Content uploaded by Mohd Hilmi Bin Hamzah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohd Hilmi Bin Hamzah on May 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Kelestarian Insan 2014 (INSAN2014)
Batu Pahat, Johor, 9 – 10 April 2014
1
THE ROLE OF EXPLICIT PHON ETIC INS TRU CTION
IN PRONU NCIA TION TEACHING IN ES L SETTIN GS
Mo hd Hil mi Hamzah
Language A cademy, Univ ersiti Teknologi Malaysia
hilmihamz ah@utm.m y
ABS TRA CT
The objective of this paper is to present the current evidence relative
to second language (L2) pronunciation teaching and to the
development of effective pronunciation pedagogies in the context of
English as a second language (ESL). A number of empirical studies
were reviewed with a focus on investigating factors affecting the
effectiveness of explicit phonetic instruction versus implicit
methodological options. In addition, several factors affecting the
efficacy of explicit phonetic instruction as a pedagogical tool were
also identified. It was found that explicit phonetic instruction could
potentially enhance learners’ pronunciation of the target language.
The most fundamental issue is whether the instruction should be
form-focused (accuracy) or meaning-focused (intelligibility), and
whether segmentals (e.g., consonants and vowels) should be
emphazised and considered more critical than suprasegementals
(e.g., intonation and stress). Alternatives for bringing learner’s
attention to the L2 sound system were explored and weighed against
the potential benefits of explicit phonetic instruction. This review is
vital because it calls for a reevaluation of phonetic explicitness in L2
pronunciation instruction. Further, it was shown that computer-
assisted language learning (CALL) was particularly useful in
improving and developing learners’ L2 speech production. Finally,
the review uncovered one of the real challenges in English language
teaching, which is to bridge the gap between theory and practice,
given the disconnection between research in L2 phonetics and the
actual practices in the ESL classroom.
Ke y wo rds: pronunciation teaching; phonetic instruction; English
as a second language; English language teaching; second language
speech learning.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most salient features of L2 speech production is non-native
pronunciation. Lado (1956) claimed that L2 learners tend to transfer the entire
knowledge of sounds in their native language into the L2. This phenomenon
contributes to the perception of foreign accent and, as a result, it may lower
intelligibility or comprehensibility in speech (Munro et al., 2006; Trofimovich
& Gatbonton, 2006). Whether it is necessary or desirable to speak an L2 with
native-like accuracy is often a personal choice; what is clear, however, is that
certain miscommunications may occur due to lack of phonological awareness
in the L2.
Kenworthy (1987) stated that L2 learners must develop concern and awareness
for pronunciation because unintelligible speech resulting from inadequate
accuracy causes mutual frustration and unpleasantness for both listeners and
speakers. In related studies, Plakans (1997) and Gravois (2005) pointed out
Nationalism, Community Development and Ethnic Relations
2
instances of miscommunication and unintelligibility resulting from inadequate
phonological awareness among L2 learners. To avoid such instances, an L2
learner must be able to identify and use the linguistically significant phonemes
of the language appropriately. For instance, if speakers do not differentiate
certain sounds in minimal pairs in English such as tree or three (/t/ and /θ/) and
den or then (/d/ and /ð/) - these combinations are common problems among
Malay learners of English - communication is hindered. These problems may
be prevented or remedied by explicit instruction on phonetic distinctions in L2
sounds.
L2 PHONETICS A ND THE ES L CLA S SROOM
The extent to which explicit phonetic instruction helps learners improve their
L2 pronunciation is still an empirical question. Although a lot of second
language acquisition (SLA) research has been conducted on L2 speech
learning (Best, 1995; Best, et al., 2001; Flege, 1995; Flege et al., 1997; Gass &
Selinker, 2001; Kuhl et al., 1992), very little has been applied to explicit
phonetic instructions for L2 adult learners (Couper, 2003; Derwing et al.,
1997, 1998; Macdonald et al., 1994). One of the real challenges is to bridge
the gap between theory and practice, given the disconnection between research
in L2 phonetics and the real practices in the ESL classroom (see Derwing &
Munro, 2005; Levis, 2005).
With regard to explicitness of L2 learning, many SLA theorists argued that the
first step for effective instruction is to have learners to become consciously
aware of formal rules of the target language features, because the
metalinguistic awareness is central to interlanguage development (Schmidt,
2001). In this respect, DeKeyser (2003) emphasised the importance of explicit
instruction option, which is defined as follows: “An instructional treatment is
explicit if rule explanation forms part of the instruction (deduction) or if
learners are asked to attend to particular forms and try to find the rules
themselves (induction)” (p. 321).
It seems particularly relevant to question the effectiveness of explicit
instruction in phonetics because it is precisely this element of pronunciation
instruction that is least appealing to those who view it as overly form-focused
and in opposition to their communicative, meaning-focused methodology (see
discussions in Arteaga, 2000, and Morin, 2007) and argue that pronunciation
instruction needs to be better integrated into communicative activities (Isaacs,
2009). Alternatives for bringing learners’ attention to the L2 sound system,
perhaps through focused listening, dictation, transcription, or other means,
should be explored and weighed against the potential benefits of explicit
phonetic instruction.
In many studies focusing on the ESL classroom (e.g., Lord, 2005), the central
component of pronunciation instruction is usually explicit teaching of L2
phonetics, typically with an emphasis on the phonetic parameters relevant to
segmental sounds (i.e., isolated consonants and vowels). These are illustrated
with drawings (e.g., Clark, 1967) or, more recently, animated diagrams of the
Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Kelestarian Insan 2014 (INSAN2014)
Batu Pahat, Johor, 9 – 10 April 2014
3
vocal tract and waveforms and spectrograms produced with acoustical analysis
software (e.g., Lord, 2005). In addition, phonetic instruction also emphasizes
the differences between learners’ L1 and L2 phonological systems with regard
to phonemic inventories, articulation of analogous phones, grapheme-
phoneme correspondences and phonological processes. Pronunciation practice
varies considerably from word reading to jazz chants, and feedback varying
from teacher-fronted pronunciation modeling to the visual and individualized
feedback provided by acoustical analysis software packages. All these
exercises, in addition to the core component of explicit phonetic lessons, have
been thought to facilitate acquisition of target-like L2 pronunciation (Artega,
2000; Elliott, 2003).
EXPLICIT V ERS U S IMPLICIT PHON ETIC INS TRU CTION
Although very few empirical studies of L2 pronunciation teaching focus on
phonetic elements, they confirm the effectiveness of explicit phonetic
instruction (Couper, 2003; Derwing et al., 1997, 1998; Macdonald, et al.,
1994). This approach has been shown to improve L2 production accuracy
(Piske et al., 2001) including English (e.g., Pennington & Richards, 1986),
French (e.g., Clark, 1967), German (e.g., Moyer, 1999), and Spanish (e.g.,
Lord, 2005), leading some researchers to believe that most adult L2 learners
do not achieve native-like pronunciation without the help of explicit phonetic
instruction (Bongaerts et al., 1997; Fullana, 2006).
Researchers examining various elements and methodologies of pronunciation
instruction have demonstrated that explicit phonetic instruction can enhance
learners’ pronunciation of the target language. Bradlow et al. (1997) showed
that Japanese learners of English who were taught explicitly about the
phonetic difference between English /l/ and English /r/ improved greatly in the
production of those sounds (see also Flege et al., 1997). Similarly, it was
claimed that adult Dutch speakers achieved native-like English pronunciation
after phonetic training (Bongaerts et al., 1997). Silveira (2004) also replicated
the experiment in which beginner Brazilian learners of English were made
aware of their erroneous pronunciation of word-final consonants, and the
results indicate that explicit pronunciation teaching is an effective means of
helping those problems.
In a summary of the application of explicit phonetic instruction in
pronunciation teaching, Derwing and Munro (2005) state that,
“Just as students learning certain grammar points benefit from
being explicitly instructed to notice the difference between their
productions and those of L1 speakers, so students learning L2
pronunciation benefit from being explicitly taught phonological
form to help them notice the difference” (p. 388).
Nationalism, Community Development and Ethnic Relations
4
Venkatagiri and Levis (2007) also maintained that explicit instruction could
help learners develop phonological awareness, as mentioned earlier, which
might play a key role in L2 speech intelligibility (see also Field, 2005). More
recently, Chung (2008) compared explicit and implicit instructions for
improving Chinese learners’ production of English word stress and found that
all groups improved equally on the posttest, but the explicit group was
significantly better in the delayed posttest. These results are significant
because they call for a stronger role of phonetic explicitness in L2
pronunciation instruction. Drawing learners’ attention to particular acoustic
phonetic features of the L2 system seems more expedient than merely
exposing them to L2 sounds in the hope that they will discover those relevant
acoustic features for themselves (Wipf, 1985).
FU TURE RES EARCH IN MA LAY SIA
Drawing on the findings from previous studies (e.g., Couper, 2003; Derwing
et al., 1997, 1998; Macdonald, et al., 1994), future research projects in
Malaysia may take up an experimental phonetic study involving local learners
of English and show the efficacy of explicit phonetic instruction. To the
author’s knowledge, such an effort will be a first step toward testing the effect
of this instruction on, for example, Malay learners of English. It may target,
among others, the voiceless dental fricative /θ/ and its voiced counterpart /ð/
that exist in English, but not in Malay, and are among several sounds that are
problematic for Malay learners of English. The Malay consonant system does
not have these phonemes, and many Malay speakers learning English
unconsciously substitute Malay /t/ for /θ/ and /d/ for /ð/, resulting in
intelligibility problems.
Future studies may also adapt the framework used in Kissling (2013) in order
to increase the effectiveness of phonetic instruction and develop learners’ L2
speech production. Acoustic analysis method, which has been used in
experimental phonetics in order to measure human speech with great accuracy,
can be employed. In particular, the Praat program can be used to analyze
acoustic input because it concentrates mainly on the acoustic analysis itself to
provide students with ongoing feedback in the form of spectrograms.
Lambacher (1999) claimed that the use of acoustic analysis in pronunciation
teaching helps learners of English improve their L2 pronunciation. In ESL
settings, such as in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), where most
instructors are non-native speakers, it is hard to provide appropriate and
ongoing feedback to students. In light of this predicament, the next research
project may explore the capabilities of CALL in order to provide students with
corrective feedback and make pronunciation teaching more explicit, following
Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) recommendation. Many studies (e.g., De Bot,
1983; Anderson-Hsieh, 1992) have shown that audio and electronic visual
feedback is very helpful in facilitating L2 learners’ improvements in
pronunciation.
The results of these research projects, as suggested here, may have
pedagogical significance in that they offer insight into the instructional
Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Kelestarian Insan 2014 (INSAN2014)
Batu Pahat, Johor, 9 – 10 April 2014
5
materials that may prove effective in improving Malay-speaking ESL learners’
pronunciation of English sounds. Improvement in pronunciation can lead to
advancement in academic performance too. Future research in this area would
benefit from examining the effects of the same type of intervention at the
phrase, sentence, or discourse levels. In addition, the range of sounds
examined may be expanded to include vowel sounds. The challenge that
remains is the question of how to introduce this type of intervention
systematically in ESL classrooms. As a starting point, ESL teachers would
have to be trained in articulatory phonetics and linguistics to understand and
teach the importance of accurate pronunciation in L2 learning. Ultimately,
future studies should aim to make a valuable contribution to pronunciation
pedagogies in ESL settings, particularly for Malay learners of English.
REFEREN CES
Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1992). Using electronic visual feedback to teach
suprasegmentals. System, 2, 51–62.
Arteaga, D. (2000). Articulatory phonetics in the first-year Spanish classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 84, 339–354.
Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In
W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistics experience:
Theoretical and mythological issues in cross-language speech research,
109(2), (pp.775–794). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Best, C., McRoberts, G., & Goodell, E. (2001). Discrimination of non-native
consonant contrasts varying on perceptual assimilation to the listener’s
native phonological system. Acoustical Society of America, 109(2),
775–794.
Bongaerts, T., vanSummerin, 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.
Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997).
Training Japanese
listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. Journal of the A coustical Society of
America, 101, 2299–2310.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching
pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other
languages. (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chung, W. L. (2008). The effectiveness of explicit, implicit, and noticing
instruction: Mandarin speakers’ perceptions and production of English
sentence stress. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant
International University, San Francisco, CA.
Clark, J. L. (1967). Empirical studies related to the teaching of French
pronunciation to American students. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
Couper, G. (2003). The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL
teaching. Prospect, 18(3), 53–70.
de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced
practice behavior. Language and Speech, 26, 331–350.
Nationalism, Community Development and Ethnic Relations
6
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty
(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation
teaching: A research-based approach. TES OL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–
397.
Derwing, T., and Munro, M., & Wiebe, G. (1997). Pronunciation instruction
for “fossilized” learners: Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8,
217–235.
Derwing, T., and Munro, M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a
broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning,
48(3), 393–410.
Elliott, R. A. (2003). Staking out the territory at the turn of the century:
Integrating phonological theory, research, and the effect of formal
instruction on pronunciation in the acquisition of Spanish as a second
language. In B. A. Lafford & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second
language acquisition: State of the science (pp. 19–46). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress.
TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423.
Flege, J. (1995). Second language speech learning. In W. Strange (Ed.),
Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language
research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Flege, J., Frieda, E., & Nozawa, T. (1997). Amount of native language (L1
use) affects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 169–
186.
Fullana, N. (2006). The development of English (FL) perception and
production skills: Starting age and exposure effects. In C. Mun˜ oz
(Ed.), A ge and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 41–64).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gravois, J. (2005, April 8). Teach impediment: When the student can’t
understand the instructor, who is to blame? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i31/31a01001.htm
Isaacs, T. (2009). Integrating form and meaning in L2 pronunciation
instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 27, 1–12.
Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation (Longman handbooks
for language teachers). London: Longman Publishing.
Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics
instruction beneficial for FL learners? The M odern Language Journal,
97, 3, 720-744.
Kuhl, P., Wiliams, K., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K., & Lindblom, B. (1992).
Linguistics experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 month
age. Science, 255, 606–608.
Lado, R. (1956). A comparison of the sounds systems of English and Spanish.
Hispania, 39(1), 26-29.
Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Kelestarian Insan 2014 (INSAN2014)
Batu Pahat, Johor, 9 – 10 April 2014
7
Lambacher, S. (1999). A CALL tool for improving second language
acquisition of English consonants by Japanese learners. Computer-
Assisted Language Learning, 12(2), 137–156.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 367–377.
Lord, G. (2005). (How) can we teach foreign language pronunciation? On the
effects of a Spanish phonetics course. Hispania, 88, 557–567.
Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994). Attempts to improve English
L2 pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction.
Language Learning, 44, 75–100.
Morin, R. (2007). A neglected aspect of the standards: Preparing foreign
language Spanish teachers to teach pronunciation. Foreign Language
Annals, 40, 342–360.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of
age, motivation and instruction. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 81–108.
Munro, M., Derwing, T., & Morton, S. (2006). The mutual intelligibility of L2
speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 111–131.
Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL
Quarterly, 20, 207–225.
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of
foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.
Plakans, B. (1997). Undergraduate’s experience with and attitudes toward
international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 95-119.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Silveira, R. (2004). The influence of pronunciation instruction on the
perception and production of English w ord-final consonants.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in L2
Spanish word processing: Implications for pronunciation instruction.
Modern Language Journal, 90, 519–535.
Venkatagiri, H., & Levis, J. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech
comprehensibility: An exploratory study. L anguage A wareness, 16(4),
263–277.
Wipf, J. A. (1985). Towards improving second-language pronunciation. Die
Unterrichtspraxis, 18, 55–63.
