Intelligible Pronunciation for Communicative Competence
-
Upload
geraldine-peralta -
Category
Documents
-
view
42 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Intelligible Pronunciation for Communicative Competence
University of Northern Philippines
College of Teacher Education
Graduate School
Tamag, Vigan City
INTELLIGIBLE PRONUNCIATION FOR COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
A Research Paper
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in Linguistics
Presented to:
Mr. Honorato Patubo
Professor
Presented by:
Geraldine Peralta
April 17, 2015
ABSTRACT
Pronunciation is an integral part of foreign language learning since it directly
affects learners' communicative competence as well as performance. Limited
pronunciation skills can decrease learners’ self-confidence, restrict social interactions,
and negatively affect estimations of a speaker’s credibility and abilities. The current
focus on communicative approaches to ESL pronunciation learning and the concern for
building communication skills are renewing interest in the role that pronunciation plays
in ESL learners’ overall communicative competence. The goals of this paper are to
present the difference between perfect and intelligible pronunciations, explain the
importance of intelligible pronunciation specifically in learners’ communicative
competence, as well as the factors affecting. The review of literature shows that with
careful preparation and integration, intelligible pronunciation can play a significant role
in supporting the learners’ overall communicative skill.
Title
Abstract
Table of Contents
Chapter I – The Problem
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Study
Scope and Delimitation
Operational Definition of Terms
Chapter II – Review of Related Literature
Theoretical Framework
Conceptual Framework
Chapter III – Methodology
Research Design
Data Gathering Procedure
Subjects of the Study
Chapter IV – Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis of Data
Chapter V – Summary of Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations
References
i
ii
iii
1
1
3
3
4
4
6
6
9
10
10
10
11
12
15
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
As English increasingly becomes the language used for international
communication, it is vital that speakers of English, whether they are native or non-native
speakers, are able to exchange meaning effectively. In fact, in recent discussions of
English-language teaching, the unrealistic idea that learners should sound and speak like
native speakers is fast disappearing (Burns, 2003).
A generally accepted goal of pronunciation pedagogy is to help learners achieve
a comfortably intelligible pronunciation rather than a native-like one.
One of the primary goals of teaching pronunciation is ―intelligible pronunciation
– not perfect pronunciation. Intelligible pronunciation is an essential component of
communicative competence (Morley, 1991). The attainment of perfect pronunciation
should no longer be the objective. Instead, Morley calls for setting more realistic goals
that are reasonable, applicable and suitable for the communication needs of the
learner. To her, the learner needs to develop functional intelligibility (ability to make
oneself relatively easily understood), functional communicability (ability to meet the
communication needs one faces), increased self-confidence, and the speech monitoring
abilities and speech modification strategies. Therefore, it is vital that students learning
English for international communication learn to speak it as intelligibly and
comprehensibly as possible – not necessarily like natives, but well enough to be
understood (Morley, 1991).
What teachers want to achieve is students pronouncing words exactly the same
as the Americans do. But students are not getting what teachers want since the Filipino
language is a way different from English. The difference between the Filipino and English
alphabets becomes the first problem since the two languages have quite different sets
of alphabet. As children, students were introduced to the Filipino alphabet which has no
other vowel sounds aside from a, e, i, o and u compared to English, which has more than
twenty, including the diphthongs and triphthongs. Filipinos are used to using only five
vowel sounds, and only then at formal schooling, usually at even the higher levels of
education, when they learn of the existence of the other vowel sounds. This is not to
justify students’ mispronunciation but to make teachers understand more the students’
situation. Forcing students to sound “American” would only make them feel a very
pressuring atmosphere which would consequently have an adverse effect to their
communicative performance. The teacher therefore should not imbibe to students’
mind that the most important thing in pronunciation is to sound exactly like the native
speakers of English. What is more and most important is how well students pronounce
the sounds to distinguish meaning.
Thus, it is not perfect pronunciation that counts. Because what will help EIL
learners have the communicative competence is the intelligible pronunciation. What is
more important is the meaning the speakers effectively communicate. It is not
significant to sound exactly like the Americans do. But, it is much more important to
successfully pronounce the word, achieving the purpose of communication – to deliver a
clear message.
Statement of the Problem
This study aims to prove that intelligible pronunciation is more effective in
improving the communicative competence and performance of the students and that
unintelligibility hampers the success of communication.
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions:
1. What aspects of communicative competence does intelligible pronunciation
positively affect?
2. How to avoid unintelligible pronunciation?
Significance of the Study
This study was undertaken with the hope that its findings will prove beneficial to
the following:
Teaching Profession. Teachers will utilize the results of the study as a basis on
how to improve the pronunciation of students. That is, they would have an idea on what
to focus on for the development of their students’ pronunciation. With this, the
teachers’ view of pronunciation can somehow change. They can also gain more
concepts on strategies to advance students’ pronunciation.
Future Researchers. This research is important so that future researchers may
use this as a springboard for offering a heightened level of teaching strategy touching
the depths of the students’ realistic learning.
The Curriculum Planner. This study serves as one of their bases in planning the
over-all design of the English program in adapting to the abilities and factors affecting
the pronunciation of the students. They may consider the results of the study to modify
existing recommended methods in the teaching of pronunciation.
Scope and Delimitation
This study deals with the greater reliability of intelligible pronunciation than
perfect pronunciation in terms of the STI Vigan Students’ communicative competence as
well as performance.
The researcher observed students’ pronunciation for two months, five
consecutive weekdays in their English subjects. It involved 116 respondents: 10 from
BSCS1, 20 from BSCS3, 7 from BSTM1, 17 from HRS1A, 23 from HRS1B, 28 from HRS2A,
and 11 from IT2.
Operational Definition of Terms
The Operational Definition of Terms includes the dependent variable being
Communicative competence and the independent variable being Intelligible
Pronunciation (in contrast to Perfect Pronunciation). The following terms are defined
according to their use in the study.
Communicative competence. is a term in linguistics which refers to a language user's
grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as well as social
knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately (Wikipedia, 2015).
Intelligible pronunciation. The extent to which utterances are understandable to a speaker’s
audience (Munro, 2010); where you need not exactly sound as native speakers of the language
do.
Perfect pronunciation. The extent to which utterances are exactly copied by a non-
native speaker to sound like a native speaker.
Unintelligible pronunciation. The extent to which utterances are made but become
meaningless due to the speaker’s mispronunciation.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Theoretical Framework
This chapter presents related literatures, which were reviewed by the researcher
to gain insights in the conduct of the study.
1.1 Pronunciation and its Implications Seen from Different Perspectives
Morley (1991) identifies intelligible pronunciation as an essential component of
communicative competence that stays at the heart of CLT (Communicative
Language Teaching Approach is introduced in Bangladesh for nearly two decades).
According to Fraser (2000) person with good pronunciation skills can improve their
general language skills at a greater rate than someone with bad pronunciation.
Therefore, pronunciation instruction is of great importance for successful oral
communication to take place. Moreover, pronunciation has an essential socio-
cultural value (Gelvanovsky, 2002) signifying its relation to attitudes and identity.
Since the way we pronounce determine how we are likely to be perceived,
understood and sometimes judged by others. Norton (2000 in Setter, 2008) says
socio-cultural identity is a complex construct that defines the individual and the
wider social and cultural environment. Setter and Jenkins (2005:6) in this regard
mentions:
Pronunciation, it seems, is a more sensitive area of language than other linguistic
levels because of the way in which it encroaches on identity and elicits strong
attitudes.
Despite the fact that pronunciation is an essential and integrated component of
oral communication and communicative competence, it very often remains
neglected or absent in many language teaching programs even if it is included in
the curriculum. Researchers like Morley (1991), Celce-Murcia et al (1996), Jenkins
(2004), Levis (2005) and others hold the similar view. It is believed that teaching
pronunciation is unnecessary in ESL/FL since nonnative teachers cannot teach
native like pronunciation. In addition, Harmer (2003) found teachers neglecting it
reasoning that they have already many things to do and teaching pronunciation will
only add problems to their teaching.
1.2 Pronunciation in EIL Paradigm
However, the practitioners of such belief may have forgot the status of English as
an international language (EIL) and that English is no more delimited between the
so-called two standards of English namely British and American. The global spread
of English has made it plural in its nature including as many standards as legitimized
all over the world and very often termed as Englishes or World Englishes (WE). It
also recognizes the fact there are now more interactions between non-natives
users of English who have outnumbered the natives (Graddol, 2006). This therefore
reinforces the need to integrate pronunciation with other language skills for mutual
intelligibility among speakers of many varieties of English. The need to revisit the
goals of teaching oral skills along with pronunciation and the way to integrate it in
the syllabus and evaluation is thus as strong as ever (Richards, 2006 in Sharifian,
2009). The focus of EIL paradigm in terms of proficiency is thus on successful
communication regardless of nationality, skin color and circles and so on. Another
consideration that cannot be unnoticed is that in the area of ELT profession many
users of English, in fact 80% professionals as found by Canagarajah (1999 cited in
McKay, 2002), need the language for lingua franca communication with other non-
native speakers as well as with native speaker (Sharifian, 2009). Therefore it is
rather impractical to stay behind in teaching pronunciation requiring native fluency
and norms and native materials.
1.3 Pronunciation in a CLT program
Although early CLT in 1980 ignored pronunciation perceiving as a difficult area,
believing teaching phonology would impede communicative practice and thus
threaten students’ self-confidence, recent research established the fact that
pronunciation is a vital element of communicative competence, the ultimate goal
to attain in CLT and that pronunciation should be given preferential treatment
(Jenkins, 2004). Despite the current dominance of intelligibility as the goal of
pronunciation, pronunciation is still out-of-the-way in materials. With the advent of
CLT, the focus of learning shifted from the teacher-centered teaching to the
learner-centered learning environment (Brown, 2001 in Hismanoglu, 2006). The
idea of Chomsky‘s linguistic competence (1965) turned towards a broader outlook
of learning a language provided by Hymes (1972) that is to attain the ability to
communicate in real speech incorporating culture. However, the very inherent
nature of the communicative approaches emphasizes successful communication
that in turn involves teaching pronunciation. The goal of pronunciation has taken a
transition from perfect pronunciation‘ to the more realistic goals set by Morley
(1991 in Hismanoglu, 2006) to upward functional intelligibility, communicability,
increased self-confidence and self-monitoring abilities and strategies to use real
speech beyond classroom. Still teachers tend to ignore pronunciation focusing on
grammar and vocabulary. For some teachers pronunciation, as pointed out by Levis
(2005), is neither teachable nor even needed as they believe students can learn
pronunciation at the end of language programs without any training. Therefore the
fate of pronunciation is still apparently dependent on intuition and ideology rather
than research.
Conceptual Framework
In the conduct of the study, the researchers were guided by the following paradigm:
Figure 1. The Research Paradigm
The research paradigm shows that intelligible pronunciation leads to communicative
competence. The researcher believes that intelligible pronunciation has a lot more
IntelligiblePronunciation
Communicative Competence
benefits than perfect pronunciation when it comes to communicative competence as
well as performance.
Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the Research Design, Data Gathering Procedure, and
Subjects of the Study.
Research Design
Figure 2. The Research Design Paradigm
The research design paradigm shows the three key elements which are
important in the fulfillment of the study. The researcher serves as the observer who will
study the students’ intelligibility but mainly their unintelligibility.
Data-Gathering Procedure
Observer
Students
Unintelligibility
The researcher used the Balanced Participation type of Observation method to
document words which students mispronounce, taking note of the word and its
frequency. The proponent of this study will only listen to students’ sentences. This went
on for two months in five consecutive weekdays.
Subjects of the Study
The subjects of this study were several students of STI Vigan, A. Y. 2014-2015 composed
of 10 BSCS1, 20 BSCS3, 7 BSTM1, 17 HRS1A, 23 HRS1B, 28 HRS2A, and 11 IT2. It was
conducted during the Final Period of the Second Semester. Total enumeration was used.
Chapter IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of information from the
gathered data to determine the students’ communicative competence.
Table 1.1.1: Unintelligible Pronunciation at Segmental Level
Word IPA Transcription Students’ Mispronounced Form
Nearly/ Similar to another Meaningful Sound
Apple /ˈæp.l / /efel/; /abel/ -- Lieutenant /lefˈten. ə nt/ /luː-/ Liutenent/ljttenənt/;
litentent/ / lɪtentent --
Suffer /ˈsʌf.ə r / /-ɚ/ /sʌpʌr/ Supper Pneumonia /njuːˈməʊ.ni.ə/ nuː
ˈmoʊ.njə/ Pinumina/pɪnʊmɪnʌ/; Piniominia/pɪnɪɒmɪnʌ/; /fɪɔmɔɪnʌ/
--
Psychology /saɪˈkɒl.ə.dʒi/ /-ˈkɑː.lə-/ /pɪsɪkɑlədʒi /fɪdʒɒkɑlədʒɪ/
--
Quiet /kwaɪət/ /kwaɪt/ ; /kwɪt/ Quite, Quit Hate /heɪt/ /hɪt/ Hit Liar /ˈlaɪ.ə r / /-ɚ/ /lɪər / Leer Riding /ˈraɪ.dɪŋ/ /rɪdɪŋ/ Reading Gaining /ˈsmaɪ.lɪŋ/ /zaɪnɪŋ/ -- Smiling /ˈsmaɪ.lɪŋ/ /sɪmɪlŋ/ --- Knee /niː/ /kɪn/ ; /kɪnɪ/ Kin Aspect /ˈæs.pekt/ /eksept/ Accept Do /də/ , /du/ , /duː/ /dɔː/ Dough Who /huː/ /hɔː/ Caged /keɪdʒ/ /krek/ -- Left /left/ /lɪft/ Lift Mess /mes/ /mɪs/ Mis/Miss Resume /rɪˈzjuːm//-ˈzuːm/ /rɪsʌm/ -- Lake /leɪk/ /lek/ /laɪk/ Like Double /ˈdʌb.l / /dʌvl/ --- Heart /hɑːt/ /hɑːrt/ /hɪart/ --- Disease /dɪˈziːz/ /dɪsɪs/ /dɪsaɪs/ --- Shy /ʃaɪ/ /se/; /ʃe/ -- Jolly /ˈdʒɒl.i/ /ˈdʒɑː.li/ /zolɪ/ --- Toward /təˈwɔːdz/ /tʊˈwɔːrdz/ Sounds like ‗coward‘ Sounds like ‗Coward‘
/taʊ.ərd/ Beat /biːt/ /vɪt/ Veet Concise /kənˈsaɪs/ /knsɪs/ Wise /waɪz/ /ɔeɪz/ Ways Kid /kɪd/ Sound like ‗kite‘ //kaɪd/ --
In response to the unintelligible articulation that students made while speaking,
the above given table shows their mispronounced forms in association with nearly or
very similar sound existing in English. While some of them may contribute in changing
meaning, some may cause unintelligibility with no meaning at all. The articulation of
words ‘do‘ as ‘dough’, ‘quiet‘ as ‘quite‘ and ‘quit’, ‘since’ as ‘science’, ‘through‘ as
‘throw‘ (as they drop the gliding vowel) will very likely affect intelligibility and
comprehensibility. Students tend to utter words based on the spelling as evident in
enunciations of ‘disease’ ‘concise’ where they do not replace /s/ with /z/ or leave
diphthong /aɪ/.
It was found that in most of the cases students could not utter long vowels as
longer as required. 80% of the students utter the word ‘calm’ using short vowel /ʌ/
instead of long /a: / Similarly, while uttering diphthong, usually longer than pure vowel,
students left the second vowel unsounded in many cases. 100% students could not utter
the diphthong ‗quiet’. All of them uttered the word like ‘quite’ or ‘quit’, that have
different meanings. Similarly, 90% students uttered ‘lake’ as /lek/. In terms of
consonants, 100% of students failed to pronounce the word ‘conscience’ and ‘tragically’.
Schwa /ɔ/ in all positions posed difficulty for both group of students (urban and rural) as
in ‘ago‘, ‘quiet‘, and ‘western‘. A good number of them failed to articulate the short
vowel /ʌ/ in ‘son‘, long vowel /ɜː/ in ‘hurt‘, diphthong /eɪ/ in ‗paper‘, voiceless fricative /
ʃ / in ‘conscience‘, voiceless plosive /t, k/ and voiced affricate / dʒ/ in ‘tragically‘, ‘cover‘
and in approximant /w/ in ‘Wednesday‘. In comparison to students of urban colleges,
students from rural colleges mispronounced to a greater extent. While none of the
students from urban colleges had problem uttering the long vowel /u: / in ‘who’, 50%
rural students replace /u: / with / ɒ /. While only 30% of students in urban faced
problem pronouncing the diphthong in ‘hate’, 90% of rural students mispronounced it.
None of the students from urban had problem uttering words ‘meat’, ‘next’, ‘ABC’, and
‘do’, a good number of students in rural faced problem uttering those. A good number
of students from BSCS3 added an /æ/ before words like ‘MA’, ‘ABC’, ‘apple’ and so on.
They also had great difficulty with voiceless approximant in initial position in words like
‘war’, ‘Wednesday’, and ‘website’ since they utter /w/ as /ɔ/.
Chapter V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Surprisingly, seldom anyone has shown interest in conducting research at HSC
level in this respect. It might be related to the fact of ignorance toward pronunciation in
the English teaching, its absence in evaluation and also in the teacher training materials
(Khan, 2007). In this respect, the present empirical research would raise awareness
among language teachers, policy makers, and the concerned authority to help build an
examination that will influence teaching-learning oral skills underlying pronunciation.
The research community would also be benefited from the findings of the study since
they will get updated information regarding the significance of pronunciation and the
distinguished problems that students have.
From the findings it is found that students have serious problems on
pronouncing short vowel /ə/ and /ɪ, i/, all long vowels, diphthongs, and voiceless
consonants. They face serious difficulty uttering words inconsistent in spelling and
sound as found in ‘lieutenant‘, ‘pneumonia‘, ‘doubt‘, ‘Wednesday‘ and others. It
suggests students need teaching sounds using IPA with a view to produce learners with
mutual intelligibility not imitating ability. The distinctive way of speaking by Filipino
learners generally accepted and intelligible in the country can be identified through
collaborative action research and be introduced to the student as a variety of our own.
Teachers also need to be trained on the aspects of pronunciation on how to
teach it and the issues relating to it. Raising awareness toward the significance of
pronunciation is required not only for teacher but also for teacher trainers, policy
makers, and head teachers. Sessions can also be arranged, even if needed, for guardians
and parents who may pressurize teachers to focus on exam-oriented teaching.
Moreover, a change to evaluation is the demand of time since the loopholes between
policy and practice has to blame the evaluation system that extensively focuses on
writing and memorization of drills only.
Students should be exposed to Balanced Approach of learning English with a
view to preparing them for the future interactions in EIL. They should be taught English
as a language not as a subject incorporating proficiency aspects, local and target
language culture, and more importantly all these should be done using realia so that
learners can feel motivated and personalize it in their real life context.
Based on the findings of the study following suggestions can be made:
Awareness raising sessions in the form of seminar, conference, workshop and so
on should be familiarized at all levels of education in the country
Training for trainers and teacher on phonetics and phonology
Testing oral skills underlying pronunciation
Integrated pronunciation teaching with other skills
5-7 minutes short session on pronunciation can be enormously helpful for
bringing a change in pace of the class activity (Harmer, 2003)
Filipino-English differences in terms of sound-orthography can be categorized.
For example English contains /a/ in many forms as in / ɒ ə ɑː ɔː ɜː ɒː / whereas in
Filipino /a/ has only one sound.
Collaborative action research to perform contrastive analysis undertaken by
some known and well reputed scholars in the country can be of real help for
students to contribute further
Varieties of English should be familiarized
The current empirical research focused on the significance of pronunciation at HSC
emphasizing segmental aspects of pronunciation. However, further study can be
undertaken on suprasegmentals, including nuclear stress that also causes
unintelligibility to a larger extent (Jenkins, 2004).
REFERENCES
Burns, A. (2003). Clearly speaking: pronunciation in action for teachers. National Center
for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquiane University, Sydney NSW
2109.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton D. M. & Goodwin J. M. (1996) Teaching Pronunciation. A
Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:
CUP.
Derwing, T. M (2010). Utopian Goals for Pronunciation Teaching. In J. Levis and K.
Levelle (Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning
and Teaching Conference, Iowa State University, Sept, 2009 (pp 24-47), Ames, IA:
Iowa State University.
Fraser, H. (2000) Coordinating Improvements in Pronunciation Teaching for Adult
learners of English as a Second Language. Canberra: DETYA
Gelvanovsky (2002). Effective pronunciation teaching: principles, factors, and
teachability. In P.V. Sysoyev (Ed.). Identity, Culture and Language Teaching. USA:
CREEES.
Graddol, D. (1997): The Future of English? The British Council: London.
Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP
Hismanoglu (2006). Current perspectives on pronunciation learning and teaching,
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2:1:101-110
Jenkins, J. (2004). Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation, Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24,109-125.
Khan, H. R. (January, 2007). Problems of Oral Communication in English among
Bangladeshi students, EWU Journal, 1:1-18.
McKay, S. L. (2004). Western culture and the teaching of English as an international
language, English Teaching Forum, 42/1:10-15.
Morley, J. (1991). Multidimensional curriculum design for speech-pronunciation
instruction. In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views,
new directions (pp. 64-91). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Setter & Jenkins (2005). Pronunciation. State-of-the Art Article. Language Teaching:
38:1.
Setter, J. (2008). Theories and approaches in English pronunciation. In Monroy, R. and
Sánchez, A. (eds.), -25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and
challenges. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia de Publications. pp. 447-457
Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: An Overview. In Sharifian F.
(Ed.).