is so
effective in teaching speaking and listening.
It is through longer samples of real
discourse, as found in the communicative
language classroom, that the relationship
between suprasegmentals and meaning
becomes evident (Fraser, 1999, p. 169).
Elliott made a similar proposal with respect
to teaching pronunciation in a
communicatively oriented classroom.
“Improvement in pronunciation for adult
learners is possible by employing a
multimodal methodology that accounts for
individual learning style variation. The
methodology aims to promote a
metalinguistic awareness based on inter-lingual allophonic and phonemic similarities
and differences as well as an awareness of
the grapheme-phoneme relationship” (Elliot,
1997, p. 103). Furthermore, evidence
revealed that by focusing on
suprasegmentals that are most problematic
for a particular native speaker within a
communicative approach, yields
enhancement toward a more native-like
accent (p. 103). Moreover, instructors
unintentionally use prosodics in
conversational repair strategies, utilizing
aspects such as stress and intonation in error
correction which further effects accent
(Seong, 2004, p. 156).
Learners with decent pronunciation are
likely to be understood even if they make
grammatical errors, whereas learners with
poor pronunciation will not be understood,
even if their grammar is perfect (Gilakjani,
2012, p. 96). Furthermore, research
suggests that speech production is affected
by speech perception; the hearer becomes an
important factor in communication
discourse. Thus, the skills of listening
comprehension and pronunciation are
interdependent. “If they cannot hear English
well, they are cut off from the language...If
they cannot be understood easily, they are
cut off from conversation with native
speakers” (Gilbert, 1984, p. 1). The teaching
of pronunciation has to reach for intelligible
pronunciation as an essential component of
communicative competence, which can be
achieved through pronunciation lessons
centered around aspects such as sounds,
syllables, stress and intonation (Gilakjani,
2012, p. 103), thus highlighting the prosodic
elements of language.
Recommended pedagogical strategies of
pronunciation teaching
The value of prosodic aspects of speech,
stress, rhythm and intonation often enhances
pronunciation and results in a native-like
accent, which is central to the success of a
language learner. As a result of the transition
from the teacher-centered classroom to the
student-centered classroom, there has been a
need for the integration of pronunciation
with oral communication. This has begun to
be manifested with the change in emphasis
from segmentals to suprasegmentals, more
emphasis on individual learner needs,
meaningful task-based practices, the
development of new teacher strategies for
the teaching, and the introduction of peer
correction and group interaction. “These
transitions result in a shift from specific
linguistic competencies to broader
communicative competencies as goals for
teachers and students” (Bruen, 2001, p.
161). Attention to larger, sentence level
aspects of speech such as prosody and to
various combinations of sounds such as
linking, assimilation, and reduction will
positively impact the pronunciation
improvements of the second language
learner (Mora, 2008, p. 433).
Additionally, with the advent of technology,
the prevalence of online education cannot be
ignored. Teaching pronunciation through a
virtual classroom has reached the second
language learner. “The pioneering use of
CD-ROMs, eminently suitable for self-access, enables large amounts of
contextualized native-speaker data to be
provided for learners, along with the facility
to listen to short extracts and repeat specific
features over and over” (Jenkins, 2004, p.
112 ). Espousing the endless benefits to
computer education, Bill Gates reflected,
“Technology can humanize the education
environment” (Donahue, 2007, p. 2).
However necessary technology is, it is only
just surfacing as a sufficient means of
promoting near native-like pronunciation of
L2 learners. A new model for teaching
pronunciation online that links diagnostic
tests, teacher treatments, posttests, and
individual treatment via acoustic analysis
has been proposed. Within this model,
tedious, inaccurate teacher assessment is
replaced by efficient, accurate computer
diagnostics and prosodics again, are
stressed:
A. Diagnosis- technology reduces the
laborious tasks of determining which
accent modification features require
remediation. Traditionally teachers
utilize listening discrimination (such
as minimal pairs) to determine level
of proficiency. Computer assisted
diagnostic programs cover features
of intonation, stress, and rhythm.
Though speech to text software is
still being perfected, it can measure
oral competence for producing
English sounds.
B. Treatment- With computer assisted
instruction (CAI) students interact
with software programs that
emphasize interactive and
collaborative activities stressing
prosodic elements through
animation, video, sound, etc.
C. Posttest- A mastery test determines
student progress.
D. Acoustic Analysis- sophisticated
acoustic analysis of speech signal
online can be performed with
currently available software. Though
time-intensive for a teacher,
technology leads to an accurate and
quick analysis (Donahue, 2007, p. 1-7).
While on-line education in itself is
insufficient in teaching pronunciation, with
augmentation of a solid pedagogy,
technology could be the future for the
English language learner in gaining near
native-like fluency.
Future research
As the profession of Teaching English as a
Second or Other Language (TESOL)
recognizes the importance of near native-like pronunciation for the L2 learner’s
success in fluency, flexible pedagogy,
critical inquiry, and more scholarly research
is necessary. “The development of L2
suprasegmentals needs to be examined in
other, more naturalistic situations and tasks:
those that allow researchers to estimate the
effects of lexical access, syntactic encoding,
and pragmatic decisions (among many other
factors) on the production of L2
suprasegmentals” (Trofimovich & Baker,
2007, p. 255). Future research needs to
clarify the precise contribution of prosody
and fluency based suprasegmentals to
foreign accent in L2 speech. Trofimovich
and Baker (2007) have suggested that both
fluency-based (speech rate, frequency, and
duration of pausing) and prosody-based
(stress timing) suprasegmentals determine
the perception of foreign accent in a
learners’ speech (p. 272). “Based on low-pass filtered speech, that is, speech that
likely sounds unnatural to a casual listener,
these ratings may not reflect perceptions of
foreign accent in face-to-face interaction or
in situations when clear speech is rated” (p.
252) .This calls attention to the need for
additional research in both second language
phonological acquisition and classroom
pedagogy. “What is needed is a shift of two
types: a paradigm shift in research and
teaching of pronunciation and an
understanding of the sociolinguistic uses and
users of English” (Jenkins, 2002, p. 196).
Additionally, researchers must investigate
more fully the effects of orthography in
combination with suprasegmentals on
students' developing L2 phonological
competence and identify those areas that
may negatively influence L2 speech. This in
turn will allow instructors to develop more
effective classroom materials and provide
students an opportunity to overcome the
difficulties in foreign accent reduction.
Conclusion
Clearly, one of the most influential factors
that lead to more native-like pronunciation
or L2 learners is a focus on prosody in
pronunciation teaching. Whether in a
traditional classroom or online, research and
the current trend reversal in viewing
pronunciation shows there is a consensus
that a learner's pronunciation in a second
language needs to be taught in conjunction
with prosody and communicative practices
for the learner to be able to communicate
effectively with native speakers (Otlowski,
1998, p. 2). With the emphasis on
meaningful communication and the
understanding that speech production is
affected by speech perception, there is a
need to integrate prosodics with
communicative activities giving students
situations to develop their pronunciation
through listening and speaking. Although it
is too early to make definitive claims, it is
possible that more direct and learner-oriented technological approaches may
“accelerate the process of tone acquisition
both by providing a greater amount of
exposure to tone in context with the
opportunity to mimic repeatedly, and by the
appeal to the subconscious as well as the
cognitive level” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 112). The
necessary importance of incorporating
prosodic aspects for effective, native-like
communication cannot be overlooked in the
pedagogy of the second language instruction
of pronunciation.
)