Pronunciation instruction in english for academic purposes 2020

Second Language Learning and Teaching

John Hodgetts

Pronunciation
Instruction
in English
for Academic
Purposes
An Investigation of Attitudes, Beliefs
and Practices


Second Language Learning and Teaching
Series Editor
Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz
University, Kalisz, Poland


The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and
teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs
and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes
underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language
learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching
process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and
evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas,
they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research
paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic
and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists,
curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate
students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt

and taught.

More information about this series at />

John Hodgetts

Pronunciation Instruction
in English for Academic
Purposes
An Investigation of Attitudes, Beliefs
and Practices

123


John Hodgetts
Łódź, Poland

ISSN 2193-7648
ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic)
Second Language Learning and Teaching
ISBN 978-3-030-56115-4
ISBN 978-3-030-56116-1 (eBook)
/>© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this

publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland


Acknowledgements

The process of devising and implementing the research project upon which this
book is based, although challenging, was a rewarding and enjoyable experience.
I would like to thank all of those involved in the research: the teachers, the course
leader, the learners, and the course mentor. I would particularly like to express my
gratitude to the three teacher participants who agreed to be observed and took part
in interviews on such a demanding course. I truly appreciate the involvement and
participation of all those concerned at University A.
I would also like to thank Prof. Ewa Waniek-Klimczak for her guidance and
support as a supervisor during the doctoral research that forms the basis of this
book. Both her encouragement and knowledge of the subject area were invaluable
and enabled me to defend my thesis in a timely manner.
I would like to express my gratitude to the two reviewers of the original Ph.D.
thesis: Profs. Andrzej Porzuczek and Romuald Gozdawa-Gołębiowski. Their
advice and comments were extremely helpful in assisting the realization of this
book.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their steadfast support,
both during the research process itself and also during the writing of this book.

v


Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Background to the Current Research
1.2 General Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Contents of the Book . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2 Pronunciation Instruction: Background, Techniques and Relevant
Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 The First Focus on Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Audiolingualism: The Beginnings of an Analytical Approach .
2.3.1 The Theoretical Underpinnings of Audiolingualism . .
2.3.2 The Impact of Contrastive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.3 The Critique of Behaviourism, Audiolingualism,
and Contrastive Analysis, and New Directions Sparked
by Universal Grammar and Mentalism . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Sociocultural Theory and Scaffolding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 The Natural Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Communicative Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.1 The Broad Nature of Communicative Approaches . . .
2.6.2 Criticisms of the Communicative Approach
and Divergent Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 The Postmethod Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Humanistic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 The Impact of Humanism, the Self, and Possible Limitations .
2.10 The Importance of Affect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11 Pronunciation Techniques and Relevant Research . . . . . . . . . .
2.12 English as an International Language and the Status
of the Native Speaker Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

1
1
4
4
5

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.

9
9
10
12
13
14

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

15
18
20
21
22

.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

23
26
27
28
29
31

..
..

37
41

vii


viii

Contents

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

51
51
51
55
56
57
59
62
68
71
74
77

4 Methodology: The Mixed Methods Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 General Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Some Specifics of the Organization of the Course .
4.2.3 My Own Role on the Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Research Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 The Pilot Study Interviews that Led to the Current

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.4 Other Issues Arising from the Pilot Study . . . . . . .
4.4 Methods and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Introduction: The Value of a Mixed Methods
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Document Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3 Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4 Teacher Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.5 Semi-structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.6 Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.7 Teacher Assessment of Student Seminars . . . . . . .
4.5 The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.1 Members of Staff: Teachers and the Course Leader
4.5.2 The Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.3 Comments on the Level of the Students . . . . . . . .
4.5.4 Learner Participation: The Learner Questionnaire . .
4.5.5 Ethical Issues and Potential Effects on Participants .
4.6 Stakeholder Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.1 The University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.2 The Course Leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

87
87
87
87
88
89
89
89
90

....
....
....

92
95
96

3 Suprasegmental Instruction and Intelligibility . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 What Are Suprasegmentals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Native-Like Production or Intelligibility? . . . . . . . .
3.4 Intelligibility, Comprehensibility and Accentedness .
3.5 The Lingua Franca Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Key Issues Connected with Intelligibility . . . . . . . .
3.7 Suprasegmental Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8 Testing and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9 Studies Involving Chinese Learners . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.10 Instruction in EAP Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

96
97
98
101
105
107
111
112
112
113
114
114
117
117
117

118


Contents

4.6.3
4.6.4
4.6.5
References . .

ix

Teacher Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Myself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5 Results, Analysis, and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Notes on the Course Documents and Induction Documents . . .
5.2.1 Syllabus Content: Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Syllabus Content: Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Syllabus Content: Listening at University . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Syllabus Content: Supplementary Listening
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.5 The Associate Lecturer Supplement and the Student
Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.6 Course Documents: The Seminar Marksheet . . . . . . .
5.2.7 Course Documents: Seminar Guidelines
and Standardization Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3 Action Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Notes Taken During Participant Observation:
The Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 The CPD Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 Action Research: A Summary of Observations
of My Own Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 Other Observations not Directly Involving
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Results: Observations and Teacher Self-completion
Checklist Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 Mark and Myself: Video Recording on 01/08/2018 . .
5.4.2 Other Points of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.3 Bruce and Olivia: Video Recording on 25/07/2018 . .
5.4.4 Other Points of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.5 Checklist Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Teacher Participants’ Assessment of Student Pronunciation . . .
5.5.1 The Scores Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.2 Follow-up Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Semi-structured Interview with the Course Leader . . . . . . . . .
5.6.1 Goals of Instruction, Segmentals and Suprasegmentals,
Teacher Guidance, and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.2 The Course Leader’s View of Assessment Goals . . . .
5.6.3 Short Follow-up Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Teacher Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.1 Teacher Training and Early Experiences . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.2 Confidence and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

123
123
123
124
125
127

. . 127
. . 128
. . 128
. . 129
. . 130
. . 130
. . 131
. . 132
. . 133
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

134
134
135
137
138
138
142
142
143
145

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

145
149
151
153
153
154


x

Contents

5.7.3

What Are the Teachers’ Goals, Attitudes, and Beliefs
on the Pre-sessional? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.7.4 Assessment Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.5 Other Factors Concerning Pronunciation Assessment .
5.7.6 Opinions on the Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.7 Error Correction Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.8 Comments on Declared Practice and Priorities
of Instruction: Teacher Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.9 More General Suggestions for Course Improvement . .
5.8 Teacher Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.1 Biographical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.2 Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.3 The Most Important Aspects of Pronunciation
and Difficulties Encountered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9 Learner Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.1 Biographical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.2 Confidence, Motivation, Error Correction, Accent
Preference, Assessment of Instruction Received,
and Independent Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.3 Frequency of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.4 Most Helpful Activity for Improving Pronunciation
According to Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.1 Research Question 1: What Are the Course Goals
in Terms of Suprasegmental Pronunciation Instruction
and Intelligibility-Based Instruction? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.2 Research Question 2: Does Assessment Reflect
the Course Pronunciation Goals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.3 Research Question 3: To What Extent Are These Goals
Reflected by Teacher Instruction, Attitudes,
and Beliefs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.4 Research Question 4: What Are the Learners’ Attitudes

Towards Pronunciation Instruction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.1 The Course Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.2 The Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.3 The Course Leader’s View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.4 Possible Problems with Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.5 The Lack of Positive Washback in Pronunciation
Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.6 Guidance on How the Materials Can Be Used . . . . . .
5.11.7 A Lack of Support from Listening Materials . . . . . . .
5.11.8 Conclusions from Actual Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

154
156
157
158
161

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

162
163
164
164
164

. . 168
. . 170
. . 170

. . 172
. . 173
. . 174
. . 175

. . 175
. . 177

. . 179
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

181
182
182
182
184
185

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.

186
187
188
190


Contents

xi

5.11.9 Error Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6 Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Practice .
6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Recommendations for Pronunciation Instruction
on Future Pre-sessional EAP Courses . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . 199
. . . . . . . . . . 199
. . . . . . . . . . 201
. . . . . . . . . . 204

Appendix A: Seminar Marksheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Appendix B: Oral Criteria Seminars Guidelines: Pronunciation
and Interactive Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix C: Notes Taken from Induction and Staff Meetings
Throughout the Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Appendix D: Action Research: Some Examples of Notes Taken
Regarding My Own Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix E: Self Completion Teacher Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Appendix F: Interview Guide: Course Leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Appendix G: Interview Guide: Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Appendix H: Learner Questionnaire: Student Attitudes
and Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Appendix I: Teacher Questionnaire: Teaching
Pronunciation—Attitudes and Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Appendix J: Course Leader Consent Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Appendix K: Consent Form for Teacher Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Appendix L: Consent Form for Adult Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Appendix M: Simplified Marksheet for Learners
(Week 1: Seminars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Appendix N: Presentation Criteria Key Features (Steve Jobs) . . . . . . . . 249
Appendix O: Teacher Feedback Sheet for Student Presentations . . . . . . 251


List of Figures

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2
Fig. 5.3
Fig. 5.4
Fig. 5.5

Teachers’ attitudes towards different aspects of pronunciation
(in absolute numbers). Source Author’s own: The statements
(1–20 on the vertical axis) are listed on the next page;

the horizontal axis represents the number of teacher responses
to the statements (N = 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The most important source of subjects’ pronunciation teaching
knowledge. Source Author’s own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The relative importance of the different aspects of pronunciation
in EAP. Source Author’s own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Students’ native language (in percentages). Source Author’s
own. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What activity has your teacher used that is most helpful for
improving your pronunciation? Source Author’s own . . . . . . . .

. . 165
. . 168
. . 169
. . 170
. . 174

xiii


List of Tables

Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table
Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
5.1

Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5

The CEFR phonological control descriptors for B1 level . . .
Research timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teacher estimations of how well their teacher training
prepared them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Levels of teacher confidence and the stated target
of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinions on error correction and areas of instruction teachers
focus on/believe are important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Suggestions on how the pre-sessional can be improved
in providing pronunciation instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of completed teacher questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . .

Learners’ L1 in the four observed classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John’s group: IELTS scores at the start of the course . . . . .
Mark’s group: IELTS scores at the start of the course . . . . .
Bruce’s group: IELTS scores at the start of the course. . . . .
Olivia’s group: IELTS scores at the start of the course . . . .
A summary of the content of Mark’s/my own video recorded
lessons on 1/08/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A summary of the content of Bruce’s/Olivia’s video recorded
lesson on 25/07/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of checklists and date of completion . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scores given by the three teacher participants to the three
candidates (L, M, and R) in the pronunciation category . . . .
Variation in marks given by the three teacher participants
to the three candidates (L, M, and R) in the remaining
categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..
..

70
91

..

93

..

93

..

94

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

95
111
114
115
115
116
116

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . 136
. . 139

. . 140
. . 143

. . 143

xv


xvi

Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8

List of Tables

Pronunciation descriptors marked by the three teacher
participants for the three candidates (L, M, and R) . . . . . . . . . 144
Question 1: The learners’ attitudes towards pronunciation
(in percentages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Relationship between the length of time learning English
and the opinion of the percentage of time that should be spent
on pronunciation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174


Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background to the Current Research

Pronunciation instruction has long been an area that I have found fascinating both
as a practitioner and researcher. Reflections on my own experiences as a learner of
foreign languages, both in childhood and as an adult, made me aware of the peculiar,
and some would argue, almost unique nature of pronunciation when compared to
other areas of language study. Although learners may react negatively when they
discover that they have produced inaccurate language in writing, pronunciation has
an intensely personal quality that is absent in writing. Losing face by pronouncing
something incorrectly in an L2 can have a detrimental effect on learner motivation,
more so than errors in other aspects of language learning. Of course, this is culture
bound too, so in some learning contexts other errors (for example, grammatical errors)
may also induce a sense of failure or discouragement in learners. Nevertheless, the
act of speaking and articulating words, phrases, and sentences has a link with the self
that other aspects of language learning do not seem to have (Arnold, 2011; Cohen &
Norst, 1989). However, the consequences of not providing pronunciation instruction
and guidance may well mean that learners could complete their language learning
being able to perform the four skills, but not always being understood when speaking:
a highly undesirable outcome. The challenge is therefore to provide instruction that
is appropriate for the particular group of learners. This can depend on a range of
factors, including the age of the learners and the motivation for learning a particular
language.
My experiences as a practitioner have spanned over twenty years (since 1996) and
have been diverse in terms of the type of pronunciation instruction that was demanded
from me (if any). In certain teaching contexts, there was a lack of guidance in terms of
what appropriate instruction could entail. I recall several teacher observations where
the inclusion of pronunciation instruction seemed important for the teacher trainer,
but the type of instruction seemed immaterial, as long as there were elements of

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
J. Hodgetts, Pronunciation Instruction in English for Academic Purposes,
Second Language Learning and Teaching,

/>
1


2

1 Introduction

pronunciation instruction present. Since 2012, I have been an instructor on a university summer pre-sessional access course in EAP for adult learners at a university in
the North of England (henceforth referred to as University A) which does, to a limited
extent, have some focus on pronunciation instruction. In the summer of 2018, after
receiving consent from the course leader and participants at University A, I began
the practical stage of my mixed methods research into the provision of pronunciation
instruction on the ten-week summer pre-sessional course (Hodgetts, 2019).
The EAP pre-sessional course at University A, like similar courses at universities
across the UK, endeavours to equip learners whose L1 is not English with the skills
they will require to undertake undergraduate or postgraduate study at the university.
In terms of speaking and listening, this involves being able to discuss topics in a
seminar format, being able to give a short presentation, and being able to understand
lectures and the spoken language of their peers. My task was to uncover what the
goals of pronunciation instruction were and how the teachers assisted in realizing
these goals.
EAP pre-sessional courses can generally be divided into two types: those that
offer general English provision and those that offer subject specific content. Although
there is some attempt to provide subject specific content in the form of an extended
essay and a student presentation in the learners’ own subject (based on their chosen
destination course), in general, the course offered at University A is of a general
academic English type. The vast majority of learners on the EAP course are Chinese
L1 speakers.
The research examines the course goals and the extent to which they are stated and

visible for course leaders, teachers and students. There is a focus on suprasegmental
instruction and the target of instruction, i.e., whether the target of instruction is
one of native-like production or intelligibility, and an investigation into the type of
instruction and assessment that is provided, particularly in light of various research
suggesting how intelligibility-focused suprasegmental instruction and assessment
might be optimized (Baker, 2011; Baker & Burri, 2016; Hattie, 2009; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Levis, 2018). Although not the primary focus of the research,
learner attitudes are also explored, for example, to discover learner attitudes to the
target of instruction and the perceived success of the course from their point of view.
Over the duration of the course, I performed the dual roles of both researcher
and teacher, undertaking participant observation to report on any guidance provided
by the course leader in terms of the goals of pronunciation instruction and also
conducting my own action research: video recording one of my own lessons and also
keeping a note of my own endeavours to provide instruction (particularly in terms of
any difficulties I encountered or conversely, any successful strategies I employed).
Although challenging, I believe this enabled me to gain a more in-depth insight into
the teacher’s role and how suprasegmental instruction might be optimized. More
detailed information regarding the specifics of the research context and participants
is provided in the Methodology Chapter of the book (Chap. 4).
In terms of the rationale for the research, many researchers have pointed out
that pronunciation has often been a neglected area of instruction (Baker & Burri,
2016; Baker & Murphy, 2011; Derwing & Munro, 2015; Foote, Holtby, & Derwing,


1.1 Background to the Current Research

3

2011). This neglect is perhaps surprising given the evidence that suprasegmental
instruction in particular can assist in improving learners’ intelligibility, even over

short courses of instruction (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1997, 1998; Derwing &
Rossiter, 2003; Hahn 2004). Pronunciation research itself, particularly in terms of
suprasegmental instruction, has often been viewed as an area of research that has
not had the attention that it should (Deng et al., 2009). In recent years, it seems
that this lack of research has been addressed to some extent (Baker, 2011; Baker &
Burri, 2016; Foote et al., 2011; Foote & McDonough, 2017; Gordon & Darcy, 2016;
Sonsaat, 2017). However, there still seems to be a lack of research in terms of the
application of suprasegmental instruction in the EAP sector (the Baker & Burri 2016
research is a notable exception). Furthermore, the area of pronunciation assessment
has also been noted as one area that has received little focus in the overall patchwork
of pronunciation research (Piccardo, 2016, p. 11).
University pre-sessional access courses in the UK are common. Most UK universities administer one or more similar courses in the summer months, and some also
run courses in the autumn. Because such courses are so widespread throughout the
UK, the current research will hopefully be helpful in making tentative suggestions
in terms of how they might be improved in terms of their provision of suprasegmental instruction based on intelligibility. It could also assist in shedding further light
on pronunciation assessment and learner attitudes towards instruction. Although, as
mentioned earlier, pronunciation research has become a little more common in recent
years, it should be recognized that the crossover between research knowledge and
actual practice is not always evident, and practices that are recommended in research
might not necessarily be assimilated into instruction (Piccardo, 2016, p. 12; Setter,
2017). Indeed, even if teachers are aware of some research recommendations, it
is unrealistic to expect practitioners to be cognizant of all new research developments in EAP instruction. Even if teachers are aware of pertinent research, there are
certain pressures, attitudes, beliefs, obstacles, and inertias that can shape instruction.
Observing how goals of instruction are set out and exactly how all of these pressures,
attitudes, beliefs, obstacles, and inertias combine to provide pronunciation instruction is of importance so that more knowledge can be gained in terms of how best to
incorporate intelligibility-driven suprasegmental instruction into such high pressure
courses where time is of the essence. I believe that this book can play a small part in
contributing to this knowledge.
In terms of the scope of the research, although it is clearly focused on suprasegmentals instruction and intelligibility-driven goals on a pre-sessional EAP course,
some findings of the research may also be applicable to other ELT contexts, such as

the ESL sector. Of course, due to the different overall aims of ESL courses, there are
certain areas of enquiry that may not be so applicable. For example, it could be argued
that ESL courses should focus on native-like production as a goal of instruction in
order to assist learners in assimilating in their new host country. ESL learner goals
may necessarily be different because integration into what will be a new permanent
home may obviously be a desired outcome for many ESL learners. In EAP contexts,
although it is possible for many learners to remain in their university city after they
have completed their pre-sessional course and degree course, this is generally the


4

1 Introduction

exception rather than the rule, particularly in light of the relatively strict UK visa
regulations. However, in spite of these differences, other aspects of the research
findings could also be applied to ESL, EFL, and ESP sectors.

1.2 General Objectives
This book attempts to provide a snapshot of pronunciation instruction in an EAP
context. In particular, I wanted to gain an insight into the extent to which instructional goals at University A encompassed suprasegmental instruction based on an
overriding principle of intelligibility. The summative assessment of pronunciation
on the university course was also a key area of enquiry. The testing goals were investigated in order to ascertain the extent to which intelligibility-based assessment was
included and made transparent for the teacher markers. Teacher goals in instruction
and testing were examined to discover how far they coincided with the institutional
goals in the provision of intelligibility-based instruction and testing, and where they
diverged, attempts were made to discover why they diverged, what the teacher goals
were, how they were derived, and the extent to which they were uniform. The focus
on learner attitudes towards instruction was very much on learner confidence, opinions on the effectiveness of the instruction they received, and preferences, both in
terms of native and non-native language models in classroom instruction (listening

activities) and the type of accented speech the learners would like to produce.
Although the research is limited in nature, being based on only one pre-sessional
course in the UK, I feel that there are a number of important findings that shed further
light on how institutions and teachers combine to provide pronunciation instruction.
Moreover, the recommendations in terms of how intelligibility-based suprasegmental
instruction might be optimized could be beneficial for the institutions themselves,
the instructors, and the learners in EAP contexts. Practitioners in other language
learning contexts could also find these recommendations of value.

1.3 Contents of the Book
The book is divided into six chapters: This introductory chapter provides some background to the current research, general objectives, and details of the book’s contents;
Chaps. 2 and 3 explore the relevant literature; Chap. 4 presents the methodology,
tools, and instruments employed; Chap. 5 presents the results, along with their analyses, and concludes with a discussion of the findings; and Chap. 6 provides a conclusion to the whole book, together with tentative recommendations for future practice
and research.
Chapter 2 is more general in nature than Chap. 3 and is divided into four
sections. The first section provides the general historical background to pronunciation
instruction, examining the approaches to pronunciation instruction taken in different


1.3 Contents of the Book

5

methodologies. The second section investigates the importance of affect upon instruction, examining how emotional and psychological factors can impact instruction. The
third section outlines the techniques that have been employed to provide instruction,
and the final section considers the issue of the status of the native speaker variety
and the critiques of native speaker-based instruction. Chapter 3 focuses more closely
on the relevant literature pertinent to the focus of the current study and is divided
into multiple sections. It defines suprasegmentals and outlines their communicative role between L1 English speakers, examines the debate between nativeness and
intelligibility, and investigates the concepts of intelligibility, comprehensibility, and

accentedness as these are crucial for the current study. Specific reference is made
to Jenkins’ (2000) lingua franca core and its critique, before the literature review
proceeds to investigate other key issues connected with intelligibility and the research
showing the importance of suprasegmental instruction in improving the intelligibility
of English L2 users. The review concludes by focusing on the testing of English as
this is an important element of the research, followed by an examination of pronunciation research involving Chinese learners of English and pronunciation research
in EAP contexts. The vast majority of learners at University A are Chinese, and the
context of the study is EAP. It is therefore beneficial to examine these two areas in
addition to the research carried out in other contexts.
Chapter 4, the Methodology Chapter, outlines the research context of the study,
presents the Research Questions, provides a research timetable and describes the
methods employed and instruments used, and describes the pilot study that gave
impetus to the current study. It provides a rationale for employing a mixed methods
approach and the particular methods chosen, together with their implementation
and the piloting of instruments employed where appropriate. A description of the
participants, along with a stakeholder analysis is also included.
Chapter 5 presents the results gleaned from the instruments employed, along with
an analysis and discussion of the findings. After the initial results section, the results
are analysed with reference to each Research Question. Finally, the chapter concludes
with a discussion of the key findings. Reference is made to the relevant literature
and research, and the extent to which the findings of my own research coincide with
previous research findings is also explored.
Finally, Chap. 6 presents a concise summary and makes recommendations
for pronunciation instruction on future pre-sessional EAP courses. Although the
recommendations specifically address pre-sessional EAP courses, certain recommendations can also be applied to other areas of English language teaching
provision.

References
Arnold, J. (2011). Attention to affect in language learning. Anglistik. International Journal of
English Studies, 22(1), 11–22. />

6

1 Introduction

Baker, A. (2011). Pronunciation pedagogy: Second language teacher cognition and practice
(Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, US). Retrieved March 26, 2018, from
/>Baker, A., & Burri, M. (2016). Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(6), 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n6
Baker, A., & Murphy, J. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking out the territory.
TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 29–50. />Cohen, Y., & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affective barriers in
second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20(2), 61–77. />003368828902000206
Deng, J., Holtby, A., Howden-Weaver, L., Nessim, L., Nicholas, B., Nickle, K., & Sun, M. (2009).
English pronunciation research: The neglected orphan of second language acquisition studies?
Edmonton, AB: Prairie Metropolis Centre.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives
for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1997). Pronunciation instruction for ‘fossilized
learners’: Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 217–235. />67518.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favour of a broad framework for
pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393–410. />Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2003). The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language Learning, 13(1), 1–
17. />ction_on_the_Accuracy_Fluency_and_Complexity_of_L2_Accented_Speech.
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in
adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1–22. />18806/tesl.v29i1.1086
Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to improve L2
pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 34–56. />jslp.3.1.02foo
Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2016). The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners: A classroom study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 2(1), 56–92. />Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and Intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of
suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201. />Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.

Florence, US: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. />Hodgetts, J. (2019). A mixed methods study of institutional, teacher, and student pronunciation
priorities on a UK pre-sessional EAP course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Łód´z, Poland).
/>Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Levis, J. M. (2018). Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation.
Cambridge, UK & New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Piccardo, E. (2016). Council of Europe: Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment phonological scale revision process report. Retrieved from
Council of Europe: />fff9.


References

7

Setter, J. (2017, June 1). (Review of the book, Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based
perspectives for L2 teaching and research, by T. M. Derwing and M. J. Munro). Applied
Linguistics, 38(3), 430–433. />Sonsaat, S. (2017). The influence of an online pronunciation teacher’s manual on teachers’ cognitions. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, US). />

Chapter 2

Pronunciation Instruction: Background,
Techniques and Relevant Studies

2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the history and background to pronunciation instruction,
detailing the first focus on speaking in the nineteenth century, through to the emergence of audiolingualism and its theoretical underpinnings. Contrastive analysis,
error analysis, markedness theory, and their critiques are examined because these

three ways of approaching the analysis of errors and correction have had a significant
impact on instruction. The subsequent critique of audiolingualism and its theoretical
underpinnings that lent weight to the creation of a range of alternative approaches is
also explored, along with the impact of research into the effectiveness of second
language pronunciation instruction for children and adults. The alternatives and
critiques to audiolingualism are critically examined with reference to pronunciation instruction. Particular attention is paid to the communicative approach due to its
dominance over the last forty years, particularly in the UK. The chapter then moves
on to explore the importance of affect and pronunciation instruction, describes some
of the techniques that have been used in pronunciation instruction, and also discusses
the status of the native speaker variety and the critiques of instruction that is based on
native speaker norms. Psychological factors can be particularly important in terms
of enhancing motivation, so an exploration of affective factors is pertinent. It is also
relevant to present at least some of the techniques that have been employed in pronunciation instruction over the years in order to identify their relative appropriacy in a
variety of learner contexts. Finally, the status of the native speaker variety is particularly relevant in terms of the nativeness/intelligibility debate. This section gives a
broad overview of the issues; Jenkins’ (2000) lingua franca proposal is explored in
more detail in Chap. 3.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
J. Hodgetts, Pronunciation Instruction in English for Academic Purposes,
Second Language Learning and Teaching,
/>
9


10

2 Pronunciation Instruction: Background, Techniques …

2.2 The First Focus on Speaking
Before the mid-nineteenth century, the dominant teaching methodology was the

grammar translation approach, which saw written language and a concentration on
grammatical forms as goals of instruction. There was therefore very little focus
on speaking as such (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). During the second half of the
nineteenth century, a number of societal shifts meant that contact with speakers of
other languages became easier and more common. Factors such as increased travel
opportunities, a growth in the middle class, and a growth in universities and state
sector education led to a move away from the sole preoccupation with the classical
languages of Latin and Greek towards the European languages of French and German
(Lorch, 2016, p. 175). Early pioneers, such as Prendergast, Marcel, and Gouin began
to advocate the use of alternative methods, largely based on observations of how
children learn their first language.
Prendergast’s Mastery System, initially intended for adult learners’ self study,
emphasized that the primary stage of learning a foreign language should focus on the
accurate pronunciation of the L2 (Lorch, 2016). The publications involved learners
repeating sentences before any focus on grammatical structure. Importantly, Prendergast intentionally sought to choose words that were used frequently and sentences that
would illustrate as many of the rules of language as possible (Howatt, 1984, p. 158).
The treatment of vocabulary items as part of a sentence rather than stand-alone,
separate entities was also a significant break from the classical tradition. Repeating
sentences rather than reciting single words meant that the pronunciation of words
was in the context of a sentence. Learning was viewed as an unconscious process,
achieved through the imitation of sentences, not a product of logic, but rather a
product of intuitive memory (Howatt, 1984), and enabled through utterances, not
grammar (Lorch, 2016). It was therefore an inductive approach to language acquisition. Although some have viewed the impact of Prendergast’s publications as negligible (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), recent appraisals of their influence view them
as being, not only popular at the time, but also influential for other authors and
linguists, such as Francois Gouin and Henry Sweet (Atherton, 2010; Lorch, 2016).
Indeed, Prendergast’s contribution in terms of observing how children learn language
is of note. In particular, the observations that contextual information is used by children to assist comprehension and that they initially use memorized phrases were
important contributions (Howatt, 1984; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Like Prendergast, Marcel’s Rational Method was based on observations of how
children appear to learn their first language. Although Marcel used different terminology to describe productive and receptive skills, receptive skills were viewed as

preceding productive skills (in a practical and psychological sense) and therefore
recommended as the starting point for learners (Howatt, 1984). Marcel outlined 20
truths of methodology, one of the most significant being that the meaning of utterances
is understood before the acquisition of the symbols and words used to communicate
(Howatt, 1984, p. 153). Although Marcel advocated both analytic methods (examples
and practice) and synthetic methods (imitation and intuitive learning), the latter were


2.2 The First Focus on Speaking

11

viewed as more appropriate and effective in some learner contexts and especially for
children. The method proposed involved the repetition of expressions and the use of
pictures to assist meaning, along with teacher gestures and actions (Howatt, 1984).
In some ways, this explanation of gestures and actions to assist comprehension was
echoed almost a hundred years later in Vygotsky’s work (1962,1978). One problematic element of Marcel’s method is the primacy that is placed on reading: Learners are
expected to read language texts before hearing the language (Howatt, 1984, p. 154).
Nevertheless, the fact that imitation was seen as a crucial element of learning rather
than translation, with learners listening to utterances before producing them, was
an important addition to the inductive methodologist writers of the late nineteenth
Century.
Gouin’s publications, The Series, also presented an inductive method based upon
repetition (Howatt, 1984). The method entails the description of an action or event
by breaking it down into smaller events. For example, Handschin (1912, p. 174) cites
Gouin’s example of “the child washes his hands and face.” The action is broken down
into the actions “he takes up the soap” and “he dips the soap in water.” Aside from the
idea of focusing attention on the verb, the variety of the words chosen was intended
to facilitate the unconscious acquisition of as many words as possible. Also, unlike
Marcel, the first step involved imitating the teacher’s recitation of the sentences.

Aside from a number of drawbacks to the method, such as the lack of motivation that
may be caused by the uninspiring nature of the sentences (Howatt, 1984), Gouin’s
method proved widely popular at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning
of the twentieth century, with authors such as Handschin (1912, p. 174) praising the
method for its psychological assumptions of learning (unconscious and inductive)
and pedagogical effectiveness. Gouin’s ideas of the sequencing of spoken language
items and presenting new spoken language items in a context were an important
advance at the time and a significant departure from the grammar translation method
(Handschin, 1912). Apart from viewing language learning as something which should
be approached in a similar way to how children learn language, the common thread
connecting all of the three linguistic pioneers was the move away from written
language to oral production as the prominent focus of language learning (Brown,
2006). The principles upon which Gouin and his contemporaries based their ideas
about language instruction became known as the direct method, with communication
restricted to the target language rather than relying upon translation, and the main
points of instruction introduced orally. Both speaking and listening comprehension
were viewed as important aspects of language learning, as was correct pronunciation.
Although these early linguists focused on the oral imitation of language, the practical
implementation of their ideas remained limited until the establishment of the reform
movement at the end of the nineteenth century (Brown, 2006; Richards & Rodgers,
2001).


12

2 Pronunciation Instruction: Background, Techniques …

2.3 Audiolingualism: The Beginnings of an Analytical
Approach
Although the early pioneers of the nineteenth century had some impact on the

teaching of listening, speaking, and pronunciation, it was not until the advent of
the reform movement at the end of the century that large scale international cooperation between phoneticians and practitioners began to have a greater impact on how
language was taught and how pronunciation instruction was provided. The formation of the International Phonetics Association by the phoneticians Henry Sweet,
Wilhelm Vietor, and Paul Passy, in 1886, led to the development of the International
Phonetics Alphabet. This accurate representation of sounds in the form of an alphabet
emanating from the new scientific discipline of phonetics meant that sounds could be
transcribed and recorded. The IPA was to become a fundamental tool in pronunciation
instruction. Although, like Gouin and the early linguistic pioneers, spoken language
was to be given prominence, the crucial difference was that phonetics was viewed
as a vital tool for language learning, with instructors expected to have some knowledge and training in phonetics and learners expected to learn the IPA (Celce-Murcia,
Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010). It was the establishment of this reform movement and
the belief that language learning methods should be supported by solid theoretical
foundations that facilitated one of the most significant developments in pronunciation instruction in the twentieth century: that of audiolingualism. The theoretical
foundations of the reform movement would be further strengthened by developments
in behaviourist psychology in the twentieth century (Howatt, 1984, pp. 168–208).
Audiolingualism became established in the 1940s and 1950s and was, at least
in part, a reaction to the necessity of training huge numbers of people to speak a
foreign language. The immediate necessity for such an approach was caused by
the second world war, with US soldiers posted throughout the world (Brown, 2006,
pp. 105–106). Subsequent advances in technology meant that spoken language could
be recorded for instruction purposes or used for self study, without the necessity of
having a native speaker teacher in the classroom: the native speaker model would be
represented on the cassette recording.
The focus of audiolingualism is on speaking and listening activities, and one
particularly distinctive technique is that of minimal pair drills (Celce-Murcia et al.,
2010). Minimal pairs: two words that only differ due to one contrasting phoneme,
were very much a feature of Bloomfieldian structural linguistics (Bloomfield, 1933)
and are a central tool of instruction in audiolingualism. Students are often guided
through a series of listen and repeat drills in order to improve listening skills and
particularly to assist in pronunciation so that they acquire the habit of pronouncing the

target sounds in the correct way (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 35). Both syntagamatic
drills, where minimal pairs are contrasted within a sentence, and paradigmatic drills,
where the contrasting pairs appear across two different sentences, can be employed
(Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). A key departure from the direct method was the systematic analysis of the language system: The direct method is an intuitive-imitative
approach, relying on the pupil imitating the instructor, whereas audiolingualism is