Pronunciation
Pronunciation
Pronunciation
net/publication/339133885
CITATIONS READS
2 411
2 authors, including:
David Lasagabaster
Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
128 PUBLICATIONS 4,697 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
English-Medium instruction at university: A study focused on interaction in content lectures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by David Lasagabaster on 09 February 2020.
Ane Alonso-Herrero
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain
aalonso140@ikasle.ehu.eus
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2019.i19.04
In the last decades English has gained undeniable relevance and status to
the extent that it has become essential both in the professional and personal
spheres in many parts of the world. However, its pronunciation is still
regarded as the “Cinderella” among the areas of language due to its
neglect in the foreign language classroom. This study sought to investigate
55 secondary school students’ attitudes in the Basque Autonomous
Community (Spain) towards English pronunciation, General American
English (AE), Standard Southern British English (BE) and English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF), as well as Native and Non-Native English Speaker
Teachers (NESTs and NNESTs). Additionally, students’ responses were
statistically compared in terms of gender. Data was collected through a
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
The global spread of English has led to the emergence of new English
varieties, such as World Englishes, English as a Second Language, English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) and ELF. In order to account for the use of
English around the globe, Braj Kachru developed his theory of the Three
Concentric Circles (Kachru, 1985). The Inner Circle (IC) comprises those
countries where English is spoken as a native language, the Outer Circle
(OC) those in which it is spoken as an institutionalized variety due to
colonisation –essentially by the IC countries–, and the Expanding Circle
(EC) embraces those countries where the influence of English has achieved
an international status and its usage is that of a foreign language.
Due to the tremendous impact of globalisation on the use of English both inside
and outside the EC (Galloway & Rose, 2015), ELF is becoming the main
means of communication in situations where language interaction is required
between people who do not share a native language. Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey
(2011) add that ELF differs from English and, thus, Native English Speakers
(NESs) would also need to learn it if they wished to use it –, even if it would be
much easier for them. EFL, unlike ELF, usually implies learning English with
either the American or British English varieties as a reference (Tsou & Chen,
2014). Additionally, the ultimate goal of EFL speakers, according to Jenkins et
al. (2011: 284), would be to achieve a native-like proficiency in the language,
whereas ELF speakers are not “evaluated against a benchmark”. In the same
vein, the “ELF perspective sees non-native Englishes as different rather than
deficient” (Jenkins et al., 2011: 284), unlike EFL. Being native-like proficiency
the aim of EFL teaching and learning, this paradigm diminishes non-native
Englishes or Englishes that vary from the “norm”, i.e. non-standard varieties.
As Mansfield & Poppi (2012) highlight, ELF speakers seek intelligibility as
their main purpose; on the contrary, correctness is encouraged in EFL teaching
(Tsou & Chen, 2014). Jenkins et al. (2011) insist on the fact that ELF sustains
language contact and evolution theories, such as code-switching as a pragmatic
resource, while EFL interprets these as gaps in speakers’ English knowledge.
After having revised the differences of EFL and ELF, it is transparent that
speakers of English are regarded differently in each theory. In ELF, they are not
deemed incompetent or unsuccessful speakers, but preferably:
In Tsou & Chen’s (2014) study, EFL and ELF college students’
perceptions towards Englishes were measured. EFL students were regarded
as those receiving English lessons only as a subject in their undergraduate
degrees and, ELF students as the ones for whom English was a “medium
of instruction and communication in their classroom and campus
environment, and, more importantly, a common language among speakers
of different mother tongues” (Tsou & Chen, 2014: 370). Besides, the EFL
group shared the same background and L1 whereas the ELF group did not.
Sixty-seven percent of the ELF group considered the rules of standard
varieties to be more important than their owns’ in order to establish a
common base for meaning negotiation, whereas slightly fewer participants
of the EFL group agreed to the statement (58%) and some (23%) did not
give their opinion. Furthermore, 44% of the ELF students acknowledged a
desire to modify their speech so that it resembled their interlocutor’s and
communication is facilitated. Communication is therefore one of the main
concerns of these students, and they do accept it explicitly, affirming that
intelligibility is more important than grammar correctness (82% of the
ELF group and 84% of the EFL group).
(a) provide a good learner model for imitation; (b) teach learning strategies
more effectively; (c) supply learners with more information about the
English language; (d) anticipate and prevent language difficulties better;
(e) be more empathetic to the needs and problems of learners; (f) make use
of the learners’ mother tongue.
Chang (2016) adds that NNESTs are good language learning models
because of their experience as learners of English: they can anticipate
learning problems. As to the positive aspects of NESTs, the most remarkable
features they stand out for are their proficiency in English, experience as
English users, relaxed teaching environment with authentic input and
speaking as one of the main activities in the classroom (Lasagabaster &
Sierra, 2005; Ma, 2012). Among NNESTs’ weaknesses, the most noticeable
one is their inferior competence in English, along with their exam-oriented
teaching, as compared to the more relaxed environment created by NESTs.
NESTs, on the other hand, tend to be less qualified in terms of lesson
preparation, and may not be skilled enough to describe their native
language’s features such as grammatical rules (Lasagabaster & Sierra,
2002; Ma, 2012). Besides, NESTs often do not share their students’ mother
tongue and culture which has been proven to hinder language teaching and
learning on many occasions (Chang, 2016).
2.4. Gender
The issue of gender has raised interest in the literature on attitudes towards
varieties of English (Lasagabaster, 2003). Dewaele & McCloskey’s (2015)
study on attitudes towards foreign accents, as a case in point, reveals that
gender had an impact on learners’ attitudes towards their own foreign
accent: women learners of EFL were more reluctant than their male
counterparts to accept their own foreign accent. However, Siebert’s (2003)
study revealed men’s concern on acquiring an impeccable pronunciation.
What is more, in this study male EFL teachers were in agreeance with the
belief of remaining silent until one is able to speak in a correct manner. The
author suggests that “female teachers value communicative attempts by
students more highly than do male teachers” (Siebert, 2003: 31), although
it may imply anxiety towards correct or perfect pronunciation to a certain
extent. Moreover, Xia (2013) points out that women are more inclined to
using standard forms of language than men. For instance, men would use
the phrase “Are you comin’?” whereas women would more likely employ
the next standardised form: “Are you coming?”
3. The Study
3.2. Participants
3.3. Instruments
one single speaker provides the entire set of recordings. In the VGT,
however, several speakers are recorded in their authentic accents, which
is an attempt to overcome the lack of authenticity issue. The three speakers
recited the same passage, a fragment of a short story entitled Comma Gets
a Cure, ethnically neutral and considered appropriate for the participants’
aptitude. Three recordings –one per variety– were obtained from the
International Dialects of English Archive (IDEA) and were accompanied
by a semantic-differential scale containing eleven pairs of bipolar
adjectives, where both dimensions of status and solidarity were included.
Traits such as educated, attractive or self-confident usually pertain to the
dimension of “status” or “superiority”, often attributed to the standard
varieties from the US and the UK (McKenzie, 2008). Whereas the standard
varieties are frequently judged positively in terms of “status” with
adjectives such as intelligent, educated and respectable, non-standard
varieties tend to be judged very positively in terms of “solidarity”, i.e.
traits such as friendly, trustworthy and funny (Mirshahidi, 2017). The
recordings were played once and, after each, participants were given
some time to complete the corresponding semantic-differential scale.
Finally, three open-ended questions complemented the results from the
VGT. The experiment was completed in class and their responses were
recorded in answer sheets, which were statistically analysed by means of
SPSS.
3.4. Procedure
4. Results
M SD
Item Learning English pronunciation is a waste of time.
4.96 1.12
1 (reverse coded)
Item I would be willing to make an effort to learn
4.36 1.14
2 English pronunciation.
If an English pronunciation course were offered in
Item
the future, I would not like to take it. (reverse 4.05 1.35
3
coded)
Item
I very much enjoy learning English pronunciation. 3.09 1.33
4
Table 2. Means and standard deviations in descending order for attitudes towards
English pronunciation.
M SD
My English pronunciation would be better with a
Item 5 4.21 1.34
native teacher.
A native teacher would assess my English
Item 6 4.18 1.41
pronunciation better than a non-native teacher.
A native teacher would focus more on
Item 7 4.00 .90
pronunciation.
If we want to improve our English pronunciation it
Item 8 3.16 1.34
is important that the teacher be a native speaker.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations in descending order for attitudes towards
NESTs.
The third research question was focused on the three varieties BE,
AE, and ELF, also analysed in the VGT and open-ended questions (Table
4). The participants gave their opinions on the pertinence they attributed to
each variety and their cultural value.
M SD
Item It is not important to understand different 3.74 1.27
9 English accents like the Indian, Japanese or
Middle East. (reverse coded)
Item It is enough to know the American or British 3.41 1.41
10 English accents. (reverse coded)
Table 4. Means and standard deviations in descending order for attitudes towards
BE, AE and ELF.
The total average mean scores for each scale were also calculated by
adding the means of each item and dividing the end result by the number
of items in each scale. The value assigned to each trait goes from 1 to 6,
where 1 expresses the most negative connotation and 6 the most positive
one.
Which variety did you like the most: the 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Why?
Which variety did you like the least: the 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Why?
Would you like your English to sound like any of the varieties you listened
to? Which one? Why?
RQ1: What are the students’ attitudes towards the importance of English
pronunciation?
RQ2: What are the students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs?
RQ3: What are the students’ attitudes towards BE, AE and ELF?
6. Pedagogical Implications
After having discussed and compared the findings to prior research, this
section provides several pedagogical implications.
Finally, this study also revealed that there was a strong preference
for NESTs over NNESTs. While NNESTs were not seen as ineffective
teachers, NESTs were preferred for pronunciation teaching and assessment.
Due to the absence or little exposure to non-native accents in English
teaching, students are not familiar with them. This could prompt such
negative attitudes or lack of confidence in NNESTs. This issue should also
be overcome by a higher exposure to non-native accents. Students should
realise that non-native speakers of English are not deficient English
speakers, but “highly skilled communicators” (Jenkins et al., 2011: 284).
Notes
1
Quotation marks by original author.
2
The figure in brackets corresponds to the number of respondents who mentioned
that certain feature.
References
Çakır, I. & Baytar, B. (2014). Foreign language learners’ views on the importance
of learning the target language pronunciation. Journal of Language and
Linguistic Studies, 10, 99-110.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dewaele, J. & McCloskey, J. (2015). Attitudes towards foreign accents among adult
multilingual language users. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 36(3), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.909445
Dörnyei, Z., Csizer, K. & Nemeth, N. (2006). Motivation, Language, Attitudes and
Globalisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mirshahidi, S. (2017). I find you attractive but I don’t trust you: the case of language
attitudes in Iran. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
38(2), 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1178268
Siebert, L. L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The
ORTESOL Journal, 21, 7-39.
Taylor & Francis Group (2019). Introducing Global Englishes. Retrieved March 8,
2019 from https://www.routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/9780415835329/
default.php
Tsou, W. & Chen, F. (2014). EFL and ELF college students’ perceptions towards
Englishes. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 363-386. https://
doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2014-0021