Search

Both native and nonnative language teachers often find pronunciation a difficult skill to teach because of inadequate training or uncertainty about the effectiveness of instruction. But nonnative language teachers may also see themselves as inadequate models for pronunciation, leading to increased uncertainty about whether they should teach pronunciation (Golombek & Jordan, 2005). Although studies have regularly shown that instruction is effective in promoting pronunciation improvement (Saito, 2012), it is not known if improvement depends on the native language of the instructor, nor if learners improve differently depending on whether their teacher is native or nonnative. This study investigated the effect of teachers' first language on ratings of change in accentedness and comprehensibility. Learners in intact English classes were taught one class by a nonnative- and one by a native-English-speaking teacher. Each teacher taught the same pronunciation lessons over the course of 7 weeks. Results show that native listeners' ratings of the students' comprehensibility were similar for both teachers, despite many learners' stated preference for native teachers. The results offer encouragement to nonnative teachers in teaching pronunciation, suggesting that, like other language skills, instruction on pronunciation skills is more dependent on knowledgeable teaching practices than on native pronunciation of the teacher.

The history of pronunciation in English language teaching is a study in extremes. Some approaches to teaching, such as the reformed method and audiolingualism, elevated pronunciation to a pinnacle of importance, while other approaches, such as the cognitive movement and early communicative language teaching, mostly ignored pronunciation (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). Currently, it seems clear that pronunciation deserves neither fate, either to be unfairly elevated to the central skill in language learning or banished to irrelevance. To a large extent, pronunciation's importance has always been determined by ideology and intuition rather than research. Teachers have intuitively decided which features have the greatest effect on clarity and which are learnable in a classroom setting. Derwing and Munro (this issue), recognizing this tendency toward teacher intuition in determining classroom priorities, make an appeal for a carefully formulated research agenda to define how particular features actually affect speaker intelligibility. That such an appeal is needed suggests, in Derwing and Munro's words, that pronunciation "instructional materials and practices are still heavily influenced by commonsense intuitive notions" and that such intuitions "cannot resolve many of the critical questions that face classroom instructors" (p. 380). During the past 25 years, pronunciation teachers have emphasized suprasegmentals rather than segmentals in promoting intelligibility (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Morley, 1991), despite a paucity of research evidence for this belief (Hahn, 2004). Recent carefully designed studies have shown some support for the superiority of suprasegmental instruction in ESL contexts (e.g., Derwing & Rossiter, 2003). Also, wider availability of software that makes suprasegmentals' discourse functions more accessible to teachers and learners will encourage work with suprasegmentals (Chun, this issue; Pickering, this issue). However, the importance of suprasegmentals for communication in English as an international language (EIL) is uncertain (Jenkins, 2000; Levis, 1999). It is also by no means clear that all suprasegmentals are equally learnable. Pennington and Ellis (2000), for example, found that although some

Intonation as currently presented in North American textbooks bears a strong resemblance to textbook treatments from 30–50 years ago despite tremendous advances in both theoretical and applied research on intonational description and the role of intonation in communication. This article reviews current intonational research that is relevant to teaching and presents implications for pedagogy. It then argues that there are two primary reasons for a lack of innovation in intonation teaching materials. First, current materials are based on an inadequate view of the functions of intonation, especially in their overemphasis on its role in signaling grammatical relations and in their emphasis on its role in conveying speakers' attitudes and emotions. Second, materials lack a communicative purpose, focusing instead on uncontextualized, sentence-level practice of intonational forms. Four principles for intonation teaching materials—namely, (a) that intonation must be taught in context, (b) that intonational meanings must be generalizable, (c) that the teaching of intonation must always be subordinate to larger communicative purposes, and (d) that intonation should be taught with realistic language—are discussed and contrasted with current practice.