It is unquestionable that second language (L2) pronunciation forms a fundamental skill that learners need to master in order for them to use the L2 effectively for genuine communication: learners with otherwise perfect language abilities—but with unintelligible pronunciation—will often find difficulty engaging in successful interactions with other interlocutors. However, it is often the case in most English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts that this skill is given the least attention in language curricula and classrooms. In research, L2 pronunciation is argued to receive minimal attention from scholars and researchers, with many proposing the need for more investigations in various pronunciation-related issues. As I argued elsewhere (Alghazo, 2015), it is unadvisable to keep raising such concerns regarding the lack of attention of research to this area without full engagement in investigations of this kind. This article looks at one of the many issues that require attention: that of categorising types of approaches to L2 pronunciation teaching.

In this regard, I propose three main criteria for this categorisation based on mainstream literature in this area.

Precedence of Instructed Aspects

The first criterion relates to precedence of aspects that should be instructed at both segmental and suprasegmental levels, and here we often distinguish among three approaches: bottom-up, top-down, and integrated approaches. In relation to the bottom-up approach, it is argued that this reflects earlier misunderstandings of scholars in attempting to make learning of the L2 resemble the first language (L1) acquisition process where children start developing sounds and move on to learn words, phrases, and then sentences. Thus, scholars argued that L2 instruction should focus on raising learners’ awareness of basic units of language before they move on to learn broader aspects of language proficiency. In the area of L2 pronunciation teaching, advocates of this approach argue that focusing on the perception and production of sounds first before proceeding to prosody is the appropriate approach to instruction. However, recent research in this area (e.g., Hahn, 2004, among many others) provided evidence to support that suprasegmental features are more important for achieving intelligibility in speech. Consequently, scholars began to argue for a top-down approach where prosody is given more emphasis in classroom teaching. This second approach is not without concerns: Teachers of English pronunciation in many EFL contexts—where the second language is rarely used outside the confines of the classroom—complain that it is difficult to instruct students on the placement of word stress, for example, while they are still unable to produce certain problematic sounds (i.e., sounds that do not exist in their first language inventory) correctly. For such situations, I suggest that teachers may adopt an integrated approach in their teaching where a simultaneous focus on both sounds and prosody can be emphasised and implemented in each individual lesson.

Aspects Covered

The second criterion for categorising approaches relates to the aspects that should be included in any teaching program. In this vein, scholars often make a distinction between two approaches: accuracy-based and fluency-based (Levis, 2007). The former approach entails that a course on pronunciation should include full consideration of every single aspect of both segments and prosody in addition to connected speech features. However, and taking into consideration the widely raised concerns of teachers in relation to the relatively low number of subjects devoted to pronunciation in most language programs, accompanied with complaints about the lack of time in individual lessons to cater to all aspects of pronunciation, this approach is sometimes questioned and argued to be aiming for unachievable and unrealistic goals. Thus, most scholars began to call for a fluency-based approach where students are instructed on aspects that influence their fluency and communication success. This entails that teachers should teach unfamiliar sounds, for example, that students find difficulties perceiving and producing such as those that do not exist in their L1 inventory of sounds (see, e.g., Deterding, 2010). Similarly, where rhythm or the placement of tones, for example, is often a difficulty for students, teachers can attend to teaching rhythm at the expense of other familiar aspects that students do not find problematic.

Goals of Instruction

The third criterion relates to goals of pronunciation teaching and learning, and here scholars usually distinguish between two approaches: native-likeness and intelligibility (Levis, 2005). In regard to the former approach (i.e., native-likeness), the age of learners in the pronunciation class is a highly crucial variable. Referring back to the claims of the critical period hypothesis (CPH), adult L2 learners are usually unlikely to achieve native-like proficiency in the L2 because of the various neurological, cognitive, and affective considerations involved in L2 acquisition (Brown, 2014). Thus, and if receptive to the CPH’s claims, we should, as teachers, set up realistic goals for our adult students who have exceeded the age of puberty and assign a more realistic and achievable goal that assists their communication success. In addition to the previous concern regarding the age of learners and the CPH, current debate in mainstream literature on the status of English as an international language and on the irrelevance of the native-speaker construct points to considering intelligibilityas a more achievable goal for L2 teachers and learners. And for this goal, scholars started to rethink the teaching of L2 pronunciation in many contexts, especially EFL contexts. For example, Jenkins (2002) proposed a plan for teachers of English pronunciation in EFL contexts that she called the lingua franca core (LFC). In this plan, she argues that certain features of English pronunciation are not significant because they do not affect communication among nonnative speakers of the language (for a comprehensive account of the claims of the LFC and the criticisms it faced, see Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Przedlacka, 2008). Current views on the goal of pronunciation instruction, however, point to considering intelligibility as the most achievable goal.

Closing Remarks

In closing, this article aimed to provide a framework for understanding types of approaches to L2 pronunciation instruction. Literature on pronunciation does not claim the efficacy of one approach over the others, but assert that teachers of English pronunciation need to be creative in the sense that they have to establish their own approach to teaching based on manifold variables such as the context, learners’ age, their background, expectations, and goals of learning the L2. These approaches represent hints that teachers can refer to and apply in their classrooms, but teachers are free to modify them according to their own situations.

References

Alghazo, S. M. (2015). Advanced EFL learners’ beliefs about pronunciation teaching. International Education Studies, 8(11), 63–76.

Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Deterding D. (2010). ELF-based pronunciation teaching in China.Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(6), 3–15.

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. & Przedlacka, J. (Eds.). (2008). English pronunciation models: A changing scene (2nd ed.). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–223.

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103.

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.

Levis, J. M. (2007). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 184–202.

Sharif Alghazo obtained his PhD in applied linguistics from the University of Technology, Sydney, in Australia. His research interests include English phonology and pronunciation, language learning strategies, second language acquisition, and teacher and student cognitions and beliefs. He serves as a peer reviewer for a number of international journals and conferences.