# A critical examination of research on the teaching of pronunciation in a second language

Martha C Pennington

► To cite this version:

Martha C Pennington. A critical examination of research on the teaching of pronunciation in a second language. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humanez-Berral & A. Henderson, (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices, pp.55-70, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.16695648. hal-05196472v2

HAL Id: hal-05196472

https://hal.science/hal-05196472v2

Submitted on 13 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# A critical examination of research on the teaching of pronunciation in a second language

Martha C. Pennington

University of Reading
Birkbeck University of London

## Abstract

Although there is a growing research base showing approaches to teaching pronunciation that have proven effective, both the types of approaches that have been systematically studied and the contexts in which those approaches have been applied are as yet relatively limited. There is still much to explore regarding what approaches work in what contexts and under what circumstances. I point out limitations in the research base and areas that have not yet received much attention from researchers. I then review recent studies that are moving pronunciation teaching and research away from its traditional narrow focus and artificial contexts to a broader conception and more authentic contexts. I encourage other researchers to replicate these studies and to adapt their methodologies for different contexts in order to systematically investigate these practices. I also encourage classroom teachers to draw on those methodologies to design action research for trying out new approaches in their classrooms that have proven effective in other contexts.

**Keywords:** action research, applied research, language teaching, pronunciation

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
**1. Introduction**

The increased interest in pronunciation teaching in the current era (Levis, 2019) has spurred a great expansion in the research base exploring effective practices (Levis, 2021a, 2022; Saito & Plonsky, 2019). The accumulation of research findings has made it possible to make generalisations about the positive effects of some approaches that have been researched, such as perception-oriented approaches (Sakai & Moorman, 2018), especially High Variability Phonetic Training – HVPT (Thomson, 2018), and approaches that address suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation (Lee et al, 2015). Notwithstanding these advances in our knowledge of approaches that work and the body of research supporting the value of teaching pronunciation (Derwing & Munro, 2015; Lee et al., 2015), the research base is still limited, and there is a vast territory for exploration and systematic study of the effectiveness of specific practices (Pennington, 2021). In what follows, I review the present state of research in the field and offer suggestions of areas that are ripe for further investigation by researchers as well as by teachers in their own classrooms, recommending action research as a way for the latter group to put research into practice.

**2. Limitations of the existing body of pronunciation research**

A critical examination of the existing body of pronunciation research reveals a number of limitations, including:

* restricted focus of the research;

* relatively weak research design;

* insufficient attention to methodological factors affecting research outcomes;

* lack of systematic replication and comparison across different conditions;

* limited attention to authentic language and language variety; and

* limited attention to authentic communication.

An examination of each of these limitations serves to delineate areas in need of attention in future research.

**2.1 Restricted focus of the research**

The bulk of pronunciation teaching research centres on remediating segmental errors in the speech of students who have been learning English for some time (Lee et al., 2015; Levis, 2021b; Saito & Plonsky, 2019; Thomson & Derwing, 2015). A focus on segmentals tends to mean a focus on error and accuracy that the field is aiming to move away from and towards a focus on intelligibility (Levis, 2018). The focus on segmentals has meant comparatively less attention paid to suprasegmentals, discourse, and social attributes of pronunciation. Micro-level features of pronunciation have been attended to at the expense of macro-level features related to intonation, rhythm, stress, and the accompanying substantial modifications of phonemes that occur through linking and coarticulation during running speech. Because of the focus of research on relatively advanced learners (Saito & Plonsky, 2019), methodologies for teaching pronunciation to beginners have hardly been explored. In addition, the published research has centred mainly on learners of English, with limited attention paid to pronunciation teaching for learners of other languages
(Levis, 2021b; Pennington, 2021). More research is needed on pronunciation in context, on younger and early-stage learners, and on learners of languages other than English.

## 2.2 Relatively weak research design

Lee et al.'s (2015) discussion of their meta-analytical review points to weak research design and methodology as a problem in pronunciation research. Many studies showing positive findings need to be followed up by further studies exploring the same approaches with stronger designs in terms of methodology and research standards. Hardison (in press) lists all the features that characterise successful perception training for pronunciation suggesting the complexity and number of elements required to constitute a strong research design for successful auditory perception training:

1. compatible testing and training stimuli with verified intelligibility;

2. natural versus synthesized speech;

3. multiple exemplars of one or more target sounds in a range of phonetic environments to facilitate generalization to new stimuli;

4. stimuli produced by multiple talkers (i.e., voices) to promote robust perceptual category development and generalizability;

5. an identification (vs. a discrimination) task;

6. relatively implicit training with feedback;

7. generalization to improved perception of novel stimuli and unfamiliar voices;

8. transfer of skill to other tasks such as production in the absence of explicit production training;

9. retention of improved abilities.

Only a small percentage of perception studies incorporate all of these features, HVPT being the focus of most of them. As explained in Thomson (2018), HVPT methodology for perceptual enhancement has been shown to help learners revise their mental representations of L2 sounds with potential transfer to production of the sounds whose perception has been trained. In addition to HVPT, many different ways of training perception have proven effective, as shown in the studies reviewed by Sakai and Moorman (2018) and also the perception-oriented studies reviewed by Lee et al. (2015) and Saito and Plonsky (2019), but most of the studies reporting positive findings do not use the same methodology. Pronunciation teaching would benefit by more replications and comparative studies of different methodologies to establish the reliability and generalisability of the effects of various approaches to training perception in different contexts.

## 2.3 Insufficient attention to methodological factors affecting research outcomes

A problem with the advocacy of specific methods is that those methods may be implemented in different ways, with different effects. For example, a suprasegmental orientation for pronunciation can be as minimal as a focus on syllables rather than phonemes or as maximal as a focus on discourse intonation (Brazil, 1997; Brazil et al., 1980). In between these two extremes, it might focus on word stress, sentence stress, intonation, or phrase-level or sentence-level linking between words. It might also be oriented to perception or production, or both. And the methods for teaching suprasegmentals within any of these orientations vary widely. It would be of value to design studies to specifically test the effects of different aspects of suprasegmentals, and especially to compare
the effectiveness of more micro-level (e.g., syllable- or word-level) vs. more macro-level (e.g., sentence- or discourse-level) approaches. A recent computer-based study by Hirata (2024), for instance, found that in training pitch and durational contrasts for English learners of Japanese, sentence-level input was more effective than word-level.

Another example of variation in implementation of pronunciation teaching methodology is the technique of shadowing in which the learner aims to repeat exactly what they hear with as little delay as possible, almost simultaneously. Shadowing, which is based on stretches of running speech, has been shown in some research to improve intelligibility and other global aspects of pronunciation (Foote & McDonough, 2017; Hamada, 2019; Murphey, 2001). “Pure” shadowing is done using continuous stretches of speech that the learner has not been exposed to before (in either written or spoken versions). The shadowing technique can however be performed in many different ways that affect the task and its outcomes (Hamada, 2019; Murphey, 2001), and most studies include moderating factors without systematic examination of how they affect results. In any given case, shadowing may or may not include explicit instruction, analysis of the stretches of spoken language that are shadowed, and use of written versions of what is heard. It may also involve manipulations such as a reduced rate of speaking and/or shadowing in short stretches with pauses in between each stretch rather than continuously as speech is produced in longer stretches. Shadowing may be done “live,” that is, on speech as it is occurring, or based on an audio recording, which is the common way in teaching contexts as it allows the shadowed material to be accessed multiple times, as well as via computer delivery. The technique may be done through repeating either out loud or silently, and with exact or complete repetition or only selective repetition of some words and phrases (Murphey, 2001). Comparative research on the different methodological options for shadowing can help to tease out which features, or combinations of features, are most effective.

## 2.4 Lack of systematic replication and comparison across different conditions

A shortcoming related to the insufficient attention to methodological factors affecting research outcomes is the lack of systematic replication and comparison across different conditions, involving student populations, teaching contexts, pronunciation features focused on, and instructional or training methods. Nearly all studies have been carried out on just one class or with one group of learners (Lee et al., 2015; Saito & Plonsky, 2019), and only in a few areas of research – notably, perception studies (Sakai & Moorman, 2018) – have later studies been built on, and specifically compared to, the methodology of prior studies. HVPT is noteworthy in having carefully built a long line of related studies (Thomson, 2018) with some diversity across the studies in student populations, teaching contexts, and pronunciation features focused on – though the HVPT research has tended to focus on certain populations and teaching contexts and on a few segmental contrasts, using essentially the same approach for the training. The research on pronunciation teaching effectiveness can be strengthened by increased attention to comparative research and replication in new contexts.

## 2.5 Limited attention to authentic language and language variety

The limited attention paid to authentic language in teaching materials and methodologies is a major shortcoming of pronunciation practice and research (Saito & Plonsky, 2019). A long-practised tradition in pedagogy for teaching and learning to occur in a step-by-step sequence from simple
and controlled to freer and more complex tasks can be seen in the mainstream approach to pronunciation teaching, particularly, in the form summarised in the Communicative Framework for Teaching Pronunciation (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, pp. 44–48), which is often cited as the instructional sequence followed in pronunciation teaching research (Saito & Plonsky, 2019). The approach involves a presentation phase of explicit teaching about spoken language forms and functions which may present samples of authentic language – without student practice – but typically instead uses constructed examples designed to foreground a teaching point. This phase is followed by student practice in producing the focal forms and functions in controlled, guided, and then freer tasks involving “communicative” practice. It is only at this final stage that the pedagogy aims to elicit authentic language from the student.

Following the mainstream pedagogical tradition, pronunciation teaching has assumed the need, or the desirability, of simplifying language and tasks by limiting variety and context in order to keep cognitive load manageable and maintain focus on whatever aspect of pronunciation is being taught. The pronunciation teaching tradition has largely avoided authentic language on the assumption that it is too complex and variable for learners to handle in terms of managing cognitive load and attention. However, findings have been accumulating that more variety, context, and complexity of language and tasks can be handled by learners and can be helpful to their language learning. HVPT’s provision of a range of speaker models is a key feature of its effectiveness (Thomson, 2018), and complex tasks requiring complex language have been found to improve pronunciation and other aspects of language form in CLT and task-based instruction (Gordon, 2021; Mora & Levkina, 2018; Robinson, 2011), such as by eliciting more form-focused communicative episodes during negotiation of meaning (Long, 1991, 2015). Some recent research uses the authentic language in media such as television and films for teaching language; see, for example, Foote and McDonough’s (2017) use of TV sitcoms together with mobile media for teaching shadowing, Namaziandost et al.’s (2018) use of a popular series to teach prosody, and the review in Sánchez-Auñón et al. (2023) on use of films in teaching EFL. Pronunciation teaching and research can be enhanced by increasing the attention to authentic language from diverse contexts, speakers, and linguistic varieties.

## 2.6 Limited attention to authentic communication

Concomitant with the limited attention to authentic language is the limited attention to authentic communication, which has not usually been differentiated from authentic language, in teaching methods and materials and also in assessment. Traditional communicative pronunciation pedagogy can be challenged as not being truly communicative. It is “at best communicative in only the final stage [of lessons], and often not even then, as they do not quite achieve ‘free’ or spontaneous communication” (Pennington, 2021, p. 15). Even in its final-stage, freer tasks and contexts, CLT practice usually amounts to a simplified simulation, with some of the real constraints of communication factored out. Already back in the 1990s some educators were criticising CLT as not actually, or sufficiently, communicative. A main critic was Scott Thornbury at International House in Barcelona, who criticised the mainstream form in which CLT evolved as losing any real sense of communication. Thornbury (1996, p. 57) made a distinction between “small-c” and “capital-c” communicative language teaching activities, the former being interactive activities such as information gap tasks and other kinds of pair and group work that encouraged students to talk and the latter being activities that encouraged authentic communication based on students’ real lives and contexts. As to assessment of the results of teaching, Saito and Plonsky’s (2019)
meta-analytical review makes clear that what has been counted as improvement has been largely
restricted to non-communicative measures, including: 1) rough measures of individual features of
pronunciation, rather than improvement of pronunciation by global measures such as
comprehensibility; and 2) pronunciation judged in controlled tasks rather than free conversation
or spontaneous speech.

3. Under-researched areas

Limitations in the existing body of pronunciation research can also be considered in terms of a
number of under-researched areas:

* the linkage to gesture, facial expression, and the larger whole-body context of communication;

- stretches of speech;

* social meaning, affect, and identity;

- learners of different ages and proficiency levels; and

- use of technology.

A review of these shortcomings can point the way to future enrichment of the pronunciation
research agenda.

## 3.1 The linkage to gesture, facial expression, and the larger whole-body context of communication

There is a close linkage of pronunciation to gesture and facial expression, forming a multimodal
complex (Hardison, in press; Hardison & Pennington, 2021) that can usefully be taught together
for mutual reinforcement. From a different perspective, LaScotte et al. (2021, 2023) build a case
for teaching pronunciation in a whole-body context based on a social view of pronunciation as
intimately linked to self-expression and identity. Their article and book both offer examples and
guidelines for teaching according to a mirroring approach in which learners adopt the features of
pronunciation and delivery involving gestures, face, and voice of a person whom they decide to
use as their model speaker. Their research (LaScotte & Tarone, 2022) has shown that L2 speakers
can significantly modify their pronunciation when they are enacting the voices of others and that
their accent can shift significantly towards that of an imitated native speaker. In a related finding,
Henderson and Rojczyk (2023) report on a foreign language imitation approach in which L1
French students transferred pronunciation patterns developed by imitating the foreign accents of
L1 English speakers pronouncing French, resulting in significant improvement to their L2 English
pronunciation. The positive findings of these two innovative approaches to pronunciation
recommend them for further systematic study, and suggest that research should continue to explore
and develop pronunciation pedagogy based on students imitating or mirroring speakers. In
addition, these two studies showing that learners can change their pronunciation substantially when
they are imitating other speakers recommend development of teaching methodology in which
learners are encouraged to think of their pronunciation in terms of *styling* their speech rather than
correcting it.
## 3.2 Stretches of speech

Segmentals may or may not be taught in context, but rather are often taught in isolation as minimal pair contrasts. The teaching of suprasegmentals, however, requires contextualised language: at a bare minimum, multisyllabic words for teaching stress; and longer stretches for teaching intonation, rhythm, and the articulatory effects of the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, such as linking, assimilation, and deletion. Research has shown that a teaching focus on suprasegmentals and stretches of speech (e.g., Gordon & Darcy, 2022; Hirata, 2004; Lee et al., 2020) is more effective than a focus on individual phonemes. Multiclausal sequences are needed to showcase phonological devices for indicating the coherence across clauses, such as prosodic features for indicating the prominence of thematic items vs. the non-prominence of non-thematic items, or for demarcating thought groups. Even longer sequences can illustrate the features of suprasegmental phonology that indicate different types of discourse-level meaning, such as the prosodic features of oral narratives, descriptions, instructions, and explanations. Aspects of pronunciation that are manifested in stretches of speech involving linking and coarticulation, stress and intonation, rhythm, and fluency should receive more attention from the research community.

More attention to the teaching of oral language in context, from small continuous stretches of speech at the phrase level to whole discourses with a focus on pronunciation – as well as studies incorporating the facial expressions, gestures, and bodily movement that are coordinated with features of pronunciation to indicate idea units and emphasis (see Hardison, 2018) – will continue the transition of pronunciation teaching and assessment away from segmental accuracy and towards intelligibility. Teaching discourse-level features and the accompanying facial and bodily movements can thus help shift the focus of pronunciation teaching from correctness of form to speaking style (Eckert & Rickford, 2001) and effectiveness of delivery (LaScotte et al., 2023), that is, from *speaking correctly* to *performing effectively*. Attention to delivery and communicative effectiveness rather than correctness may make it possible for L2 speakers to incorporate more features of personality and identity in their performance and to be more listener-directed, more natural, and less self-conscious.

## 3.3 Social meaning, affect, and identity

The current focus on intelligibility is often a narrow one that does not factor in any of the broader functions of pronunciation, segmental as well as suprasegmental, in expressing pragmatic and social meaning. Although Levis (2018) incorporates all of these elements in his broad notion of intelligibility, this construct is usually operationalised in research by listeners' word by word understanding of what the speaker has said. The suprasegmental level is important in forming first impressions and for framing and structuring all of communication (Levis & Moyer, 2014), and research has demonstrated its importance in L1–L1 and L2–L1 interactions. Suprasegmentals have not been studied much yet in L2–L2 interactions, where they have been shown to have the same functions and importance (in spite of claims to the contrary by Jenkins, 2000, 2002); see, for example, Sperti's (2017) investigation of ELF prosody in a linguistically diverse immigrant context involving communication about legal matters.

Suprasegmental features of voice quality, pitch height and movement, loudness, and timing not only aid in expressing the content and structure of verbal information, but also are an indicator of a speaker's affective state and attitude towards the audience (Wichmann et al., 2009). In addition, as a long tradition of studies on accent in social sciences and sociolinguistics attests (Edwards,
2009; Giles & Robinson, 1990; Lippi-Green, 2012; Robinson & Giles, 2001), both segmental and suprasegmental features affect listeners' judgments of speaker characteristics:

People judge each other, in part, by not only what they say but also how they speak, including accent and voice quality, the articulation of individual words and sounds, fluency and phrasing in running speech, and the contouring of pitch to convey different kinds of meaning and feeling. A person's pronunciation in all of these dimensions is a rich and complex surface characteristic that listeners use to judge deeper level characteristics such as intelligence, education, and social class as well as such qualities as friendliness, openness, and trustworthiness, or their opposites. Features of pronunciation, especially outside the context of any visual indicators (as when talking to someone on the phone), may also be used by listeners to socially profile a person in terms of country of origin, ethnicity, race, age, state of health, and gender. In addition to these global judgements of a person's character and characteristics, pronunciation is crucial to intelligibility and comprehensibility.... In these different ways, pronunciation communicates many types of information tied to utterance meaning and speaker identity. (Pennington, 2020, p. 225)

Derwing and Munro (2015) “[observe] that the social impact of speaking with an L2 accent is related to listeners’ attitudes, which often involve stereotyping” (p. 152). Thus, “pronunciation often has social consequences” (Levis, 2021a, p. 24) which learners need to “understand and gain control over” (p. 25). As Levis (2021a) observes, “there is no equivalent measure to functional load for suprasegmentals” (p. 26); there is, however, a “social load” carried by prosody. “Instead of being heard as right or wrong,” in Levis’ (2021a) view, “errors in suprasegmentals may give a listener a vague sense that the speaker is hard to listen to, or worse, that they are rude or distant” (p. 26). Negative social consequences may also result from mispronounced segmentals, when listeners judge L2 speakers as hard to listen to because of all the errors in their speech and/or because of certain types of errors that either interfere the most with intelligibility or are most negatively stereotyped for a certain L2 speaker group.

Considering these facts, it seems important to teach the prosodic and segmental features that express social meaning, such as the various social (as opposed to referential) meanings of falling vs. rising pitch (e.g., exclusion or dominance vs. inclusion or solidarity), and the ethnocultural and varietal significance of interdental fricatives vs. alveolar stops (e.g., in *this/that/the*) and of released vs. unreleased vs. glottalised medial and final /t/ – distinctions which carry little or no functional load but which carry a significant social load and are of regional significance (Pennington et al., 2011). Research on teaching the social meanings of pronunciation features will help to align the teaching of pronunciation with the social turn in SLA (Block, 2003) and the social view of language and language learning (Lantolf, 2000, 2011).

## 3.4 Learners of different ages and proficiency levels

Much of the field has been focused on university-level learners who desire and need pronunciation instruction because their pronunciation lags behind their other language skills. More research and development is needed on pronunciation techniques that are effective with young students learning a second language as well as early-stage adult language learners. Research that specifically compares teaching approaches for learners of different ages and proficiency levels is lacking, and
pronunciation teaching would benefit by research comparing approaches for learners at different stages of language learning. This would help to determine which are the best practices for students at different educational levels – in addition to nonliterate adult learners – and for beginning, intermediate, and advanced proficiency groups.

Pronunciation teachers working with students of all ages and proficiency levels are encouraged to give a larger share of class time over to real communication and authentic language in teaching materials and approaches. Use of authentic language is possible at intermediate and advanced levels, both for the teacher to give instructions and feedback to students, which is common, and for the students to communicate with each other, which is less common – though teachers at these levels who try to implement a CLT approach aim to make it happen in constructed communicative tasks. Relatively rare are lessons organised around the kind of communication which Thornbury (1996) labelled “capital-c Communicative” activity, that is, communication about students’ real lives and context. Figuring out how to incorporate authentic language and authentic communication into pronunciation lessons takes some thought and creativity, and it is especially challenging to incorporate into lower level classes, including with beginners. Levis (2022) offers several authentic language and communication activities that address stress in short question-and-answer sequences and are suitable for beginners: an ice-breaker (activity 1) and a second activity (activity 2) extending the ice-breaker, with a following activity (activity 3) to have students spell out their names (pp. 55–57).

The inclusion of authentic language and communication is especially important at the earliest stage of language learning, when the L2 phonological system is not yet established (Bassetti, 2024, p. 700). This is when L2 pronunciation targets can best be set in perception and activated in production to limit the negative effects of L1 transfer, or interference, that affect L2 pronunciation learning and make it resistant to change (Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019; Yu & Odlin, 2016). To limit negative transfer effects at an early stage of language learning, it is advisable for teachers to make use of authentic language and communication while avoiding written language, which will trigger orthographic transfer effects. Bassetti’s (2024) research review makes clear that orthographic transfer effects, which have mainly been reported as negative (pp. 702–705), are much more significant for pronunciation than L2 researchers have realised, occurring even

...after minimal exposure to an orthographic form, and once established are resistant to lengthy naturalistic exposure, and possibly to teaching. They can affect all aspects of L2 speech processing, as the same [orthographically linked transfer effect] can be found in perception, production, awareness, and phonological and lexical learning, and reflected in spelling. (p. 709)

## 3.5 Use of technology

Use of available technologies for working on pronunciation would seem to be a “no-brainer,” and there are an increasing number and types of options (e.g., as reviewed by Fouz-Gonzáles, 2025, forthcoming), from pronunciation-centred learning apps designed for practice on individual phonemes to video, ChatGPT, and Automated Speech Recognition (ASR). However, the choice of which ones to use, for what purposes, and how to implement them in classwork or individual work outside of class is complex. The best ways to employ the existing technologies are still being explored, and the research so far has not accumulated enough findings to give definite directions
for pedagogy. However, many promising uses of technology are being investigated. For example, Mora and colleagues have been experimenting with a variety of focus-on-form techniques that make use of technology with the aim of improving the pronunciation of Spanish and Catalan university students. These include Mora and Levkina's (2018) study using computerised map tasks that require a focus on pronunciation and studies examining the effects on pronunciation of watching video with a focus on phonetic form or meaning and using captioned or uncaptioned video (e.g., Galimberti et al., 2023; Wisniewska & Mora, 2020). Fouz-González (2017, 2019) has developed approaches for teaching pronunciation using various types of technology, such as tweets and podcasts. These studies aiming to improve pronunciation with Spanish and Catalan learners of English at two Spanish universities can give ideas for further research to try out some of the same or similar methodology in other contexts.

Technology greatly facilitates use of authentic language and communication in pronunciation teaching. Tools like Audacity and the editing functions available for YouTube videos can be used to design lessons built around authentic language. New research has investigated teaching language through media such as television and films (e.g., see review in Sánchez-Auñón et al., 2023, on the use of films in teaching EFL), and researchers are experimenting with ways to use the authentic language provided in video media as a basis for teaching pronunciation, such as the prosody-oriented research of Namaziandost et al. (2018) using authentic videos and Sardegna and Jarosz's (2023) incorporation of authentic examples of words and phrases produced by a wide range of different speakers, extracted by YouGlish from YouTube videos, to model stress in polysyllabic words. Although Rogerson-Revell (2021), among others, has pointed out difficulties with ASR, the systems continue to be improved and can be used by language learners in dictation (Evers & Chen, 2022; McCrocklin, 2019) to help students tune their pronunciation so that the ASR system recognises their intended message. In addition, as Fouz-Gonzáles (2025), points out, "current AI-powered chatbots such as Gemini allow learners to engage in spontaneous conversations while viewing a real-time transcript of what the system understands" (pp. 8–9). Media and AI offer a rich pool of learning and teaching resources that can be applied to pronunciation, and their capacity for enhancing and developing approaches that emphasise context, variety, and authentic language and communication presents exceptional potentials for research.

Approaches for training intonation and other prosodic features have long made use of computer-generated visuals (Pennington, 1989; Pennington & Ellis, 2000), and research has continued to find that computer-generated visual representation of suprasegmental features results in positive training effects (e.g., Hardison, 2004; Hirata, 2024). Some researchers have developed software that can mechanically manipulate prosodic features of an L2 speaker's voice to be closer to that of a model speaker (e.g., an L1 speaker or an expert L2 speaker). The L2 learner can then practise trying to match this “golden speaker” model, which in essence means imitating an improved version of their own voice. Ding et al. (2019) have designed a golden speaker builder<fnref n="1" /> which learners can access and use online, supported by research results showing improvement in comprehensibility and fluency. Continued research on ways to make use of computer-generated visualisations and modifications of speech in the teaching of pronunciation will be of value in expanding the body of practices using techniques that involve speaker imitation, mirroring, and shadowing.

<footnote n="1">¹ The Golden Speaker Builder goldenspeaker.eng.iastate.edu/speech</footnote>
## 4. Expanding the pronunciation teaching and research agenda

The research base on pronunciation teaching now includes not only a growing body of replications and comparative research on previously studied approaches, but also a growing body of studies trialling many kinds of innovative approaches whose positive findings can inspire and give direction to further research. Published studies moreover offer a rich store of practices that teachers can draw on in their own classrooms. However, the linkage from research results to classroom teaching is not a straightforward process, as my own investigations of Hong Kong English language teachers' attempts to adopt new teaching practices confirms (Pennington, 1996; Pennington & Cheung, 1995; Pennington & Richards, 1997). One way of strengthening this linkage is for teachers to draw on published teaching research to perform action research in their classrooms in order to systematically explore teaching approaches, both the “best practices” that have received the most research attention and those practices that have shown positive effects in initial studies. In this way, pronunciation teachers can have confidence that what they teach is supported by their own classroom research, as they establish their own linkages between research and practice.

Action research is a type of applied research that has been recommended for language teachers and applied in second language contexts (Burns, 1999, 2005; Crookes, 1993; Edge, 2001; Nunan, 1990; Wallace, 1998). It involves *trial-evaluation-reflection-adjustment* cycles of: 1) trying out an intervention geared to a desired outcome or outcomes; 2) evaluating the effects and effectiveness of the intervention; 3) reflecting on the processes and results of the intervention, and then 4) adjusting actions to either continue on with the original intervention or to try out a different intervention aiming to achieve similar or better results. Teachers can pursue action research as a collaborative activity (Burns, 1999; Gordon, 2008), working together as research partners or groups to systematically investigate approaches for teaching pronunciation in their classes in a comparative way (see Pennington, forthcoming), by:

* planning and preparing together,

* deciding what pronunciation feature or features to focus on and how to assess them,

* taking notes and comparing how things are going on a regular basis, if possible, observing each other's classes to view the teaching-learning process, and

* assessing the effects on students' perception and production as well as on their motivation and attitudes to the approaches.

I encourage those who conduct research on pronunciation teaching to expand their horizons to aid the field in creating a richer and more diverse teaching and research agenda. There is a need especially for more comparative studies—such as those examining the effects of teaching pronunciation at different stages of language learning, in different teaching contexts, or using contrasting pedagogical approaches or the same approach but with different constraints or affordances. Pronunciation teaching with technology also remains a vast territory awaiting further exploration.

## 5. Towards the future of pronunciation teaching and research

In the current era, pronunciation teaching and research is transitioning beyond its traditional narrow and artificially constrained pedagogical focus to incorporate contextualised and authentic
language and to enhance pedagogy through use of technology, media, and the internet. In addition to established research traditions, pronunciation teaching and research are rapidly developing new methodologies incorporating linguistic variety, discourse, and social context in innovative ways of teaching pronunciation with positive results. Future development of pronunciation teaching and research should attend to larger context features, including the complex of segmental and suprasegmental effects in stretches of speech and discourse of different kinds, the kinaesthetic accompaniments of speech, and the social dimensions of communication that shift teaching of pronunciation away from segmental errors and accent, and towards intelligibility, speaking style, and delivery. Researchers can assist in extending the research agenda by replicating and adapting the new methodologies in different contexts and for different student populations, as classroom teachers draw on the published research to try out new approaches in their classroom through action research. In this way, both researchers and teachers will be participating in building a future for pronunciation pedagogy that incorporates the richness of language and of the contexts in which it occurs.

## References

Bassetti, B. (2024). Orthographic effects in the phonetics and phonology of second language learners and users. In M. Amengual (Ed.), *The Cambridge handbook of bilingual phonetics and phonology* (pp. 699–720). Cambridge University Press.

Block, D. (2003). *The social turn in second language acquisition*. Georgetown University Press.

Brazil, D. (1997). *The communicative value of intonation in English*. Cambridge University Press.

Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, C. (1980). *Discourse intonation and language teaching*. Longman.

Burns, A. (1999). *Collaborative action research*. Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), *Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning* (pp. 241–256). Erlbaum.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2910). *Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide*. Cambridge University Press.

Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. *Applied Linguistics, 14*(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.130

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). *Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research*. John Benjamins.

Ding, S., Liberatore, C., Sonsaat, S., Lučić, I., Silpachai, A., Zhao, G., Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., Levis, J., & Gutierrez-Osuna, R. (2019). Golden speaker builder – An interactive tool for pronunciation training. *Speech Communication, 115*, 51–66. https://psi.engr.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/1-s2.0-S0167639319302675-main.pdf

Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R. (Eds.). (2001). *Style and sociolinguistic variation*. Cambridge University Press.

Edge, J. (2001). *Action research*. TESOL.

Edwards, J. (2009). *Language and identity: An introduction*. Cambridge University Press.

Evers, K., & Chen, S. (2022). Effects of an automatic speech recognition system with peer feedback on pronunciation instruction for adults. *Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35*(8), 1869–1889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839504

Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to improve L2 pronunciation. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3*(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.1.02foo

Fouz-González, J. (2017). Pronunciation instruction through Twitter: The case of commonly mispronounced words. *Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30*(7), 631–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1340309
Fouz-González, J. (2019). Podcast-based pronunciation training: Enhancing FL learners' perception and production of fossilised segmental features. *ReCALL, 31*(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344018000174

Fouz-Gonzáles, J. (2025). Teaching and learning pronunciation with technology: Current possibilities, pedagogical recommendations, and directions for the future. In J. M. Levis, M. Duris, S. Sonsaat-Hegelheimer, & I. Na (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 15th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference* (pp. 1–15). Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.19027

Fouz-Gonzáles, J. (forthcoming). *Technology-assisted pronunciation training: Bridging research and pedagogy*. University of Toronto Press.

Galimberti, V., Mora, J. C., & Gilabert, R. (2023). Audio-synchronized textual enhancement in foreign language pronunciation learning from videos. *System, 116*, 103078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103078

Giles, H., & Robinson, W. P. (Eds.). (1990). *Handbook of language and social psychology*. John Wiley & Sons.

Gordon, J. (2021). Pronunciation and task-based instruction: Effects of a classroom intervention. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220986919

Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2022). Teaching segmentals and suprasegmentals: Effects of explicit pronunciation instruction on comprehensibility, fluency, and accentedness. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 8*(2), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21042.gor

Gordon, S. P. (2008). *Collaborative action research: Developing professional learning communities*. Teachers College Press.

Hamada, Y. (2019). Shadowing: What is it? How to use it? Where will it go? *RELC Journal, 50*(3), 386–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218771380

Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. *Language Learning & Technology, 8*(1), 34–52. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25228

Hardison, D. M. (2018). Visualizing the acoustic and gestural beats of emphasis in multimodal discourse: Theoretical and pedagogical implications. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4*(2), 231–258.

Hardison, D. M. (in press). *The multimodal context of phonological learning*. University of Toronto Press.

Hardison, D. M., & Pennington M. C. (2021). Multimodal second-language communication: Research findings and pedagogical recommendations. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.17006.har

Henderson, A., & Rojczyk, A. (2023). Foreign language accent imitation: Matching production with perception. In V. G. Sardegna & A. Jarosz (Eds.), *English pronunciation teaching: Theory, practice and research findings* (pp. 115–133). Multilingual Matters.

Hirata, Y. (2024). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. *Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17*(3-4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822042000319629

Jenkins, J. (2000). *The phonology of English as an international language*. Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. *Applied Linguistics, 23*, 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). *Sociocultural theory and second language learning*. Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), *Alternative approaches to second language acquisition* (pp. 24–47). Routledge.

LaScotte, D. K., & Tarone, E. (2022). Channeling voices to improve L2 English intelligibility. *Modern Language Journal, 106*(4), 744 – 763. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12812

LaScotte, D., Meyers, C, & Tarone, E. (2021). Voice and mirroring in SLA: Top-down pedagogy for L2 pronunciation instruction. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220953910

LaScotte, D., Meyers, C, & Tarone, E. (2023). *Voice and mirroring in L2 pronunciation instruction*. Equinox / University of Toronto Press.
Lee, B., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. *Applied Linguistics, 36*(3), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu040

Lee, B., Plonsky, L., & Saito, K. (2020). The effects of perception- vs. production-based pronunciation instruction. *System, 88*, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102185

Levis, J. M. (2018). *Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation*. Cambridge University Press.

Levis, J. M. (2019). *Cinderella no more! Leaving victimhood behind*. *Speak Out! IATEFL Pronunciation SIG Journal, 60*, 1–7.

Levis, J. M. (2021a). Connecting the dots between pronunciation research and practice. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, A. Henderson, & J. Fouz-Gonzáles (Eds.), *Pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights* (pp. 17–37). John Benjamins.

Levis, J. M. (2021b). Editorial. L2 pronunciation research and teaching: The importance of many languages. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7*(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21037.lev

Levis, J. M. (2022). Teaching pronunciation: Truths and lies. In C. Bardel, C. Hedman, K. Rejman, & E. Zetterholm (Eds.), *Exploring language education: Global and local perspectives* (pp. 39–72). Stockholm University Press.

Levis, J. M. & Moyer, A. (2014). *Social dynamics in second language accent*. De Gruyter.

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). *English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States* (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.). *Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective* (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.

Long, M. (2015). *Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching*. Wiley-Blackwell.

McCrocklin, S. (2019). ASR-based dictation practice for second language pronunciation improvement. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 5*(1), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.16034.mcc

Mompean, J. A. & Fouz-Gonzáles, J. (2021). Phonetic symbols in contemporary pronunciation instruction. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220943431

Mora, J. C., & Levkina, M. (2018). Training vowel perception through map tasks: The role of linguistic and cognitive complexity. In J. Levis (Ed.), *Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Proceedings* (pp. 151–162). Iowa State University. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/psll/article/id/15350/

Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. *Language Teaching Research, 5*(2), 128–155.

Namaziandost, E., Esfahani, F. R., & Hashemifarnia, A. (2018). The impact of using authentic videos on prosodic ability among foreign language learners. *International Journal of Instruction, 11*(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11424a

Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroom. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), *Second language teacher education* (pp. 62–81). Cambridge University Press.

Pennington, M. C. (1989). Applications of computers in the development of speaking and listening proficiency. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), *Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art*. Athelstan.

Pennington, M. C. (1996). When input becomes intake: Tracing the sources of teachers' attitude change. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards, *Teacher learning in language teaching* (pp. 320–348). Cambridge University Press.

Pennington, M. C. (2020). Pronunciation and international employability. In Bocanegra-Valle (Ed.), *Applied linguistics and knowledge transfer: Employability, internationalisation and social challenges* (pp. 225–244). Peter Lang.

Pennington, M. C. (2021). Teaching pronunciation: The state of the art 2021. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211002283

Pennington, M. C. (forthcoming). *The pronunciation book: A teacher's guide*. University of Toronto Press.

Pennington, M. C., & Cheung, M. (1995). Factors shaping the introduction of process writing in Hong Kong. *Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8*, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319509525185
Pennington, M. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2000). Cantonese speakers' memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. *Modern Language Journal, 84*(3), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00075

Pennington, M. C., Lau, L., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Diversity in adoption of linguistic features of London English by Chinese and Bangladeshi adolescents. *Language Learning Journal, 39*(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2011.573686

Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1997). Re-orienting the teaching universe: The experience of five first-year English teachers in Hong Kong. *Language Teaching Research, 1*(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100204

Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). *English pronunciation teaching and research: Contemporary perspectives*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language teaching: A review of issues. *Language Learning, 61*(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x

Robinson, W. P., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (2001). *The new handbook of language and social psychology*. John Wiley & Sons.

Rogerson-Revell, P. M. (2021). Computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT): Current issues and future directions. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220977406

Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed framework and meta-analysis. *Language Learning, 69*(3), 652–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345

Sakai, M., & Moorman, C. (2018) Can perception training improve the production of second language phonemes? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of perception training research. *Applied Psycholinguistics, 39*(1), 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000418

Sánchez-Auñón, E., Férez-Mora, P. A. & Monroy-Hernández, F. (2023). The use of films in the teaching of English as a foreign language: A systematic literature review. *Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 8*(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00183-0

Sardegna, V. G., & Jarosz, A. (2023). Learning English word stress with technology. In R. I. Thomson, T. M. Derwing, J. M. Levis, & K. Hiebert (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 13th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference* (pp. 1-10). Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/psllt.16142

Sperti, S. (2017). Phonopragmatic dimensions of ELF in specialized immigration contexts. *Working Papers del Centro di Recerca sulle Lingue Franchenella Comunicazione Interculturale e Multimediale, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università del Salento, 3*. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24991449n3

Thornbury, S. (1996). Paying lip-service to CLT. *EA [ELICOS Association] Journal, 14*(1), 51–63. http://www.scottthornbury.com/articles.html

Thomson, R. I. (2018). High variability [pronunciation] training (HVPT): A proven technique about which every language teacher and learner ought to know. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4*(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.17038.tho

Thomson, R. I. & Derwing, T. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. *Applied Linguistics, 36*(3), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu076

Wallace, M. (1998). *Action research for language teachers*. Cambridge University Press.

Wichmann, A., Dehé, N., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface. In A. Wichmann, N. Dehé, & D. Barth-Weingarten (Eds.), *Where prosody meets pragmatics*, Studies in Pragmatics 8 (pp. 1–20). Emerald.

Yu, L. & Odlin, T. (2016). *New perspectives of transfer in second language learning*. Multilingual Matters.

Wisniewska, N., & Mora, J. (2020). Can captioned video benefit second language pronunciation? *Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42*(3), 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000029
**About the author**

**Martha C. Pennington** (PhD Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania) is a Research Fellow at Birkbeck University of London in the School of Creative Arts, Culture and Communication and is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of Reading in the Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics. Her books include *Phonology in English Language Teaching: An International Approach* (Longman, 1996), *The Power of CALL* (Athelstan, 1996), *Phonology in Context* (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), *English Pronunciation Teaching and Research: Contemporary Perspectives* (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, co-authored with Pamela Rogerson-Revell), and *The Pronunciation Book: A Teacher's Guide*, to appear in her series Applied Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching, which has recently been acquired from Equinox by the University of Toronto Press. She has also published widely in literacy, including *Why Reading Books Still Matters: The Power of Literature in Digital Times* (Routledge, 2018, co-authored with Robert P. Waxler), and in language education, including *Language Program Leadership in a Changing World: An Ecological Model* (DeGruyterBrill, 2010, co-authored with Barbara J. Hoekje), volume 1 in her series Innovation and Leadership in English Language Teaching.

Email: m.pennington@bbk.ac.uk