Content uploaded by Ron I. Thomson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ron I. Thomson on Dec 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
- 63 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
Appealing to empirical research, this article critiques some common
misconceptions regarding how second language (L2) pronunciation
develops and how it is best taught to adult learners. It begins by articulating
why pronunciation instruction is important, but often overlooked. Next, it
myths relate to the effect of age; the role of production and perception;
what it means to learn an L2 sound category; the extent to which learning
generalizes to new contexts; and the place of pronunciation instruction in
communicative language teaching. The article is organized thematically.
After research on each topic is summarized, implications for teaching are
discussed. The paper’s focus is on the learning of segmentals (vowels and
consonants), which have received relatively little attention in recent years.
Pronunciation is a recognized as a frequently neglected component in English as a second
language (ESL) classrooms (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010). In some
cases, this may be because it is in disagreement with a teacher’s beliefs about language
learning and teaching. For example, while accurate pronunciation was a hallmark of the
Aural-Oral approach of the 1940s and 1950s, and Audiolingualism, which followed in the
1960s and 1970s (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), it lost its lustre with the popularization of
Communicative Language Teaching in the 1980s (Isaacs, 2009). In this article, I will argue
that the recent neglect of pronunciation teaching does not stem from a sudden awareness
that it is unimportant, but rather, it results from a lack of knowledge about how best to teach
it. Then, with reference to research investigating how second language (L2) pronunciation
designers alike, and point toward a research-based approach as the way forward to more
effective pronunciation instruction.
English language teaching has now entered into what Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe
as the post-methods era. They argue that a dearth of new approaches and methods since the
1980s is the result of teachers recognizing that there is no magic solution to the challenge
DEMYSTIFYING PRONUNCIATION
RESEARCH TO INFORM PRACTICE
Ron Thomson, Brock University
- 64 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
of learning an L2. In a survey of nearly 500 English Language Teachers (ELTs) around the
world, Liu (2004) found that the overwhelming majority of respondents reported using
an eclectic approach to teaching. He argued that this fact supports Richards and Rodgers
(2001) contention that teachers have consciously left behind a once strict adherence to
fact, because teachers recognize methods have failed. Rather, many teachers may simply
not have the knowledge of or training in particular pre-packaged methods. For example
Lightbown and Spada’s (2006) popular introductory text for teachers mentions methods
from a historical perspective, but does not suggest that a particular method should be
learned and used over any other. It is also no surprise that eclectic approaches are popular
in an era where English is treated as a lucrative commodity, and simply being a native
and employers. In this context, coherent methods with their prescribed techniques cannot
be deployed, because doing so requires training. While teacher training was the norm
during the heyday of the methods era, time constraints, coupled with frequently poor
salaries, at least in private language programs, conspire against a systematic and regulated
approach to language teacher training in many jurisdictions. These current realities do not
mean a methodical approach to language teaching is unimportant.
The thirst for knowledge regarding how best to teach pronunciation is self-evident in the
popularity of workshops on the topic at ELT conferences. It is also evident in several surveys
of ELTs in Canada, Britain and Australia (Breitkreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter, 2002; Burgess
& Spencer, 2000; Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011; Macdonald, 2002). Admittedly, while
these surveys have found that some ELTs consider pronunciation less important than other
skills, some teachers report not teaching pronunciation because they are unsure of how
best to do so, believing they lack the relevant training or expertise and access to relevant
materials. In regard to the latter, Foote, et al. (2011) point out that materials for teaching
pronunciation, both as part of broader courseware and as stand-alone courses, have rapidly
increased in recent years. An increase in language-teaching materials is no doubt also due
to the commercialization of English, and the concomitant demand for materials by teachers
who may sometimes lack specialized training in pronunciation instruction.
Although a rapid increase in pronunciation teaching materials is a positive development,
it entails some negative consequences. It introduces the potential for teachers to over-
rely on and defer to published materials, rather than developing their own knowledge.
For example, the best materials may not be used to their full advantage if a teacher does
not understand why particular exercises are included. This was my own experience early
on in my ELT career, when I used what turned out to be a very good student text rather
ineffectively. Since I did not understand the pedagogical rationale for particular exercises,
I would sometimes race through them, or even skip them entirely, believing they were
pointless. Several years later, I came to understand that there was strong empirical evidence
to support each activity’s inclusion, and that the text’s author was a well-respected applied
linguist and teacher.
- 65 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
Another possible consequence of relying on textbooks is that without at least some
background knowledge, ELTs are reduced to relying on intuition to determine if a particular
unknowingly using pronunciation resources that include factually incorrect information.
In some cases, intuition serves teachers well. For example, Judy Thompson’s (2011)
self-published pronunciation text entitled English is Stupid indicates that the difference
between voiced and voiceless sounds in English (e.g., /b/ vs. /p/ and /d/ vs. /t/) is that for
voiced sounds, speakers draw air in, while for their voiceless counterparts, speakers puff air
out. Despite the claim being patently false, because it is in print, some teachers might give
it more credibility than it deserves. Fortunately, most ELTs’ intuition and training would
prevent them from passing this information on to students, who themselves would quickly
while inhaling are exceptionally rare, and in English such sounds are limited to speaking
while heavily exerting oneself, or in some cases, when sobbing uncontrollably. Another
example of a technique most teachers would intuitively question is one promoted at an
“accent reduction” workshop described by Derwing (2008). In that workshop, L2 English
learners were encouraged to place a marshmallow between their lips while reciting “Peter
piper picked a peck of pickled peppers”, ostensibly in an attempt to help them develop
producing /p/ to begin with. Given the fact that the language learners came from different
linguistic backgrounds, many likely were familiar with a counterpart to /p/ in their own
language that could reasonably be expected to transfer to English. Even if a given group
of learners needed help producing /p/, there is no evidence that placing a marshmallow
between one’s lips will have any impact on pronunciation. Needless to say, most ELTs
intuition will tell them that such an approach to pronunciation instruction borders on the
absurd.
Such misguided pronunciation teaching techniques suggest that being without a coherent
approach or method can limit ELTs’ ability to help learners. Any method’s key feature
should be that it is evidence-based, something argued for by Derwing and Munro (2005)
in an overview of current pronunciation research. Part of the reason why earlier language
learning methods were ultimately discarded is that many were based on theory rather than
on empirical evidence. The study of language learning and teaching has evolved, as has
pronunciation research, giving ample evidence to inform improved practice.
The rest of this article will critique some common pronunciation learning and teaching
myths that have largely been the result of a reliance on intuition and theory over empirical
evidence. Teachers with a basic understanding of the English sound system and the
processes underlying learners’ acquisition of intelligible pronunciation are more likely
introduce effective techniques to their students, while avoiding those techniques that are
- 66 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
inconsistent with current research-based understanding of how L2 pronunciation develops.
After each myth is discussed, implications for teaching will be suggested. Presenting
which, as the surveys described earlier indicate, is one reason pronunciation instruction is
neglected in some English language classrooms.
Historically, this myth seems to result from the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg,
1967). The CPH maintains that there is a brief biological period during childhood after
which acquiring a language is impossible. This is an example of a theory that, although
never supported through data, has had a major and lasting impact on practice, including
approaches to teaching L2 pronunciation to adults. Applied to second language acquisition,
the CPH claims that adult learners cannot acquire a native-like pronunciation of English,
because changes in the brain during childhood make it impossible to access the cognitive
mechanisms used for language learning (Scovel, 2000). Teachers who subscribe to this
belief might, therefore, not teach pronunciation at all, believing that attaining native-like
In fact, while native-like pronunciation by adult learners may be rare, there is clear evidence
that adult learners can
Summeren, Planken, & Schils, 1997). Furthermore, improvement is almost certainly not
constrained by changes in the brain at a particular biological age. In a study that seems to
put the CPH debate to rest, Flege, Munro, and McKay (1995) found that on average, the age
at which Italian immigrants arrived in Canada served as a strong predictor of strength of
foreign accent. However, the relationship between their age of arrival (as young as 3 years
a native-like accent, while those who arrived after that age did not, Flege et al. found that
as age of arrival increased, perceived degree of foreign accent increased in tandem. These
researchers argue that this contradicts the CPH as it has been applied to L2 learning,
the strength of foreign accent. In a follow-up study, Flege, Bohn, and Jang (1997) provided
evidence that most within-age group variation in degree of accentedness was quite
the ones who had the strongest accents in English, whether they arrived in Canada when
they were three or 23 years old. From such evidence, it is now widely held within the L2
languages (L1s; see Moyer, 2009). Consequently, the more experience speakers have with
their L1, the more L2 experience they will need to improve their L2 pronunciation.
- 67 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
pronunciation in relation to the amount of experience they have with the L2. Unfortunately,
in naturalistic learning environments and in more traditional language classrooms, a
massive amount of experience of the sort known to most affect learning is not often
available (e.g., Munro, Derwing, & Thomson, 2003; Munro & Derwing, 2008; Thomson,
experience also matters (Moyer, 2009; Thomson, Nearey & Derwing, 2009). In classrooms
where there is a focus on providing higher quality input, improvement in pronunciation
will likely be more rapid than without such explicit intervention. Higher quality input might
include the teacher spending time raising learners’ awareness of pronunciation features in
an explicit way, rather than simply exposing them to input without directing their attention
to auditory or articulatory features of pronunciation (e.g., Saito & Lyster, 2011). Ultimately,
non-native accents rarely if ever entirely disappear, but learners can quickly become more
intelligible and comprehensible with effective training.
The fact that adult learners can improve their pronunciation
means pronunciation instruction is worth providing. At the same time, evidence suggests
that attaining native-like pronunciation is an unrealistic goal, despite being sought after
by many learners (Derwing & Rossiter, 2002). Therefore, teachers and learners should be
rather than speech that sounds like a native speaker. This reality also means teachers
should warn students who are tempted to pay large sums of money for accent reduction
programs, particularly when there is no evidence such programs work. From Flege et al.
(1995), it is quite clear that there are no known magic pills when it comes to pronunciation
learning. It requires both hard work and motivation.
Teachers should make the most of limited class time by focusing on those aspects of
pronunciation that are known to improve with the least amount of input. For example,
suprasegmental features (e.g., word stress, intonation, rhythm, etc.) improve more rapidly
than segmentals (i.e., vowels and consonants), and have a more noticeable impact on
comprehensibility (e.g., Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998). This means that it is probably
simply raising awareness about more complex phenomena, such as segmentals.
The original source of this myth is uncertain, but many of its strongest proponents are
Speech Language Pathologists, who often treat accent as though it were comparable to
a speech disorder (Thomson, 2012a). Speech disorders often stem from weaknesses in
speech-related muscles. Such muscle weakness can be developmental or be caused by
traumatic brain injury or stroke, for example. When it comes to teaching pronunciation
using strengthening exercises, it is important to ask whether the learner’s articulators work
improvement in L2 pronunciation.
- 68 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
This second myth also sometimes stems from a belief, which I have encountered in several
conference presentations, that ethnicity affects jaw shape, and that these differences in
physiology mean special exercise is necessary to improve pronunciation. As with the rest of
this myth, there is no research that supports it, and simple anecdotal evidence immediately
shows it to be false: children of immigrants and internationally adopted infants from many
pronunciation without articulation exercises.
Some presenters have also claimed that the tongue muscles used in producing L1
sounds are not the same as those used for producing L2 sounds, and therefore language
most consonants. Thus, while it is certainly worth targeting problem sounds, a blanket
application of this technique to all L2 sounds is largely inappropriate.
Another example that demonstrates the inaccuracy of this myth comes from the experience
those who cannot produce the trill would gradually improve in its production, moving from
an English /r/, to one that is more and more Spanish-like as the relevant muscle became
stronger. In fact, this is not the experience of the hundreds of undergraduate phonetics
students I have taught. Many English speakers produce the trill from the outset, while
others never do. Those who acquire the Spanish /r/ later do so instantaneously, rather
experience is somewhat analogous to learning to ride a bike. There might be one or two
it out. Like learning to ride a bike, producing new L2 sounds has more to do with muscle
control than muscle strength.
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that rather than being caused by weak muscles,
that predicts ease of acquisition (e.g., Flege, 1995; Thomson, Derwing, & Nearey, 2009).
There is also evidence that perceptual training can lead to improvement in production
(Thomson, 2011), even without teacher-instructed articulation practice. Thus, perceptual
for learning to accurately pronounce new sounds in new words.
In critiquing the myth that weak speech articulators are to blame for accent, I am not at all
suggesting that it is not worth practicing the articulation of sounds. Although articulation
obviously a need to rehearse new sounds in production. Automatization of L2 speech
articulation can only come through practice.
- 69 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
The focus of pronunciation instruction should include
at least as much attention to the development of perception as to production to enable
learners to monitor their own speech. If learners cannot accurately perceive L2 sounds,
it will be impossible for them to automatize correct pronunciation, unless a teacher or
other interlocutor is always present to give them immediate corrective feedback on their
pronunciation. In most pronunciation textbooks, attention is given to perceptual training,
but it is rarely enough, for reasons that will be revealed when discussing later myths.
Implicit in many pronunciation materials and activities is the assumption that if learners
can perceive and produce a pronunciation feature accurately in one context, they have
learned the category as a whole. In fact, even in other perceptual domains, this is not how
categories are learned. For example, learning that a dining chair belongs to the category
“chair” does not mean an English learner will automatically know that an armchair or
swivel chair, is also a chair, or that (for most) a stool is not a chair. Categories must be
learned through experience with multiple examples, in multiple contexts.
The same is true for learning phonological categories. All instances of the same English
sound are not perceived the same way, even by native speakers (Flege’s SLM, 1995).
Rather, sound categories are highly variable clusters of sounds with shared properties that
can only be recognized after massive amounts of exposure. In most cases, members of
sound categories are quite clear for native speakers, without needing to give them a second
thought (e.g., /l/ vs. /r/). This makes it surprising that nonnative speakers sometimes have
also some instances where English categories are inherently ambiguous, even for native
speakers. For example, English speakers do not all agree on whether particular instances
of // vs. //, intended as one or the other by a given speaker, are perceived as the intended
vowel (Thomson et al., 2009).
In Thomson et al. (2009), it was also found that several productions of the same English
vowel category (e.g., /æ/ as in bat
accurately by native speaker listeners, were heard as different vowels by Chinese learners
the native speaker English productions as belonging to the new English /æ/ category that
they were trying to learn, while other productions were perceived as being the same as
a Mandarin vowel /a/, which when used in Canadian English sounds more like //, as
in hot. What was particularly interesting was that the learners’ perception of the English
productions not only changed across phonetic contexts, but also within the same phonetic
context, when produced by a different speaker. This suggests that for L2 learners, some
native speakers may provide more salient examples of a category than other native
or her individual category boundaries.
- 70 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
Given these observations, it is important to provide learners with highly variable input
that includes exposure not only to numerous native speaker voices, but also to the same
category presented in many different phonetic contexts (e.g., the same English vowel after
in many other studies, but has rarely found its way into pedagogical materials (Thomson,
2011; Thomson, 2012b).
Since phonemic categories are highly variable, learners
need many examples of each category. The textbook by Dale and Poms (2004), English
Pronunciation Made Simple, provides more variation than most texts. For example, it has
students listen to sets of words such as police, thief, machine and vision, and then asks
students to identify which word does not contain the target vowel. This type of activity
provides phonetic variation within the same category (e.g., /i/), although it does not
include multiple voices. Despite the fact that this material does not provide variation in
terms of speakers, the activity is far superior to minimal pairs activities, which typically
provide only one example of each category (e.g., bit vs. beat), produced by a single voice
(see Thomson, 2011, for an overview).
Another resource that provides HVPT is www.englishaccentcoach.com. This website
contains a game-like interface for learning English vowels and consonants, where learners
can select to train at the level of syllables or words. Multiple voices are used, with increasing
levels of complexity. For example, Levels 1 and 2 provide target sounds in phonetically
controlled contexts, and learners must identify the sound they hear. At the highest levels,
learners must identify target sounds in the stressed syllable of multisyllabic words, again
with variation in both voices and phonetic contexts. As noted earlier, HVPT has been shown
to help improve perception, and more recently, such improved perception has been found
to transfer to production (Lambacher, Martens, Kakehi, Marasinghe, & Molholt, 2005;
Thomson, 2011). While HVPT has shown promise, more research is needed to determine
possible limits on its effectiveness.
This myth is a natural companion to Myth 3. If categories of sounds in English are not
stable but vary across speakers and words, it cannot be assumed that when an L2
English learner acquires a vowel or consonant in one word that that knowledge will
automatically transfer to other words. Rather, learners will need to learn how the target
sound is perceived and produced in each word individually, in order to approximate the
variability found in the speech of native speakers as they acquire each vocabulary item. For
example, Thomson and Isaacs (2009), and Thomson and Campagna (2010), found that
learners’ production of ten Canadian English vowels varied depending on how familiar
the learners were with the word in which it occurred. For the English vowel /e/, found in
the words say, bake and gate, the forty participants’ pronunciation was most intelligible
- 71 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
in the word say, second most intelligible in bake, and least intelligible in gate. This order
The same pattern held for other vowels, which in most cases were the most intelligible
when spoken in the most familiar words. Interestingly, this effect of familiarity on the
intelligibility were found when comparing 20 Mandarin speakers with 20 Slavic language
speakers (Russian and Ukrainian). Furthermore, since learners in these studies did not
receive focused pronunciation instruction, it again seems as though experience is the main
predictor of degree of non-native accent, even at the level of experience with individual
sounds in individual words.
Although in the absence of focused pronunciation
instruction, improvement seems to be predicted by learners’ experience with particular
words, it is reasonable to expect that intervention can speed up the transfer of sounds from
one word to another. Intervention might occur by drawing learners’ attention to the same
vowel or consonant category found across multiple words, regardless of their frequency,
or even in isolation from words. Some teachers suggest using keywords or colour words
as reference points for particular vowels or consonants (Finger, 1985; Celce-Murcia et
al., 2010). For example, the vowel in words like reach, feed and team can be taught in
relation to the colour word green, which contains the same vowel. Finger (1985) provides
suggestions for colour terms that can be used for each Canadian English vowel category.
Using minimal pairs activities can also help, but only if there are multiple pairs containing
the same two vowels (e.g., and so on). It might be helpful to extend
to identify which words belong to the /i/ category, with reference to a keyword or colour
word (e.g., work through a list of words, only some of which contain /i/, and ask learners to
indicate when they hear a word that belongs to the “green” category).
This myth is in large part simply a by-product of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT). In the earliest forms of CLT, attention to linguistic form was viewed as largely
unnecessary given the belief that simply communicating in the language will result in
learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). More recent versions of CLT recognize that some
focus on form within the context of a CLT approach is necessary, including focusing on
pronunciation (Saito & Lyster, 2011). This form-focused instruction typically takes the
form of the instructor intervening when the need arises, rather than explicitly targeting
a particular form. For pronunciation, this ad hoc approach to teaching phonological form
may not be as effective, if not used in conjunction with more explicit instruction.
- 72 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
Research suggests that attentional constraints can limit learning of particular linguistic
the expense of attention to form (Schmidt, 2001). With regard to phonological learning,
there is also clear evidence that less competition for attention from other linguistic features
(e.g., meaning, vocabulary, etc.) promotes learning at the level of sound categories (e.g.,
Guion & Pederson, 2007). Even competition from other sounds in the same word may
distract learners’ attention away from target sounds. For example, Munro and Derwing
and producing English vowels that are nearly identical to Mandarin vowel categories. In a
those same vowels (Thomson, 2011). The only difference between the two studies is in the
vowels in a word containing a consonant + vowel + consonant sequence, while the later
study had speakers produce the vowels in consonant + vowel sequence. Thomson (2011)
hypothesizes that the difference in performance stems from the fact that Mandarin lacks
vowel.
There is some evidence that providing learners with both written and auditory models
of a given word simultaneously helps to facilitate accurate pronunciation. Thomson and
Isaacs (2009) found that learners’ pronunciation was best when they produced words after
hearing the words modelled and seeing their written form at the same time. When learners
only read the words, without hearing an auditory model, or only heard the words without
seeing the words’ written forms, their pronunciation was worse. The authors concluded
that seeing the written word allowed learners to activate meaning, after which attention to
its form provided by the auditory model was easier. Without an auditory model, although
learners could also activate meaning, they would have to rely on a possibly faulty mental
model of pronunciation that they had formed previously.
Another issue with teaching pronunciation using an ad hoc approach is that it accommodates
communication after every error in pronunciation. Thus, most errors must be ignored. This
does not do much to promote learning, because feedback is essential in orienting learners’
Conway, & McClelland, 2002).
Although it may now be increasingly common to introduce
explicit, form-based instruction within the context of a CLT approach, with respect to
pronunciation, research suggests that it is better to provide some explicit instruction in
isolation from meaning-based activities. Ad hoc form-focused instruction as issues emerge
during communicative activities is an important bridge between explicit pronunciation
instruction and spontaneous communication, but on its own it is likely inadequate. Thus,
- 73 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
a teacher might begin with phonetic training activities of the sort described in the previous
spontaneous conversation.
Considering the use of multiple modalities of learning (i.e., visual and auditory), if reading
is to be used to guide pronunciation learning, then the teacher must be careful to provide
a very clear auditory model at the same time. If the teacher does not provide a model
along with the written form, students may reinforce their own mispronunciations of the
words being taught. It is may also be useful to spend some time focusing on pronunciation
activities in the absence of any reference to orthography, which will force learners to
consciously attend to phonetic form.
There are undoubtedly many other myths that inform pronunciation teaching practice.
This myth needs no research-based motivation. There are instances in which experts,
evidence emerges, some of the beliefs promoted in this article might ultimately be viewed
incremental in nature and arriving at the “right” or “best” method is unlikely in any one
person’s lifetime. This is, in fact, the story of science. However, if teachers take a research-
if they simply rely on intuition. Teachers should consider the origin of expertise. Teaching
experience on its own does not make one an expert. Caution should be exercised when
following the advice of self-proclaimed experts who are unfamiliar with research in this
area, and who self-publish materials rather than follow the peer-review process.
Many teachers do not have the luxury of time or resources
However, occasionally seeking out review articles (e.g., Derwing & Munro, 2005) or book
chapters (e.g., Derwing, 2008), or attending research-oriented presentations at teacher
conferences can provide some basis for assessing pronunciation materials, and for selecting
what they have read, what they see prescribed by textbooks and always be mindful that
many teachers are experts too, and may have valuable advice.
- 74 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment
in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
447-465.
Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T.M. & Rossiter, M.J. (2002). Pronunciation teaching practices in Canada.
TESL Canada Journal, 19, 51-61.
Burgess, J. & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and
teacher education. System, 28
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A
course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dale, P. & Poms, L. (2005). English pronunciation made simple (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Derwing, T. M. (2008). Curriculum issues in teaching pronunciation. In J. G. Hansen Edwards
& M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A
research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379-397.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for
pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393-410.
Derwing, T. M. & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and
strategies. System, 30, 155–166.
Finger, J. (1985). Teaching pronunciation with the vowel colour chart. TESL Canada Journal, 2,
(2), 43-50.
Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological
issues (pp. 229-273). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production
and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437-470.
Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & Mackay, I. R. A. (1995). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign
accent in a second language. Journal of the Accoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3125-3134.
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of pronunciation teaching in adult ESL
programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1-22.
Guion, S. G. & Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In
O.-S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Second-language speech learning: The role of language
experience in speech perception and production: A festschrift in honour of James E. Flege
(pp. 57-77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Isaacs, T. (2009). Integrating form and meaning in L2 pronunciation instruction. TESL Canada
Journal, 27, 1-12.
Lambacher, S., Martens, W., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C., & Molholt, G. (2005). The effects of
native speakers of Japanese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 227-247.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874 -866.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. (2004). Methods in the post-methods era: Report on an international survey on language
teaching methods. International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 137-152.
- 75 - CONTACT Magazine | Research Symposium Issue | May 2012 Go Back
to Menu
Teachers of English as a Second Language Association of Ontario
Theme 2: Pronunciation in the ESL Classroom
Demystifying pronunciation research...
MacDonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation—views and practices of reluctant teachers. Prospect, 17(3),
3-18.
McCandliss, B. D., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and
failure in teaching the r-l contrast to Japanese adults: predictions of a Hebbian model of plasticity and
stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 2(2),
89-108.
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2
phonological attainment. In T. Piske and M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA
(pp. 159-174). New York: Multilingual Matters.
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal
study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58, 479-502.
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Thomson, R. I. (2003). A longitudinal examination of English
vowel learning by Mandarin speakers. Canadian Acoustics, 31(3), 32-33. Proceedings of the
annual conference of the Canadian Acoustics Association. Edmonton, AB.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2011). Effects of Form-Focused Instruction and Corrective Feedback on L2
Pronunciation Development of /r/ by Japanese Learners of English. Language Learning, 62,
595-633.
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 213-223.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, J. (2011). English is Stupid. Caledon, ON: Thompson Language Center.
Thomson, R. I. (2007). Modeling L1/L2 interactions in the perception and production of English
vowels by Mandarin L1 speakers: A training study. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
University of Alberta.
Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer Assisted Pronunciation Training: Targeting second language
vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 744 -765.
Thomson, R. I. (2012a, to appear). Accent Reduction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Thomson, R. I. (2012b, to appear). Improving L2 listeners’ perception of English vowels: A
computer-mediated approach. Language Learning.
Thomson, R. I. & Campagna, P. (2010). The effect of task type on native speaker judgments of L2
accented speech. Canadian Acoustics, 38(3), 122-123. Proceedings of the annual conference
of the Canadian Acoustics Association.
Thomson, R. I. & Isaacs, T. (2009). Within-category variation in L2 English vowel learning.
Canadian Acoustics, 37(3), 138-139. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian
Acoustics Association.
Thomson, R. I., Nearey, T. M., & Derwing, T. M. (2009). A statistical approach to measuring the
crosslinguistic similarity of Mandarin and English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 126, 1447-1460.
