# Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices

Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova, Pedro Humanez-Berral, Alice Henderson

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova, Pedro Humanez-Berral, Alice Henderson (Dir.). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices. Université Grenoble-Alpes, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.17319582. hal-05309539

HAL Id: hal-05309539

https://hal.science/hal-05309539v1

Submitted on 11 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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_2.png" /></figure>
Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on
English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices
(EIP 8)

Held at the University of Cantabria, Spain May 2024

edited by

Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova

Pedro Humánez-Berral

Alice Henderson

Published 2025

Université Grenoble-Alpes
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i

Introduction: Looking back and moving forward for online EPIP proceedings
*Pedro Humánez-Berral, Alice Henderson and Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova* iv

The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam
*Agnieszka Bryla-Cruz* 1

EFL learners' perceptions of naturalness, difficulty, and speech rate in native connected speech
*Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska* 15

Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study
*Noémi Gyurka* 28

Fluency in spontaneous description versus story-reading: Learner performance and views
*Xavier Martin-Rubió* 43

A critical examination of research on the teaching of pronunciation in a second language
*Martha C. Pennington* 55

Live or leave! Vowel quality and vowel length in the intelligibility of advanced Spanish-accented English
*Mateusz Pietrazek* 71

Word-initial voicing in L2 English: Evaluations of /z/ productions before and after perceptual training
*Sidsel H. Rasmussen* 84

Prepared to rescue Cinderella? Exploring Austrian EFL student teachers' beliefs about pronunciation teaching and learning
*Karin Richter* 97

Pronunciation features noticed by L1 Vietnamese MOOC users: In search of sociolinguistic salience
*Laura Rupp and Alice Henderson* 109

The effects of explicit pronunciation instruction: A study of advanced Austrian EFL students
*Valerie White-Hautzinger, Marija Djenadic, Carolin Rumpler, and Miriam Fiala* 118

Index 129
Acknowledgements

Working on the EPIP8 Proceedings has been a joyful experience for us as editors. With every published proceedings, we feel like we have achieved another milestone – this time adding another book to the EPIP online collection hosted on the HAL platform. We truly hope that the open access publication approach will make the authors more visible and their research more available.

Exchanging ideas with other colleagues in the field, in such a friendly and supportive atmosphere, has been enriching and rewarding in many ways. We are ever so grateful to the brilliant reviewers we were fortunate to get on board. They generously dedicated their time and expertise to provide constructive feedback by giving insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality of the chapters. We are indebted to the following scholars (in alphabetical order):

<table><tr><td>Gemma Archer</td><td>University of Strathclyde, Scotland</td></tr><tr><td>Alex Baratta</td><td>University of Manchester, England</td></tr><tr><td>Małgorzata Baran-Łucarz</td><td>University of Wrocław, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Vincent Chanethom</td><td>Princeton University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Tracey Derwing</td><td>University of Alberta, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Jonás Fouz-González</td><td>University of Murcia, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Joshua Gordon</td><td>University of Northern Iowa, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Nadine Herry-Bénit</td><td>Paris Nanterre University, France</td></tr><tr><td>Sophie Herment</td><td>Aix-Marseille University, France</td></tr><tr><td>Pekka Lintunen</td><td>University of Turku, Finland</td></tr><tr><td>John Levis</td><td>Iowa State University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>José Mompéan-Gonzalez</td><td>University of Murcia, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Wayne Rimmer</td><td>University of Manchester, England</td></tr><tr><td>Arkadiusz Royczyk</td><td>University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Radek Skarnitzl</td><td>Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic</td></tr><tr><td>Sinem Sonsaat-Hegelheimer</td><td>Iowa State University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Nick Travers</td><td>Camosun College, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Gabor Turscan</td><td>Aix-Marseille University, France</td></tr><tr><td>Elina Vasu</td><td>Tampere University, Finland</td></tr><tr><td>Jan Volin</td><td>Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic</td></tr></table>

We also extend our heartfelt appreciation to the incredible authors who contributed their research for publication. Their professionalism and broad-mindedness made our cooperation a sheer delight.
We are thankful to the team at the University of Grenoble-Alpes for lending support with the technical aspect of the publication process, in particular Sandrine Corvey-Biron and Anne-Christine Jacob at the university libraries. Their gentle guidance has been instrumental in overcoming various challenges and ensuring the accuracy of the texts when published on the platform. Special thanks are due to Aynur Kaso from Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje for helping us with the design of the book cover.

Finally, we wish to express our deepest and sincerest gratitude to our loved ones, our pillars of patience, encouragement, and unwavering support. You have kept us focused and motivated during this creative journey.

Alice Henderson, Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova and Pedro Humánez-Berral
France, North Macedonia, and Spain

October 2025
**Introduction: Looking back and moving forward for online EPIP
proceedings**

**Pedro Humánez-Berral**

University of Cantabria

**Alice Henderson**

Grenoble-Alpes University

**Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova**

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje

These proceedings encompass extended accounts of selected oral presentations and plenaries from the conference English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices – EPIP8, held in 2024 at the University of Cantabria in Santander, Spain. EPIP is an international, bi-annual conference devoted to how English pronunciation is taught and learnt. Its main objective is to bring together and inspire connections between teachers and researchers from all over the world, be they pre- or in-service teachers, undergraduate or graduate students, early career or internationally renowned researchers. People from all career stages attend EPIP conferences, where they can network in person but also explore scientific, social and pedagogical issues related to English pronunciation. Some conference participants have the luxury of just attending, others invest a great deal of time and energy into preparing (and delivering) a talk – and then some of the latter submit proposals for the proceedings.

A labour-intensive, three-stage process lies behind these compiled proceedings: first, conference presenters commit to shaping their work into a written text, which then undergoes a meticulous double-blind peer-review process, and finally the revised text is carefully edited by the co-editors – often involving many back-and-forth exchanges. Some contributions are rejected but, as EPIP prides itself on welcoming researchers into the field, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive criticism and editors work hard to hone as many contributions as possible, respecting the principles of transparency and scientific rigour.

To reach as many readers as possible and as quickly as possible, as editors we chose to make EPIP Proceedings available freely online starting in 2023 after the EPIP7 conference. Similar

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
to the PSLLT archives<fnref n="1" /> at Iowa State University, the online EPIP proceedings<fnref n="2" /> are a reliable
place to read innovative work being done now in our field, helping us all to update our
knowledge even when we cannot attend conferences. We decided to use an Open Access digital
archive and to procure Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) for each text. DOIs are important in the
long term for the field, because documents remain accessible at a stable link. They are also
crucial in the short term for many of our colleagues who live and work in countries where DOIs
are (or are becoming) strategically important to their national institutions. Moreover, we sought
to obtain the DOIs from a European institution (Zenodo<fnref n="3" />), because we support European Union
aims of freedom, peace, social justice, scientific progress, and diversity in terms of culture and
languages.<fnref n="4" />

Participating in the international open access and open data movement requires more than just good intentions. We also need an online space to ‘house’ the proceedings, and for this we chose HAL, the open science archive created by France’s ministry for research and higher education. Each time a reader opens or downloads a text via HAL, their actions are cross-referenced with search engines and interconnected with other services, such as ORCID. This is a win-win situation: the on-line profiles of authors are boosted, and so is our field’s representation in citation and abstract databases. HAL provides basic statistics on how readers use the archive, as Figure 1 shows.

<caption>Figure 1</caption>

*Downloads for 25 Texts in EPIP7 Proceedings<fnref n="5" />: August 1 and September 21, 2025*

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

In August 2023 the EPI7 Proceedings went live online, yet the peak of interest came in 2024 – perhaps as colleagues began to prepare for EPIP8 which was held in May 2024. In the run-up to EPIP9⁶ in April 2026, at the University of Manchester, downloads have been increasing

<footnote n="1">¹ https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/conferences/pronunciation-in-second-language-learning-and-teaching-conference/psllt-archive/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² https://hal.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/EPIP/</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ https://about.zenodo.org/：“Zenodo is derived from Zenodotus, the first librarian of the Ancient Library of Alexandria and father of the first recorded use of metadata, a landmark in library history.”</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ https://hal.science/EPIP7/stat/dashboard. The number 25 includes the editors’ Introduction as well as the file compiling the Introduction and 23 contributions by authors.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ https://epip9manchester.weebly.com/</footnote>
in autumn 2025 (e.g., up from approximately 1200 to 1800) and it will be interesting to continue tracking this activity via HAL.

The EPIP7 proceedings include 23 finalised contributions, whereas EPIP8's have only 10. To compare the research themes addressed at the two conferences, we thus turned to the books of abstracts: EPIP7 received 37 abstracts (word tokens 13,904: 2,737 word types) and EPIP8 46 abstracts (17,982 word tokens: 3,714 word types). As such, the analysis can reveal topics which were discussed at each conference, regardless of whether or not the presenter then submitted a text for publication in the Proceedings. Appendix 1 displays all the results of comparing the keywords<fnref n="7" /> as generated by AntConc.<fnref n="8" />

The keywords were generated by the AntConc software (Anthony, 2022), drawing on the conferences' abstract booklets as corpora. One corpus was created for each conference, in which each abstract was a separate text, with references and the list of author-provided keywords removed. This helps to show how topics change over time, e.g., gestures and pointing appeared in the EPIP7 abstracts but do not appear for EPIP8. However, the number of occurrences of a term must be combined with its range is, i.e., in how many different abstracts it appears. A large number of occurrences may not necessarily be meaningful, e.g., the word <English> (EPIP7: 124 occurrences) and (EPIP8: 198 occurrences) occurs respectively across 86% and 82% of abstracts, merely confirming that it is a key topic of the conference.

For each conference, the following paragraphs will draw on the selection of results presented in Table 1, in order to highlight which terms appeared frequently and in several abstracts, as well as what is missing or rare, what has increased or decreased, appeared or disappeared. A final paragraph focuses on which specific languages, language varieties or contexts were mentioned, referring to Table 2.

Regarding terms used the least frequently, <CLIL>, <Foreign Language Anxiety> and <multilingual> do not appear in abstracts until EPIP8, where <foreign> (+ <accent> or + <accentedness>) is used in two abstracts, while <gesture> and <pointing> are lost. In both corpora, <shadowing>, <strategy> and <syllable> hold steady, but are mentioned in only one abstract.

Once a term appears in at least 10 abstracts, it begins to constitute roughly a quarter of the total number of a conference's abstracts, with a few developments worth highlighting. First, in the upward sense, <foreign language> has climbed from appearing in only 3 abstracts to 14 (30%) and <learners> bounds from 54% to 72%. The number of abstracts with the term <EFL> leaps from 27% to 39%, <instruction> rises from 32% to 43%, <feedback> rises from 13% to 22%, <acquisition> appears in 37% of EPIP8 abstracts (up from 19%). Minor increases include <intelligibility>, which moves up to 28% from 22%, while <comprehensibility> reaches 26% from 24%<fnref n="9" />. Reflecting a key objective of the conference – to bring together researchers and teachers – the following core topics are holding steady in EPIP abstracts, respectively the 7th and 8th conferences: <teaching> (54% and 48%), <learning> (43% and 48%), and <teachers> (32% and 37%). The sole notable inversion concerns <accent>, which has declined from 32% to 24% of abstracts, probably reflecting the notable sociolinguistic presence at the Grenoble EPIP.

In relation to the ongoing terminological debate (Dewaele, 2018; Thomas & Osment, 2020), no occurrences of <LX> or <additional language> were found; 51% and 48% of abstracts continue to use the term <native>, respectively for EPIP7 and EPIP8, and the term <second language> appears in roughly 24% abstracts for both.

<footnote n="7">⁷ In contrast, for the Introduction to the EPIP7 Proceedings (Henderson & Kirkova-Naskova, 2023), we analysed the frequency of occurrence of author-provided keywords.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ AntConc software developed by Anthony (2022).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ See Appendix 1 for some terms occurring in between 3 and 10 abstracts.</footnote>
One of the most surprising results is that <prosody> is referred to so infrequently: in 6 abstracts for EPIP7 but only 2 for EPIP8. To what extent might this reflect more than just its interest to EPIP presenters? Another is the appearance of <listener> in only 3 abstracts for EPIP7; this can be countered by looking at the full results (Appendix 1), where the plural <listeners> is mentioned in 19% of abstracts for both conferences.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Selected Results from Occurrences of AntConc-generated Keywords in Abstract Booklets*

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">EPIP7</th><th colspan="2">EPIP8</th></tr><tr><th>AntConc Keywords</th><th>37 abstracts in # of abstracts</th><th>AntConc Keywords</th><th>46 abstracts in # of abstracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CLIL</td><td>0</td><td>gesture</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>FLA (FL anxiety)</td><td>0</td><td>pointing</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>foreign (+ accent; accentedness)</td><td>0</td><td>multilingual</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>multilingual</td><td>0</td><td>shadowing</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>gesture</td><td>1</td><td>strategy</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MOOC</td><td>1</td><td>syllable</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>nativeness</td><td>1</td><td>rising</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>pointing</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>shadowing</td><td>1</td><td>feedback</td><td>10(22%)</td></tr><tr><td>strategy</td><td>1</td><td>sound s (n., pl.)</td><td>11(24%)</td></tr><tr><td>syllable</td><td>1</td><td>second (+ language)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>phonological</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>EFL</td><td>10(27%)</td><td>accent</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>phonetic</td><td>10</td><td>teacher</td><td>12(26%)</td></tr><tr><td>phonological</td><td>10</td><td>comprehensibility</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>accent</td><td>12(32%)</td><td>intelligibility</td><td>13(28%)</td></tr><tr><td>instruction</td><td>12</td><td>foreign (+ language/s)</td><td>14(30%)</td></tr><tr><td>participants</td><td>12</td><td>phonetic</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>production</td><td>12</td><td>target</td><td>16(35%)</td></tr><tr><td>target</td><td>12</td><td>acquisition</td><td>17(37%)</td></tr><tr><td>teachers (pl.)</td><td>12</td><td>teachers (pl.)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>learning</td><td>16(43%)</td><td>perception</td><td>18(39%)</td></tr><tr><td>native</td><td>19(51%)</td><td>EFL</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>learners (pl.)</td><td>20(54%)</td><td>production</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>teaching</td><td>20</td><td>training</td><td>20(43%)</td></tr><tr><td>pronunciation</td><td>27(73%)</td><td>instruction</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>32(86%)</td><td>participants</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>learning</td><td>22(48%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>native</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>teaching</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>learners (pl.)</td><td>33(72%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>pronunciation</td><td>36(78%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>English</td><td>38(83%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, it is worth drawing attention to the diversity of languages, varieties and contexts explored at the two conferences, as revealed by proper nous and adjectives (Table 2).
**Table 2**

*Occurrences of Proper Nouns and Adjectives (e.g., for Languages, Varieties, Contexts) in Abstract Booklets*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Search term</th><th colspan="2">EPIP7</th><th colspan="2">EPIP8</th></tr><tr><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amazigh</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>American</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Austrian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>British</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Catalan</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Chinese</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Croatia</td><td>0</td><td>*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Czech</td><td>15</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Danish</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Dutch</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Ecuador</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>23</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Haussa</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Hungarian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Indian</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Italian</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Japanese</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Macedonian</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Norwegian</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Pakistan</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Philippines</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Polish</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Romanian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>RP</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sindhi</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>49</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Swedish</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ukrainian</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Urdu</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Vietnamese</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Notes*: * = Two abstract authors were working in Croatia but they did not mention a specific language in their abstract.

First, the greatest number of mentions in the abstracts for EPIP7 held in Grenoble were for French (8) and Czech (4), whereas for EPIP8 organised in Santander they were for Spanish (23) and Spain (5), Catalan (8), Polish (6), and 7 mentions each for British and American English. This underscores the importance of EPIP being hosted in different countries where local researchers and teachers can most easily participate. Second, a mention of a language or
country in a sole abstract was frequent (21), including for example Arabic, Austrian, Danish, Haussa, Indian, Macedonian, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. This belies the diversity of learners and contexts, clearly showing how EPIP8 attracted colleagues from a more diverse set of contexts, or working with learners from a wider range of backgrounds.

To conclude, this bit of ‘book-keeping’ can reveal our credits and debits, and may open our eyes to trends we should track, to areas worth more of our attention. In future EPIPs, how will gesture and MOOCs fare, prime examples of a low/no-tech and a high-tech approach to pronunciation learning and instruction? Will use of the term LX spread? Will the interest in orthographic effects increase or decrease? Will interest in FLA, multilingualism and shadowing expand? When will the wave crest for comprehensibility and intelligibility? In just six months, EPIP9 will be held at the University of Manchester, England: will participants based there seize the opportunity to share their work? What colours and flavours reflecting their interests and context-specific preoccupations will they bring to the discussion? Reassuringly, this glance at the abstracts confirms that instruction, learners, learning, and teachers remain at the heart of the EPIP remit.

The rest of this introduction briefly summarises the contributions in these proceedings, which reflect a multifaceted view of current research into English pronunciation, drawing on a range of national contexts, learner groups, methodological approaches, and pedagogical goals. Listed in alphabetical order by author, they cover a wide spectrum of work conducted in both traditional classroom settings and digital learning environments. Although the proceedings are not divided thematically, certain recurring threads emerge, offering insight into how pronunciation is being taught, learned, and studied across contexts.

The contributions primarily represent **European educational contexts**, with studies conducted in Poland (Bryła-Cruz), North Macedonia (Duckinoska), Hungary (Gyurka), Spain (Martin-Rubió; Pietraszek), Austria (Richter; White-Hautzinger et al.) and Denmark (Holm Rasmussen). One study draws on data from Vietnam (Rupp & Henderson).

The **participants** in these studies vary substantially in linguistic background, educational experience, and research involvement. A large portion of the studies examined university students enrolled in English-related degree programs, often completing tasks designed to improve or evaluate their pronunciation skills (Martin-Rubió; Pietraszek; White-Hautzinger et al.). Several contributions focused on pre-service or in-service teachers of English, with research exploring their pedagogical habits, training backgrounds, and self-perceived readiness to teach pronunciation (Gyurka; Richter). One study analysed secondary school learners, specifically focusing on their role as test-takers in high-stakes national assessments (Bryła-Cruz). Another examined autonomous learners engaging with pronunciation content in an online learning environment, using large-scale, user-generated data from a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) (Rupp & Henderson).

The **methodological approaches** adopted across the studies are equally diverse. Quantitative research designs predominate, in studies incorporating acoustic measurements, pre and post instructional recordings, and intelligibility ratings (Pietraszek; Holm Rasmussen; White-Hautzinger et al.). These methods allow researchers to assess changes in learner production or identify key challenges in segmental contrasts. Questionnaires and survey instruments are employed to elicit perspectives from teachers and student teachers on their instructional practices and beliefs (Gyurka; Richter). Mixed-methods designs enable deeper insight into learners’ perceptual judgments and reflective practices. For instance, Duckinoska combined perception data with qualitative learner explanations to understand reactions to native speech, while Martin-Rubió invited learners to reflect on the fluency, prosody, and segmental accuracy of their own speech after completing contrasting speaking tasks. Rupp and Henderson performed a qualitative analysis of learner comments collected from MOOC participants, offering insight into which pronunciation features learners spontaneously noticed
and valued. Lastly, Pennington provided a comprehensive conceptual overview of existing research, highlighting design limitations and recommending directions for future empirical work.

The **central theme** of many contributions is **the role and effectiveness of explicit pronunciation instruction (EPI)**. Several studies examined how such instruction affects learner outcomes or is represented in educational practice. White-Hautzinger et al. demonstrated measurable improvements in learners' segmental production following a semester of structured instruction. Pennington, taking a broader perspective, reviewed the evidence for perception and production-oriented approaches to EPI, arguing for greater contextual variety and methodological rigour in pronunciation research. The studies by Richter and Gyurka identified gaps in teacher education – future educators lacking either targeted training or the confidence to integrate pronunciation into their classroom practice.

Several contributions focused on **specific pronunciation features crucial for learner intelligibility or perception**. Studies addressed common difficulties with connected speech processes, such as linking, elision, and intrusion, and how these affect listening comprehension and perceptions of naturalness (Duckinoska; Bryla-Cruz). Others examined segmental contrasts, such as the KIT-FLEECE vowel distinction (Pietraszek) and the /s–z/ fricative pair (Holm Rasmussen), drawing links between perceptual training and learner production accuracy. Martin-Rubió explored the role of fluency and prosody in learner performance on spontaneous versus scripted tasks, while Rupp and Henderson found that MOOC participants frequently commented on suprasegmental features like stress and rhythm, highlighting their perceptual salience even without explicit instruction. Collectively, these chapters reinforce the importance of addressing both segmental and suprasegmental dimensions in pronunciation pedagogy.

Taken together, the studies in these proceedings underscore the richness and complexity of pronunciation research today. They contribute insights that are relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Whether examining classroom interventions, teacher beliefs, learner perceptions, or large-scale assessment contexts, these contributions provide a foundation for ongoing inquiry and pedagogical development in the field of English pronunciation.

To conclude, we have done our utmost to honour the authors who have trusted us with their work, and to respect the reviewers who generously gave of their time to make double-blind peer review possible. If we want to continue to share our work widely and without fees, if we seek to resist the predominant market mentality, it is crucial that we support Open Science as an alternative model. As gatekeepers, it is our responsibility to be both fair and rigorous in ensuring the quality of published work. The entire field can benefit from this.

## References

* Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer Software].

* Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. *Applied Linguistics*, amw055. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw055

* Henderson, A. & Kirkova-Naskova, A. (2023). Introduction: Extending the reach of English pronunciation issues and practices. In A. Henderson & A. Kirkova-Naskova (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. iii–vii). Université Grenoble-Alpes. https://hal.science/hal-04181493

* Thomas, N., & Osment, C. (2020). Building on Dewaele’s (2018) L1 versus LX dichotomy: The Language-Usage-Identity State Model. *Applied Linguistics, 41*(6), 1005-1010. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz010
Appendix 1

Occurrences of AntConc-generated Keywords in Abstract Booklets

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">AntConc Keywords</th><th colspan="2">EPIP7 (=37 abstracts)</th><th colspan="2">EPIP8 (=46 abstracts)</th><th colspan="2">EPIP7 (=37 abstracts)</th><th colspan="2">EPIP8 (=46 abstracts)</th></tr><tr><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th><th># of occurrences</th><th>in # of abstracts</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>accents (pl.)</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>29</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>accented</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>accentedness</td><td>17</td><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td>28</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>acquisition</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>18</td><td>17</td><td></td><td></td><td>10</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>anxiety</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>18</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td>6</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>awareness</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td>15</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>CLIL</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>31</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>comprehensibility</td><td>19</td><td>9</td><td>27</td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>contrast (sg.)</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td>25</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>contrasts (pl.)</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>124</td><td>32</td><td>198</td><td>38</td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>error</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td>6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>errors (pl.)</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>feedback</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>22</td><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>FLA*</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>foreign**</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>foreign***</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>18</td><td>14</td><td></td><td></td><td>9</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>gesture</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>input</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>instruction</td><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>40</td><td>20</td><td></td><td></td><td>23</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>intelligibility</td><td>19</td><td>8</td><td>35</td><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>intonation</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td>6</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>learner</td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td>20</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>learners (pl.)</td><td>98</td><td>20</td><td>100</td><td>33</td><td></td><td></td><td>13</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>learning</td><td>41</td><td>16</td><td>51</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td>52</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>listener</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td>39</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>listener</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>16</td><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td>20</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>MOOC</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>9</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>multilingual</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>22</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>native</td><td>47</td><td>19</td><td>53</td><td>22</td><td></td><td></td><td>14</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>nativelike</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: *=foreign language anxiety; **= foreign+ accent; accentedness; ***= foreign+ language/s; ****=second+language
**About the authors**

**Pedro Humánez-Berral** is a PhD student and researcher at the University of Cantabria (Spain). He earned bachelor's degrees in English Studies and in Translation and Interpreting. His research explores affective variables in the acquisition of L2 English pronunciation among young learners, with a particular focus on CLIL and non-CLIL educational contexts. He has taught English for Specific Purposes courses for engineering programs, as well as courses on English pronunciation and foreign language acquisition within degrees in Primary and Early Childhood Education.

Email: [pedro.humanez@unican.es](mailto:pedro.humanez@unican.es)

**Alice Henderson** is a Full Professor at Grenoble-Alpes University, France, where she teaches English for Specific Purposes to science, technology and engineering students. She taught English phonetics and phonology to English majors for 24 years at another French university and has been involved in teacher training in France, Norway, Poland, and Spain. In 2009 she initiated the bi-annual international conference *English Pronunciation: Issues & Practices* (EPIP). She is currently the assistant director of the LIDILEM research group and has published internationally on English pronunciation learning and teaching, the perception of foreign-accented speech, and English Medium Instruction (EMI).

Email: [alice.henderson@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr](mailto:alice.henderson@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr)

**Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova** is a Full Professor in English Phonetics and Phonology and English Morphology in the Department of English Language and Literature, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia. She also teaches research methodology (MA/PhD level). Her research interests include English pronunciation teaching and learning, foreign-accented speech, speech perception, pronunciation learning strategies, and teacher cognition. Together with Alice Henderson and Jonás Fouz-González, she co-edited *English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights*. She is the co-editor with Alice Henderson of the *Proceedings of the International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices – EPIP7* (https://hal.science/EPIP/page/index). She is a member of the editorial board of *The Journal of Contemporary Philology*.

Email: [akirkova@flf.ukim.edu.mk](mailto:akirkova@flf.ukim.edu.mk)
Bryła-Cruz, A. (2025). The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam.
In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humánez-Berral, & A. Henderson (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 1–14). Université Grenoble-Alpes.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16020252

# The role of pronunciation in the assessment of listening skills in the Polish Matura exam

Agnieszka Bryła-Cruz

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University

## Abstract

In the second language (L2) classroom, pronunciation has been perceived as a natural component of speaking and has traditionally been assessed based on the learner's speech, and yet pronunciation also plays a role in the assessment of L2 listening skills. While phonological competence is crucial for the activation of bottom-up processes in listening, which in turn are indispensable for the automatisation of word recognition and top-down processing (Buck, 2001; Field, 2008), the role of phonetics in receptive skills tends to be marginalised.

The present study investigates the extent to which the role of pronunciation is recognised in listening comprehension tests in the Polish Matura, based on the exam papers from 2023. The study has shown that while the spoken texts used in the tests at the basic and the advanced levels are diversified in terms of length and genre, they hardly differ with respect to phonetic traits. The main difference between the two levels is the length of texts and the rate of speech, which is a bit faster for the advanced level, but still slower than in natural speech.

**Keywords:** L2 pronunciation, pronunciation assessment, listening comprehension tests, scripted texts, spoken texts

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

This chapter is based on the oral presentation given by the author at the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 8) held May 8–10, 2024 at the University of Cantabria in Santander, Spain. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
# 1. Introduction

In the second language (L2) classroom, pronunciation has been treated as a natural component of speaking skills and has typically been assessed in learners' oral production. However, pronunciation also plays a role in the assessment of L2 listening ability. The role of phonetics in listening comprehension has been confirmed in empirical studies, as in Wagner and Toth (2017), where texts identical in lexis and grammar were understood differently by listeners, when the speaker's pronunciation was modified. While phonological competence is crucial for the activation of bottom-up processes in listening, which in turn are indispensable for the automatisation of word recognition and top-down processing (Buck, 2001; Field, 2008), the role of phonetics in receptive skills tends to be marginalised.

This study investigates the extent to which the role of pronunciation is recognised in listening comprehension tests in the Polish Matura, based on the English exam papers from 2023. The phonetic features in the audio materials used in the basic and advanced version of the exam were analysed in order to establish whether the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts corresponds to the level of learners' linguistic competence.

# 2. Theoretical framework

The aim of a test is to assess learners' language skills beyond the test context. Thus, L2 listening tests should mirror genuine spoken texts in terms of phonology, lexis, grammar, organisation and pragmatics (Buck, 2001; Wagner & Toth, 2017). Yet, many of the spoken texts used in L2 listening tests are not representative of natural speech. Rather than reflecting conversational, spoken language in the real-world, audio materials in listening comprehension tests are usually scripted, i.e., written down, edited, rehearsed and read aloud with an excessively clear enunciation (Wagner, 2013). This contradicts what is postulated by many researchers, namely that "given the inherent differences between oral and written discourse, it is imperative to investigate comprehension using listening passages that approximate natural speech" (Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994, p. 180).

The differences between scripted and unscripted texts are manifold and have been extensively discussed in the literature (e.g., Cauldwell, 2014; Chafe, 1982; Gilmore, 2004; Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020; Ockey & Wagner, 2018). For instance, specific speech features impact the overall difficulty which a given text poses to L2 listeners, including: 1) hesitation phenomena (HP) present in unplanned speech; 2) speech rate; 3) phonological modifications characteristic of unplanned spoken texts; and 4) organisational and lexico-grammatical characteristics. The rest of this section discusses the first three categories of features, as the last lies beyond the scope of the present paper.

Hesitative phenomena abound in spontaneous discourse and include filled and unfilled pauses, repetitions, false starts, redundancies, and hesitations. These reflect the fact that the spoken text is simultaneously composed and uttered. Studies into HP in L2 perception have rendered somewhat inconsistent results. On the one hand, HP may constitute a major perceptual problem for non-native speakers (Voss, 1979), because they may be confused with unstressed forms or parts of words and may be assigned semantic meaning (Griffiths, 1991; Voss, 1979). On the other hand, HP can help listeners, e.g., providing them extra time to process the message (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). It has been suggested that such features make the text easier to listen to, by evoking natural oral language to a greater extent than planned speech (Shohamy & Inbar, 1991).

It is widely recognised that the rate of speech influences L2 comprehension. The general conclusion from ample empirical research is that spoken texts delivered at a faster speech rate are more difficult for language learners to understand than texts spoken more slowly (Chiu &
Chen, 2023; Fujita, 2017; Griffiths, 1990). However, the reality is more nuanced. According to Wang and Narayanan (2007), “speech rate is primarily dependent on two factors: speaking style and the type of speech production (e.g., scripted or spontaneous)” (p. 2190). Typically, scripted texts are enunciated more slowly and more clearly. Bloomfield et al. (2011) note that “faster speech is usually less clear than slower speech although speech rate and auditory clarity are distinct properties” (p. 67). Moreover, while L2 listeners often report difficulty in comprehension due to faster delivery (Goh, 2000), they may in fact conflate problems with affective factors (anxiety). For example, the intrinsic nature of listening in many L2 language classrooms – namely, time pressure and the lack of control over the acoustic signal (Bloomfield et al., 2011) – is cause for anxiety in many learners.

Furthermore, variations in speech rate are typical of natural, spontaneous speech; speakers have been found to speed up when delivering less relevant parts of utterances, such as parenthesis, digressions or repair sequences (Fon, 1999; Uhmann, 1992). The rate of speech also increases in chunks typical of spontaneous discourse, pre-fabricated expressions or formulaic sequences (McCarthy, 2010; Wood, 2006). Such clusters of words cause decoding difficulty due to their reduced prominence and they may vary in length from the two-word chunks (e.g., “I mean”) to as many as six (e.g., “do you know what I mean”) (Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020).

Most real-world speaking events are characterised by connected speech processes (CSP). Alameen and Levis (2015), propose that CSPs can be divided into six main categories: linking, deletion, insertion, modification (palatalisation/yod-coalescence, assimilation, glottalisation, flapping), reduction, and other processes (lexical combinations, contracted forms). Brown and Kondo-Brown (2006) point out that although connected speech is more common in casual and informal contexts, it is a normal feature of all registers and speaking styles and should not be considered a marker of sloppy or careless speech. Bowen (1975) asserts that in informal speech the use of contractions is almost universal and that reduction is an ever-present feature of oral English. Yet, a speaker may wish to reduce CSPs if they attend consciously to their speech in pursuit of clearer enunciation and increased intelligibility (Ito, 2001). This is especially the case when the speaker reads a text aloud (Chafe, 1982).

Against this backdrop it is therefore valid to check whether the two levels of the Matura exam acknowledge the role of phonetics in listening comprehension. This study focuses on test assessment rather than other, less formal types of evaluation, because “tests will often have an effect on classroom teaching” (Buck, 2001, p. 196). In other words, analysing the test provides insight into the teaching process with respect to its aims and resources. In the case of the high-stakes Matura exam, the analysis of the listening component is expected to provide some indications as to whether the washback effect is beneficial or not.

## 3. Research methodology

The instrument used in the present study consists of 18 recordings and their transcripts from the basic and the advanced level of the Matura exam from 2023 (see Table 1 for a detailed description of tasks). First, the extracts were analysed with reference to the main differences between scripted and unscripted texts, focusing on those related to pronunciation (HP, phonological modifications, and speech rate). The number of words and syllables in each of the recordings was counted with the use of Text Analyser.<fnref n="1" /> Speech rate was calculated as syllables per second (s/s), following common practice (Shriberg et al., 2000). Pauses and non-linguistic utterances are treated as individual units, because “they might be indicators of conceptual planning and their existence might also contribute to rate perception” (Fon, 1999,

<footnote n="1">¹ Online Utility – Free Online Software Utilities https://www.online-utility.org/</footnote>
p. 663). Phonological modifications (assimilations, elisions, linking devices) and HP (hesitative pauses, false starts, repetitions, redundancies) were traced auditorily and counted manually using both the transcript and the recording.

The study explores the following research questions:

**RQ1:** Is the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts modified to correspond to specific levels of linguistic proficiency?

**RQ2:** Is pronunciation aligned with the type of discourse?

With reference to RQ1, it is expected that tests used for assessing listening comprehension skills should vary with respect to pronunciation depending on the test taker's level. Regarding RQ2, the alignment of pronunciation with the type of discourse means that texts used in L2 listening comprehension tests should mirror spoken texts from the target context for language use. In real life, spoken texts differ in orality, meaning that some of them contain more features of spoken language as opposed to written language (Tannen, 1982), e.g., radio or TV news are scripted and thus less oral than spontaneous interactions or unplanned monologues. The passages used for L2 listening comprehension should be low or high in orality depending on their real-life counterparts.

## 4. Data analysis

Table 1 presents the structure of the listening comprehension tests at both the basic and the advanced level. It shows that both versions of the exam consist of three tasks, which include

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*The Structure of the Listening Comprehension Tests*

<table><thead><tr><th>Test type</th><th>Listening section</th><th>Text type</th><th>Question type</th><th>No of times the text is listened to</th><th>No of questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Basic</td><td>Task 1</td><td>1 dialogue</td><td>true or false</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Task 2</td><td>5 monologues</td><td>matching a statement to the speaker</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Advanced</td><td>Task 3</td><td>2 monologues<br>1 dialogue</td><td>multiple-choice</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Task 1</td><td>2 monologues<br>1 mini interview<br>(a question and an extended answer)</td><td>multiple-choice</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Task 2</td><td>5 monologues</td><td>matching a statement to the speaker</td><td>2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Task 3</td><td>1 dialogue</td><td>cloze test</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>
dialogues and monologues. Comprehension is checked by means of multiple-choice questions and matching a statement to the speaker. Additionally, true or false questions appear in the basic level and a cloze test in the advanced one. All texts are listened to twice.

## 5. Results

The results of the analysis of the spoken texts used in the listening comprehension tests are presented in this section. The information pertaining to HP and the rate of speech is included in Tables 2 and 3, whereas CSPs are discussed separately in the text. In Tables 2 and 3 the last two columns juxtapose the degree of orality in the audio material with the degree of orality that its counterpart in real life is supposed to have.

### 5.1 Basic level

The nine texts used in the basic-level exam vary with respect to length, style, and genre (see Table 2). Three texts could be classified as rather formal and the rest as semi-formal or informal. Irrespective of the type and length, however, all texts are scripted, which is justified only in four cases: two parts of a radio broadcast, a TV announcement, and partly in the tourist guide announcement where some pre-planning/rehearsing would be expected. The remaining texts are either personal narratives or conversations, which would be non-scripted yet specific to and/or typical of the targeted situation for language use. Only one recording (Text 3 in Task 3) contains some features of unplanned texts, such as one hesitative pause (*Hmmm... his face is definitely triangular*) and two silent pauses (*I only need one pair... but hold on, Well... obviously you want the best pair for your face*).

All speakers enunciate clearly, with a subsequent restriction on the number of reductions which would normally occur in their speech. The most common feature of connected speech is linking /r/ (n = 11), found in examples (1)–(5), and intrusive /r/ (n = 2) in examples (6) and (7).

(1) *were a teenager /wər ə 'ti:neɪdʒə/*

(2) *for only /fər 'əʊnli/*

(3) *for as little as /fər əz 'lɪtl əz/*

(4) *bear at the same shop /'beər ət ðə 'seɪm 'ʃɒp/*

(5) *fear of people /'fɪər əv 'pi:pəl/*

(6) *I saw a few people / 'sɔ:r ə 'fju: 'pi:pəl/*

(7) *drawing /'drɔ:rɪŋ/*

Elisions and assimilation are scarce. For instance, there is yod-coalescence in example (8), but it is not consistent, i.e., it does not appear in example (9) when the same speaker says a different phrase that meets the phonological conditions for assimilation. In Task 2, Text 2, there are some deletions and contractions, illustrated in (10) and (11) but not in all instances, as in sentence (12). There is no h-dropping, e.g., (13) and (14), or /t/-deletion as shown in (15)–(17). Plosive deletions were observed in (18)–(20), but not in (21). Similarly, instances of assimilation can be observed in (22) and (23), but not in (24) and (25).

(8) *would you /wʊdʒʊ/*

(9) *what you need /wɒt jə 'ni:d/*
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Text Types (re Length, Style, Genre) Used at the Basic Level*

<table><thead><tr><th>Listening task (parts)</th><th>Text type</th><th>Length</th><th>HP</th><th>Speech rate</th><th>Orality</th><th>Orality in real life</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Task 1</td><td>dialogue (an interview)</td><td>2 min. 330 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Task 2</td><td>Text 1 monologue (a personal film recommendation)</td><td>32 s 92 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.1 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (a tourist guide explanation)</td><td>31 s 93 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.9 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather low (pre-planned)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (a TV broadcast)</td><td>39 s 107 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.7 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>low (pre-planned)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 4 monologue (a radio programme)</td><td>38 s 102 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.8 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather low (semi-scripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 5 monologue (a personal narrative about a past event)</td><td>42 s 119 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.7 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Task 3</td><td>Text 1 monologue (a personal narrative about a past event)</td><td>46 s 139 words</td><td>none</td><td>4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (a part of a TV or radio programme)</td><td>50 s 125 words</td><td>none</td><td>3.5 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>low (scripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 dialogue (a conversation between a customer and a shop assistant)</td><td>1 min 19 s 214 words</td><td>1 hesit ative pause, 2 silent pauses</td><td>3.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(10) *why don't you /waɪ dəʊn jə/*

(11) *you won't regret it /ju wəʊn rɪ'gret it/*

(12) *It is perfect for up to four guests /ɪt ɪz 'pɜ:fɪkt fər ʌp tə fə:'gests/*

(13) *with him /wɪð him/*

(14) *from him /frɒm him/*

(15) *next week /nekst 'wi:k/*
(16) just five days /dʒʌst 'faɪv 'deɪz/

(17) just like Lego /dʒʌst 'laɪk 'legəʊ/

(18) just loved /dʒʌs 'lʌvd/

(19) second year /'sekən 'jɪə/

(20) first job /'fɜːs 'dʒʊb/

(21) most of my time /məʊst əv mɑɪ 'taɪm/

(22) did you work /dɪdʒʊ 'wɜːk/

(23) did you ever find /dɪdʒʊ evə 'faɪnd/

(24) about your work /ə'baʊt jɔː 'wɜːk/

(25) what are you doing /'wɒt jə 'duːɪŋ/

Results show that there are a few contractions, such as *I'd like to ask you, it's great, I'm working, it's in fact, it's beautiful*, but they are not always used consistently, for instance, *because it is, which had just been hit, and it had been built*.

The speech rate ranges from 3.1–4.2 s/s, with the slowest tempo in the narrative and the fastest in the dialogue. While a faster rate for interaction is in line with what takes place in real life, it is still considerably slower than in casual conversations: 5–6 s/s (Deese, 1984) or 6.19 s/s (Pellegrino et al., 2011), and even slower than in radio broadcasts where the rate of speech is on average around 5.43 s/s (Kendall, 2009). Notably, due to the pre-fabricated character of the passages, there are no digressions, afterthoughts, repairs, or reformulations, which would introduce a variation in the speech rate.

## 5.2 Advanced level

The texts used in the advanced version of the exam are diversified with respect to length and genre. The register of the texts is semi-formal or informal and all nine texts are scripted. This seems completely unjustified, because in real life none of these texts would be written.

With respect to pronunciation, it is careful and clear with a fairly limited number of CSPs. Needless to say, some reductions are used as in English, irrespective of whether a text is scripted or non-scripted. These include contractions and weak forms of function words, but the latter have no consonant dropped, as shown in examples (26)–(29). Instances of assimilation are few but present, as in examples (30) and (31). The most frequent phenomenon is linking /r/, evident in the examples (32)–(36), and there is one case of intrusive /r/ in example (37).

(26) must be white /mʌst 'biː 'waɪt/

(27) life has revolved /'laɪf həz rɪ'vɒlvd/

(28) where I can purchase /'weər aɪ kən 'pɜːtʃəs/

(29) I say that my friend /aɪ 'seɪ ðət mɑɪ 'frend/

(30) what could go wrong /'wɒt kəg 'gəʊ 'rɒŋ/

(31) does your /dʌzjɔː/

(32) producer of /prə'dʒʊ:sər əv/

(33) there any /ðəər 'enɪ/

(34) are a perfect /ɑːr ə 'pɜːfɪkt/

(35) for a turkey /fər ə 'tɜːkɪ/

(36) or inside /ɔːr ɪn'saɪd/

(37) pizza in the fridge /'pi:tsər ɪn ðə 'frɪdʒ/
<table><caption>**Table 3**</caption><caption>Text Types (re Length, Style, Genre) Used at the Advanced Level</caption><thead><tr><th>Listening task (parts)</th><th>Text type</th><th>Length</th><th>HP</th><th>Speech rate</th><th>Orality</th><th>Orality in real life</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Task 1</td><td>Text 1 monologue (an anecdote)</td><td>57 s<br>173 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 dialogue (a radio interview - a question and an extended answer)</td><td>44 s<br>129 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (a personal narrative of a past event)</td><td>2 min. 2 s<br>385 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Task 2</td><td>Text 1 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>43 s<br>141 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.6 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 2 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>37 s<br>108 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.5 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 3 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>31 s<br>106 words</td><td>none</td><td>5.4 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 4 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>38 s<br>118 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Text 5 monologue (personal narrative relating to the speaker's work experience)</td><td>34 s<br>95 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.2 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>high (unscripted)</td></tr><tr><td>Task 3</td><td>dialogue (a TV interview with a food producer)</td><td>2 min. 10 s<br>365 words</td><td>none</td><td>4.3 s/s</td><td>low (scripted)</td><td>rather high (semi-scripted)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Contractions are used, but inconsistently within the same speakers. For instance, they are present in the examples we’ve all, you wouldn’t, I’m talking, it’s usually shown, can’t wait, they’re always, that’s another, aren’t, wouldn’t last, I won’t watch, I’ve been working, I wasn’t sure, and I’ll, but absent in they are a perfect substitute, you would get, potatoes have been freshly baked, and as it is about.

The rate of speech ranges between 4.2–4.6 s/s. The slowest rate of speech appears in a narrative (anecdote; Task 2, Text 1) and the fastest also in a narrative (Task 1). The dialogues are not characterised by an increased rate of speech compared to the monologues, which is not typical in everyday speech. The overall rate of speech in all texts is a bit slower than in corresponding spontaneous texts in real life where it would be around 5.04 s/s (Grosz & Hirschberg, 1992). Because there are no phenomena reflecting conceptual planning, the rate of speech is devoid of any variation.

**6. Discussion and key findings**

A summary of the findings is presented in Table 4. In both the basic and the advanced version of the exam, the same pair of speakers is employed. The texts are diversified with respect to genre, yet none of the exam versions exploits a casual conversation. A more varied selection of monologues is found in the basic version – TV and radio announcements, personal narratives and an extract delivered by a tourist guide. In the advanced version the monologues are of two types – a personal narrative and an anecdote. The basic version includes two texts which would also be scripted in real life, whereas they are not present in the advanced version. This may have been a deliberate choice on the part of the test designers, but it has no practical consequence, as even in the advanced version all texts are scripted and read out. Paradoxically, therefore, the texts in the basic version, not in the advanced one, better represent their real-life counterparts.

Regarding RQ1, the phonetic difficulty of the spoken texts is not modified to correspond to levels of linguistic proficiency. This is partly due to the fact that both the basic and advanced version of the exam include scripted texts, which largely determines their pronunciation features. The main difference between the two versions of the exam is duration and the rate of speech. While the mean length of shorter passages is roughly the same for the two levels (39 sec. vs. 40 sec.), the longer extracts range from 1:19–2:00 minutes in the basic level and 2:02–2:10 in the advanced level. Since a longer text usually means more information to process, the test designers may have deliberately introduced this difference to increase the difficulty of the advanced version.

The number of phonological modifications is similar in both versions. There are contractions, weak forms and certain processes which appear in English irrespective of the type of text (written or spoken), but they are pronounced more clearly than in natural speech. In the basic version there are three instances of assimilation, specifically yod-coalescence, and five instances of elision; 11 cases of linking /r/ and two cases of intrusive /r/. The advanced version includes two instances of assimilation and two cases of linking /r/.

The rate of speech in the two versions differs as well. Overall, the rate of speech in the exam texts is slower than naturally occurring monologues and dialogues. Both the range of speech and the mean values are lower for the basic version than the advanced version, respectively: 3.1–4 s/s (*m* = 3.6 s/s) and 4.2–4.6 s/s (*m* = 4.3 s/s). As a faster speech rate usually requires more automatic processing, increasing it for the advanced level increases task difficulty. Furthermore, natural unplanned discourse is characterised by speech rate variation, yet variation is absent from the recordings; they are delivered at a steady rate of speech, without the normal digressions, afterthoughts, false starts, and redundancies which would occur at an accelerated tempo in real life.
<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

*Comparison of the Main Features of Audio Materials Used in the Basic and Advanced Version of the Matura Exam*

<table><thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th></th><th>Basic</th><th>Advanced</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of speakers</td><td></td><td>2 (male & female)</td><td>2 (male & female)</td></tr><tr><td>Accent</td><td></td><td>SSBE</td><td>SSBE</td></tr><tr><td>Type of texts</td><td></td><td>scripted</td><td>scripted</td></tr><tr><td>Type of genre</td><td></td><td>varied<br>(monologues & dialogues)</td><td>varied<br>(monologues & dialogues)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Rate of speech</td><td>Range</td><td>3.1–4 s/s</td><td>4.2–4.6 s/s</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>3.6 s/s</td><td>4.3 s/s</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Length in short extracts</td><td>Range</td><td>31–50 s</td><td>31–57 s</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>39 s</td><td>40 s</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Length in long extracts</td><td>Range</td><td>1 min. 19 s–2:00</td><td>2 min. 2 s–2:10</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>1 min. 39 s</td><td>2 min. 6 s</td></tr><tr><td>Hesitative pauses</td><td></td><td>1 filled pause (hmmm)<br>2 silent pauses</td><td>none</td></tr><tr><td>Repetitions</td><td></td><td>none</td><td>none</td></tr><tr><td>False starts</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reformulations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unfinished sentences</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Turn-openers</td><td></td><td>2 instances of well</td><td>1 instance of well</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Connected speech phenomena other than weak forms</td><td></td><td>3 instances of assimilation<br>(yod-coalescence)</td><td>2 instances of assimilation<br>24 instances of linking /r/</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>5 instances of elision</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>11 instances of linking /r/</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2 instances of intrusive /r/</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Apart from duration and the rate of speech, the two versions do not differ considerably with respect to pronunciation. In other words, the phonetic competence required to perform the listening comprehension tasks appears not to have been taken into consideration. The test designers are not primarily focused on testing phonetic competence even though listening competence consists of, above all, dealing with the speech signal. The advanced version of the Matura exam is characterised by more advanced lexis and more complex grammatical structures, but in terms of pronunciation, it remains largely at the same level as the basic one. This is congruent with Buck's (2001) observation that "unfortunately, many students progress
to more complicated and sophisticated grammar and vocabulary, but do not move beyond the basic, elementary, clear and explicit pronunciation" (p. 158). Practices like this have undesirable consequences for understanding everyday spoken English. Students who have continually been exposed to an overenunciated form of English in which the contrast between stressed and unstressed syllables is partially neutralised, will learn to rely on acoustic cues which are missing in the natural spoken English of native speakers.

With reference to RQ2, pronunciation is not aligned with the type of discourse. The most striking feature of the texts used in the exam is the fact that their orality is low. Given their pre-fabricated nature, the texts are devoid of any drafting phenomena which are typically the result of simultaneous composing and speaking. With the exception of one extract at the basic level (which is nonetheless quite artificial), no HP appear. As HP are extremely frequent in natural spoken discourse, their absence in textbook dialogues is a bit puzzling; there is little pedagogic justification to exclude them from very early on (Gilmore, 2004). Depriving L2 learners of exposure to this frequent component of natural speech means they cannot learn how to interpret the HPs they hear, and may also struggle to hesitate and pause in a native-like manner (Cenoz, 2000) when they speak.

## 7. Conclusion and implications

The results of the above analysis clearly demonstrate that the role of pronunciation in the listening comprehension Matura exam is not acknowledged. As a result, the exam does not reliably measure the skills necessary to comprehend natural spoken English discourse. Thus, both coursebook and test designers as well as teachers are strongly encouraged to adjust audio materials so that they reflect authentic speech and equip students with the skills necessary to understand real-life interactions. Including non-scripted spoken texts in L2 listening tests will better reflect natural spoken texts in real-life situations – and will also allow more valid inferences to be made about learners' ability to understand real-world spoken language (Wagner & Toh, 2017). The use of unscripted texts in L2 tests will also have a beneficial washback effect both on test takers and curriculum developers (Buck, 2001; Wagner & Wagner, 2016). Rather than eliminating or simplifying authentic speech – because it is thought to be too intimidating and too difficult to understand – teachers should modify the tasks and equip students with strategies in how to deal with unplanned discourse. As recommended by Mendelsohn (2006), "prior to listening to authentic, unscripted, unmodified language, learners have to be given training in how to go about this challenging task" (p. 77). Drawing learners' attention to phonetic features of natural spoken texts should help learners to notice and process spoken input both inside and outside of the classroom (Henderson & Cauldwell, 2020). Sheppard and Butler (2017) suggest that using paused transcription exercises can provide insight into learners' listening problems and constitute a starting point for further, more targeted instruction which would focus not only on the content, but also on the phonetic form of audio materials. Future research could test the implementation and the effectiveness of such methodology.
References

Alameen, G., & Levis, J. (2015). Connected speech. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), *Handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 159–174). Wiley Blackwell.

Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2011). *What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension*. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL).

Bowen, J. D. (1975). *Patterns of English pronunciation*. Newbury House.

Brown, J. D., & Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Introducing connected speech. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 1–16). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Buck, G. (2001). *Assessing listening*. Cambridge University Press.

Cauldwell, R. (2014). Listening and pronunciation need separate models of speech. In J. Levis & S. McCrocklin (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 5th Pronunciation in Second Language Teaching and Learning Conference* (pp. 40–44), Iowa State University.

Cenoz, J. (2000) Pauses and hesitation phenomena in second language production. *ILT – International Journal of Applied Linguistics*, 127, 53–69. https://doi.org.10.1075/itl.127-128.03

Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), *Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy* (pp. 35–53). Abex.

Chiu, C. W., & Chen, T. P. (2023). Speech rate and young learners’ listening comprehension. *English Language Teaching*, 16(7), 74–80. https://doi.org.10.5539/elt.v16n7p74

Deese, J. (1984). *Thought into speech: The psychology of a language*. Prentice-Hall.

Field, J. (2008). *Listening in the language classroom*. Cambridge University Press.

Fon, J. (1999). Speech rate as a reflection of variance and invariance in conceptual planning in storytelling. In J.J. Ohala (Ed.), *Proceeding of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Volume 1*. (pp. 663–666). University of California.

Fujita, R. (2017). Effects of speech rate and background noise on EFL learners’ listening comprehension of different materials. *Journal of Asia TEFL*, 14(4), 638–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.4.638

Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. *ELT Journal*, 58, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.363

Goh, C. C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. *System*, 28, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3

Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. *Language Learning*, 40, 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00666.x

Griffiths, R. (1991). The paradox of comprehensible input: Hesitati on phenomena in L2 teacher-talk. *JALT Journal*, 13, 1, 23–41. https://jalt-publications.org/i/1991-05_13.1

Grosz, B., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. *HLT ‘91 Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language* (441–446). https://doi.org/10.3115/1075527.1075632
Henderson, A., & Cauldwell, R. (2020). Jungle Listening: A course in decoding English for psychology students. *ASP, 77*, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.6366

Ito, Y. (2001). Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners' input-intake process. *Second Language Studies, 1*(20), 99–124. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/40647

Kendall, T. S. (2009). *Speech rate, pause, and linguistic variation: An examination through the sociolinguistic archive and analysis project*. [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Duke University]. https://hdl.handle.net/10161/1097

McCarthy, M. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. *English Profile Journal, 1*, 1–15. http://doi.org.10.1017/S2041536210000012

Mendelsohn, D. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), *Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills* (pp. 75–90). Mouton de Gruyter.

Ockey, G., & Wagner, E. (2018). *Assessing L2 listening: Moving towards authenticity*. John Benjamins B.V.

Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., & Marsico, E. (2011). Across-language perspective on speech information rate. *Language* 87(3), 539–558.

Schmidt-Rinehart, B. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. *The Modern Language Journal, 84*, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/329008

Sheppard, B., & Butler, B. (2017). Insights into student listening from paused transcription. *CATESOL Journal, 29*, 2, 81 – 107. https://doi.org.10.5070/B5.35995

Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: the effect of test and question types. *Language testing, 8*, 1, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800103

Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Hakkani-Tur, D., & Tur, G. (2000). Prosody-based automatic segmentation of speech into sentences and topics. *Speech Communication, 32*(1–2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02030.x

Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.) *Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy* (pp. 1–33). Ablex.

Uhmann, S. (1992). Contextualizing relevance: On some forms and functions of speech rate changes in everyday conversation. In P. Auer & A. Luzio (Eds.), *The Contextualization of Language* (pp. 297–336). John Benjamins.

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). *Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action*. Routledge.

Voss, B. (1979). Hesitation phenomena as sources of perceptual errors for non-native speakers. *Language and Speech, 22*, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200203

Wagner, E. (2013). Assessing listening. In A. Kunan (Ed.), *Companion to Language Assessment* (pp. 47–63). Wiley-Blackwell.

Wagner, E., P., & Toth, D. (2017). The role of pronunciation in the assessment of second language listening ability. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), *Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives* (pp. 72–92). Multilingual Matters.

Wagner, E., & Wagner, S. (2016). Scripted and unscripted spoken texts used in listening tasks on high stakes tests in China, Japan and Taiwan. In V. Arayadoust & J. Fox (Eds.), *Current*
*trends in language testing in the Pacific Rim and the Middle East: Policies, analyses and diagnoses* (pp. 103–123). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wang, D., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Robust speech rate estimation for spontaneous speech. *IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing* 15(8), 2190–2201.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.905178

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. *Canadian Modern Language Review, 63*, 1, 13–33. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.13

**About the author**

Agnieszka Bryła-Cruz is Assistant Professor at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland. Her main research interests concern the role of linguistic and socio-linguistic factors in Second Language Acquisition, particularly pronunciation, and the perception of non-native accents by English native speakers. Recently she has been conducting empirical studies on the role of phonetics in listening comprehension.

Email: agnieszka.bryla-cruz@mail.umcs.pl
# EFL learners' perceptions of naturalness, difficulty, and speech rate in native connected speech

Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje

## Abstract

This study explores Macedonian EFL learners' perceptions of connected speech processes (CSPs) in native English speech. Fifty, 2^nd^-year English majors listened to two recordings by the same Scottish English speaker differing in speech rate and CSP use and completed a questionnaire about the perceived naturalness and difficulty of each recording. The results showed that faster speech was perceived as more natural, though some CSPs, particularly intrusive sounds and elision, were difficult to identify. The findings underscore the importance of raising awareness of CSPs in EFL instruction to improve learners' listening comprehension and perception of authentic spoken English.

**Keywords:** connected speech processes, EFL learners, native speech, perceptions

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
**1. Introduction**

The global spread of English has resulted in diverse non-native varieties, reshaping perceptions of language ownership and prompting research into the intelligibility of native (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) interactions. The concepts of intelligibility and comprehensibility (Derwing & Munro, 1997) have been central to this research, leading to studies on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech (Kang et al., 2020) and features essential for successful communication in a second language (L2) (e.g., Suzukida & Saito, 2019). Simultaneously, research has also focused on NNSs' perceptions of native speech, particularly exploring the difficulties posed by its rhythmic organisation, which may cause spoken words and phrases to deviate from their full or citation forms. These changes, known as connected speech processes (CSPs), have received considerable attention in recent research (see Alameen & Levis, 2015). The production of various CSP features by different L2 speakers has been documented, consistently demonstrating the difficulties these phenomena present for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (e.g., Duckinoska, 2021; Poesová & Weingartová, 2018). Given the complexity of CSPs and their impact on listening comprehension, further research is needed into how learners perceive them. Specifically, understanding learners' perspectives on the naturalness and difficulty of CSPs, as well as the role of speech rate, can inform future research and enhance teaching practices.

**2. Previous research**

Listening materials in course books and instructional resources often present speech in a highly controlled manner, i.e., scripted recordings with careful delivery and simplified language intended for testing comprehension. However, such an approach does not train learners for real-life listening, and this can be problematical. For example, a study on Chinese L2 learners' perceptual errors in native connected speech (Wong et al., 2021) found that listening to recordings only once resulted in a high incidence of transcription errors, highlighting the challenges of authentic speech. They also noted that allowing learners to listen to recordings twice may improve test performance, but it does not prepare them for real-life communication, where reduced forms are common.

Exposing EFL learners to reduced forms is crucial, since unfamiliarity with connected speech features affects both listening and pronunciation (e.g., Alameen & Levis, 2015; Ito, 2006). Some studies have investigated the impact of explicit instruction on listening comprehension. For example, Rahimi and Chalak (2017) and Ahmadian and Matour (2014) found significant improvement in dictation-based listening among L1 Persian learners, though the former study did not specify which connected speech features were assessed. Similarly, Brown & Hilferty (2006) reported significant gains in listening comprehension after Chinese graduate students received instruction on reduced forms.

The perception of connected speech processes has also been studied among learners of languages other than English. For instance, Kennedy and Blanchet (2014) investigated how learners of French as a foreign language perceived connected speech, particularly in relation to their language awareness. Over a 15-week course, the participants engaged in activities designed to improve their perception, and they kept reflective journals. The results showed improved decoding of CSPs between the pre- and post-test, highlighting the significant role language awareness and manner of learning play in processing rapid speech. These findings also inform future teaching practices regarding the influence of language awareness on listening comprehension.

These studies highlight the challenges learners face when decoding authentic L2 speech and emphasise the benefits of instruction focused on perception. Research has also emphasised the
importance of exposing learners to diverse English varieties. For example, Miao et al. (2024) investigated the effects of integrating Global English (GE) varieties into classroom instruction and the impact on EFL learners' listening comprehension and pronunciation. Their study compared an intervention group exposed to different accented English varieties with a control group that heard only American English. Data was collected through TOEFL-like listening exam questions and a speaking task, using a pre/post-test design. The results showed that listening comprehension of GE varieties of the intervention group improved, but only short term, and their pronunciation remained unaffected. Despite the lack of sustained long-term effects, the findings suggest that exposure to different English varieties does not negatively affect learners' comprehension.

Further research is needed on EFL learners’ perspectives on native connected speech to better inform both research and teaching practice. To that end, the current study examines Standard Scottish English (SSE). This variety was chosen because it remains underrepresented in course materials, where Standard Southern British English (SSBE) and General American (GA) continue to dominate as teaching models. Previous research has explored attitudes toward one variety of SSE, Glasgow Standard English, in terms of speaker competence and social attractiveness (McKenzie, 2008). The current study, however, focuses on the perceived naturalness of SSE, with particular attention to connected speech processes.

**2.1 Research questions**

The literature reviewed above highlights the importance of exposing L2 learners to various
language varieties, both native and non-native. Achieving intelligibility always involves a two-
way process. Nevertheless, in NNS-NS interactions, CSPs place an additional cognitive
demand on NNS speakers, as authentic speech can deviate from their expectations of spoken
English (Alameen & Levis, 2015). With this in mind, the current study investigates the
exposure to a less commonly represented native variety, Scottish English. It examines
Macedonian EFL learners' perceptions of the presence or absence of CSPs in native speech,
by asking them which of two recordings sounds more natural, and then to explain their choice.
Naturalness is not defined for participants but rather it is hoped that their explanations will
mention CSPs. Thus, the present study attempts to answer the following research questions:

**RQ1:** How do Macedonian EFL learners evaluate the naturalness of native speech in relation to: a) speech rate, and b) connected speech processes?

**RQ2:** How do Macedonian EFL learners recognise and identify specific connected speech processes (vowel reduction, elision, intrusive sounds) in native speech?

While Macedonian EFL learners may initially find speech with a less familiar accent more challenging, we assume that they will generally perceive both recordings as being easy to understand. However, we hypothesise that they will experience greater difficulty identifying specific connected speech processes, particularly in faster-paced speech.

**3. Research methodology**

**3.1 Participants**

The participants in this study were 50 Macedonian EFL learners ($M_{age} = 20.8$, age range = 20–25). There were 9 male and 40 female participants, with one participant identifying as non-binary. All participants were second-year English majors at the University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje. They were enrolled in the English Phonetics and Phonology course and
had completed one semester of instruction but had not yet studied connected speech processes. All had learned English through formal education, and 50% reported having basic knowledge of an additional foreign language. The class is obligatory but participation in the study was voluntary.

A native female speaker of Scottish Standard English served as a speech model. She holds a Master of Research in Linguistics and works as a university tutor, teaching English pronunciation classes to international students.

## 3.2 Procedure

The study consisted of two stages. First, the native speaker recorded a 295-word passage (adapted from *The Guardian*) twice. For the first recording (R1), the speaker was instructed to read the passage at a slower, more deliberate pace, aiming to produce more words in full forms. For the second recording (R2), the speaker read the passage at a faster pace, resulting in speech with more reduced forms. Both recordings, along with selected excerpts, were embedded in a questionnaire. In the second stage, the participants completed the questionnaire in a controlled environment using desktop computers and headphones and were supervised by a researcher.<fnref n="1" /> The task took approximately 40 minutes.

## 3.3 Data collection and analysis

The main data collection instrument was a questionnaire comprising two parts: Part 1 gathered demographic information, whereas Part 2 focused on responses to the recordings (see Appendix). It comprised 14 questions: 8 open-ended, 2 Likert scale, and 4 multiple-choice questions, along with two recordings and five excerpts. The participants listened to Recordings 1 and 2 twice before answering the questions, while the excerpts could be played up to five times. These excerpts targeted three connected speech features: vowel reduction, elision, and intrusive sounds. Table 1 presents the selected features and transcriptions of their occurrence in a sentence.

These five excerpts were chosen due to their representativeness and the prominence of the tested feature, thus facilitating recognition and distinction of their presence or absence in speech. In Excerpts 3, 4, and 5, the targeted feature was present in both recordings, further emphasising the fact that connected speech occurs naturally, irrespective of speech rate.

Responses from the completed questionnaires were manually entered into Excel. The open-ended questions were analysed for the presence of recurring themes, while quantitative data was processed in SPSS 25 (IBM Corp., 2017). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, appropriate for ranked data such as Likert-scale items.

## 4. Results

The results, based on the analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaire, are presented in two subsections. Quotes from individual participants are referenced with the participants' codes P01-P50, where P stands for participant followed by the participant number.

<footnote n="1">¹ The researcher is the author of this paper.</footnote>
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Targeted Connected Speech Features in Excerpts*

<table><thead><tr><th>Excerpt</th><th>Target feature</th><th>Phrase</th><th>Transcription</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Vowel reduction in grammatical words</td><td>This <u>was</u> a problem.</td><td>R1 /ðɪs wɒz ə 'prɒbləm/<br>R2 /ðɪs wəz ə 'prɒbləm/</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Vowel reduction in grammatical words</td><td>...including politicians, presented <u>as</u> sports fans.</td><td>R1 /m'klu:dn̥ ,pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz<br>prɪ'zentɪd æz 'spɔ:ts 'fænz/<br>R2 /m'klu:dn̥ ,pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz<br>prɪ'zentɪd əz 'spɔ:ts 'fænz/</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Elision</td><td>But it can't <u>have</u> remained more elusive in real life.</td><td>R1 /kænt æv rɪ'meɪnd/<br>R2 /kænt əv rɪ'meɪnd/</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Intrusive /w/</td><td>...<u>to its</u> rapid layered rhythms...</td><td>R1 & R2<br>/tu (w) ɪts 'ræpɪd 'leɪd 'rɪðəmz/</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Intrusive /j/</td><td>... <u>why all</u> public figures, including politicians...</td><td>R1 & R2<br>/waɪ(j) ə:1 'pʌblɪk 'fɪgəz ɪn'klu:d<br>n̥ ,pɒlɪ'tɪʃənz/</td></tr></tbody></table>

**4.1 Recordings 1 and 2**

The first set of questions in Part 2 of the questionnaire elicited participants' views regarding their perceived ease of understanding of the speech in R1 and R2, the challenges faced while listening, and the differences between R1 and R2.

For self-perceived ease of understanding, the participants rated each recording on a scale of 1–5 (1 = *very difficult*, 5 = *very easy*). The average score for R1 was *M* = 4.34, compared to *M* = 4.50 for R2, indicating that the participants did not find either recording particularly difficult to understand. To establish whether the difference in understanding was statistically significant, a Wilcoxon test was used. The results showed the difference between R1 and R2 was not statistically significant (*p* = .106). Regarding the challenges faced, the participants mentioned difficulties related to accent for R1 (*n* = 24, 48%), as illustrated in the following responses: “some words were difficult to understand because she was pronouncing them in an odd way” (P06), “it took me some time to adjust, but it wasn't difficult” (P12), or “incomprehensible due to unfamiliar pronunciation” (P43). The majority found R2 less challenging than R1, although
a few (n = 10, 20%) reported difficulties with understanding R2 due to the heavy accent, fast pace of speech, pronunciation of some words, or the need for more processing time.

When asked which recording sounded more natural, some participants (n = 8, 16%) selected R1, the majority (n = 33, 66%) selected R2, while the remaining (n = 9, 18%) said that both sounded natural to them. The main reasons for R1 not sounding natural included – again, in participants’ own words – its slow or robotic speech, and the perception that the speaker was non-native. In contrast, R2 was perceived as more natural due to its natural flow of speech, lack of pauses, the speaker sounding native despite the accent, and the overall tone being more conversational.

The participants were also asked to identify any obvious differences between R1 and R2, choosing from a list of options; one served as a distractor (option d). Table 2 lists the main differences and the number of responses for each option.

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Differences between Recording 1 and Recording 2 and the Number of Selected Answers*

<table><thead><tr><td>Possible differences between Recording 1 and Recording 2</td><td>No of responses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a) The speaker speaks faster.</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>b) Some sounds have been left out.</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>c) Some extra sounds have been added.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>d) Some words have been left out.</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>e) Some words are pronounced shorter.</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>f) Sometimes there are no pauses between two words.</td><td>36</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results show that most participants noticed that the speaker in R2 spoke faster, resulting in some words being pronounced shorter or without pauses. Fewer participants noticed the omission or addition of sounds, while only five participants selected the distractor option that some words had been left out.

## 4.2 Excerpts

The second set of questions elicited participants’ views regarding specific connected speech features present or absent in five different excerpts. Excerpts 1 and 2 targeted vowel reductions in grammatical words. In both excerpts, R1 contained a strong form of the grammatical words (i.e., *was /wɒz/ and as /æz/), while R2 contained a weak form (i.e., *was /wəz/ and as /əz/). When asked whether the grammatical word in Excerpt 1 was the same or different in both recordings, few participants (n = 8, 16%) said it was the same, while the majority (n = 42, 84%) noted that it was different. The participants who identified a difference cited factors such as
emphasis on the word, the presence of a strong versus a weak vowel, and the presence or absence of pauses before and after the word, as evident in the following remarks: "In R2 the tone is more conversational and the focus is not on <was>" (P04); "In recording one <was> is pronounced harder and it sound[s] more important, while in recording two <was> is pronounced more softly" (P14).<fnref n="2" /> However, some responses referred to dialectal differences or provided reasoning not directly related to the target feature, such as: "The first one has an accent to it making it sound like <wos> and the second one is clearer and sounds like the [A]merican <was>" (P06), or "In the first recording, the 
 is pronounced as /z/, while in the second it's /s/" (P42).

The responses for Excerpt 2, targeting the word *as*, were more varied. Half of the participants (*n* = 25, 50%) reported that the pronunciation was the same in both recordings, many (*n* = 22, 44%) indicated that it was different, and few (*n* = 3, 6%) provided no answer. Those who perceived a difference attributed it to the presence of a schwa sound and hearing only the /s/ sound in R2, or noticing clearer pauses before and after the word in R1 compared to R2.

Excerpt 3 involved instances of elision, specifically the omission of /h/, in both recordings. The only difference between R1 and R2 was the absence and presence of a weak form in the grammatical word *have*, respectively. When asked if the words in the verb phrase were fully pronounced, responses varied significantly. Twenty participants (40%) indicated that the words were either fully pronounced in both recordings, or not fully pronounced but their answers did not mention omission of /h/. Examples included comments such as the words sounding like one word in R1 but like two separate words in R2, or that words were fully pronounced only in R2. The remaining participants (*n* = 30, 60%) correctly noticed the elision of /h/ correctly, in at least one of the recordings, or identified the contracted form of *have* in the verb phrase, as illustrated in the following comments: "In Recording 2, the words <can't> and <have> are connected with the neutral vowel in their pronunciation, resulting in the shortening of the word <have>, which is not the case in Recording 1" (P03) and "All of the words are pronounced in Recording 1[;] however, in Recording 2, the /h/ in <have> is left out and the word is connected to the previous one, <can't>" (P38).

Concerning self-perceived ease of understanding of the phrase in Excerpt 3, the majority (*n* = 28, 56%) reported no difficulty. A smaller proportion found the speech easier in R1 than in R2 (*n* = 5, 10%), while others found it easier in R2 than in R1 (*n* = 6, 12%). The remaining participants (*n* = 10, 20%) said that it was not very easy, and they either had to rely on the context or listen to the phrase multiple times. One participant mentioned that familiarity with the accent helped. One participant did not answer the question.

The last two excerpts, 4 and 5, focused on the intrusive sounds /w/ and /j/, respectively. For Excerpt 4, only one participant correctly identified the intrusive sound, stating: "It sounds like there is a /w/ sound in between them" (P11). The rest either did not notice any intrusive sound, or provided irrelevant information, such as hearing an extra /t/ or a prolonged /s/ sound. No participant identified the intrusive /j/ sound in Excerpt 5. However, one student reported difficulty understanding the phrase, stating: "It was partially understandable, since the first word of the phrase was incomprehensible." (P34), suggesting that the presence of the intrusive sound may have affected comprehension. Regarding their self-perceived ease of understanding the phrase in Excerpt 4, the majority did not experience any difficulty (*n* = 29, 58%), while the rest (*n* = 20, 40%) noted that they had to listen to it multiple times, or that pauses between words aided comprehension. One participant did not answer the question.

<footnote n="2">² In all original comments by participants, their inconsistent punctuation has been replaced: < > is used for graphemes and / / for phonemes, to maintain a text that is easy to read.</footnote>
**5. Discussion**

The first research question intended to investigate the participants' perceptions of the naturalness of native speech and the difficulties they encountered understanding it. The fast-paced speech, which featured more instances of connected speech features, was generally perceived as more natural due to its absence of pauses, the rapid speech rate, and the speaker sounding native. These results suggest that fast speech is associated with fluency, despite the participants reporting difficulties in perceiving specific CSPs. This supports the view that CSPs contribute to the perceived regularity of English rhythm (Alameen & Levis, 2015).

In terms of self-perceived ease of understanding, neither recording was perceived as especially difficult, and the difference was not statistically significant. This may be due to the participants' overall familiarity with English through formal instruction and exposure to various native accents in the media. However, further research is needed to systematically investigate how such prior exposure affects the ability to process native speech and whether self-reported *ease* of understanding correlates with *actual* understanding, as authentic speech often remains challenging (Wong et al., 2021).

When comparing the two recordings, the participants were able to identify more obvious distinctions, such as variations in speech pace and the absence of pauses between words. Nevertheless, more subtle CSPs, such as elision and intrusive sounds, proved more difficult. This was reflected in the responses to the speech excerpts explored in the second research question. For example, while more than half of the participants identified /h/ elision in Excerpt 3, this recognition was inconsistent across both recordings and mainly observed in R2. In contrast, the intrusive sounds /w/ and /j/ in Excerpts 4 and 5, respectively, were scarcely noticed. Only one participant identified the intrusive /w/, and another appeared to misinterpret the initial part of the phrase in Excerpt 5, potentially due to the presence of intrusive /j/. These findings align with previous research, reinforcing the notion that CSPs are difficult for EFL learners to perceive and decode accurately.

Participants' perception of vowel reduction in Excerpts 1 and 2 showed that they found it easier to detect the reduced sound in /wəz/ in R2 of Excerpt 1 than in /əz/ in Excerpt 2. The majority of participants (84%) identified the schwa sound in R2 of Excerpt 1, whereas nearly half as many (44%) noticed it or reported hearing only a /s/ sound in R2 of Excerpt 2. While these findings are based on a limited number of examples and should not be generalised, they are consistent with the results of a production study of vowel reduction among Macedonian EFL learners (Duckinoska, 2021). This study found that the L2 learners more readily produce the weak form of grammatical words containing the strong vowel /ɒ/ (e.g., *was*) than the weak form of words with the strong vowel /æ/ (e.g., *am, can, shall, has*). Nevertheless, further research is needed to establish a clearer link between learners' perception and production of weak forms.

Interestingly, the participants frequently referenced terms such as accent, native speaker, or specific dialect. Accent was often cited as a source of difficulty, while the delivery of the native speaker in R2 was perceived as more natural. These findings suggest that the participants' perception of speech naturalness was primarily influenced by two factors: 1) the speaker being perceived as native, and 2) the absence of a noticeable accent. This insight carries significant pedagogical implications: learners should be made aware of the diversity of English accents – both native and non-native – and listen to a wide range of speech models. As exposure to Global Englishes does not hinder comprehension (Miao et al., 2024), such practice can broaden learners' awareness of what constitutes intelligible and natural English.

The results also suggest that certain CSPs are harder to detect than others. Thus, explicit instruction on how CSPs aid fluency and rhythm could be beneficial, as increased awareness improves decoding of rapid speech (Kennedy & Blanchet, 2014). For instance, teachers could
contrast sentences with and without intrusive sounds, highlighting how their presence helps maintain fluency. They could also design activities where students listen specifically for intrusive sounds in authentic speech and mark them in written transcripts. Moreover, since vowel reduction was easier to detect in *was* than in *as*, EFL instruction should explicitly highlight how vowel reduction varies across different grammatical words. Finally, the fact that only 60% of participants correctly noticed /h/ elision in *have* suggests that learners may not always be aware of common elisions in connected speech. Classroom activities should include targeted listening tasks with common examples of elision, followed by pronunciation practice to reinforce recognition.

**6. Conclusion and limitations**

This study investigated Macedonian EFL learners' perceptions of native speech with the presence and absence of connected speech features. Although the participants reported relatively high ease of understanding, many noted the need to listen to the excerpts multiple times, or rely on context, underscoring the fact that authentic speech remains challenging. Simultaneously, the perception of Recording 2 as more natural suggests that connected speech features contribute to the natural rhythm and perceived fluency of English.

The current study has several limitations. The results are based on specific samples taken from a specific context; different excerpts from the recordings, or different contexts may have elicited different responses. In addition, using different speech models (e.g., Australian English) may influence participants' responses. Further research could explore these variables and measure the effects of exposure to connected speech on perception and production. Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to a better understanding of how EFL learners perceive authentic spoken English and emphasise the importance of drawing learners' attention to connected speech features as a step towards improved listening comprehension.

**References**

Ahmadian, M., & Matour, R. (2014). The effect of explicit instruction of connected speech features on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension skills. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature*, 3(2), 227-236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.227

Alameen, G., and Levis, J. M. (2015). Connected speech. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 159–174). Wiley Blackwell.
http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch9

Brown, J.D., & Hilferty, A. (2006). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms for listening comprehension. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown, (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 51–58). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/MG01TOC.pdf

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19*, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010

Duckinoska, I. (2021). Vowel reduction of English grammatical words by Macedonian EFL learners. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, A. Henderson, & J., Fouz-González (Eds.), *English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights* (pp. 279–302). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.19.12duc

IBM Corp. (2017). *IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0* [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-25

Ito, Y. (2006). The significance of reduced forms in L2 pedagogy. In J. D. Brown & K. Kondo-Brown, (Eds.), *Perspectives on teaching connected speech to second language speakers* (pp. 17–25). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/MG01TOC.pdf

Kang, O., Thomson, R., & Moran, M. (2020). Which features of accent affect understanding? Exploring the intelligibility threshold of diverse accent varieties. *Applied Linguistics, 41*(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy053

Kennedy, S., & Blanchet, J. (2014). Language awareness and perception of connected speech in second language. *Language Awareness, 23*, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863904

McKenzie, R. M. (2008). Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken English: A Japanese case study. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18*(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00179.x

Miao, Y., Kang, O., & Meng, X. (2024). Incorporating global Englishes varieties into EFL classrooms: Development of listening comprehension and pronunciation. *TESOL Quarterly*. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3328

Poesová, K., & Weingartová, L. (2018). Character of vowel reduction in Czech English. In J. Volín & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), *The pronunciation of English by speakers of other languages* (pp. 96–116). Cambridge Scholars.

Rahimi, M. & Chalak, A. (2017). The effect of connected speech teaching on listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. *Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4*(8), 280–291. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/722

Suzukida, Y., & Saito, K. (2019). Which segmental features matter for successful L2 comprehensibility? Revisiting and generalizing the pedagogical value of the functional load principle. *Language Teaching Research, 25*, 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819858246

Wong, S. W., Leung, V. W., Tsui, J. K., Dealey, J., & Cheung, A. (2021). Chinese ESL learners' perceptual errors of English connected speech: Insights into listening comprehension. *System, 98*, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102480

# Appendix

## Participants' questionnaire

## Part 1

Please complete the questionnaire below. The information will only be accessible to and used by the researcher for research purposes and all the data will be anonymised.

<table><tr><td>Name and surname</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Other:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">What nationality are you?</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">What is your first language/mother tongue?</td></tr></table>
Duckinoska-Mihajlovska
Perceptions of naturalness, difficulty & speech rate

<table><tr><td>Prior to starting university, did you study English outside school?</td><td>a) private language courses<br>Time period: ______<br>b) private lessons<br>Time period: ______</td></tr><tr><td>Have you stayed in an English-speaking country?</td><td>a) Yes<br>Which one:<br>Time period:<br>b) No</td></tr><tr><td>How would you rate your satisfaction with your English pronunciation on a scale from 1 to 5?<br>1 = not satisfied at all<br>5 = extremely satisfied</td><td>1 2 3 4 5</td></tr><tr><td>Do you think that formal training in English phonetics and phonology helps you improve your pronunciation?</td><td>a) It is definitely helpful.<br>b) It is helpful in some ways.<br>c) It is not helpful at all.</td></tr><tr><td>Do you speak any other foreign language(s)?<br>If yes, please state which one(s).</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Part 2

In this part, you will listen to several recordings. We are interested in your thoughts about the recordings. You will not be tested on any phonetic/phonological aspect. Please follow the instructions as to what recording you need to listen to and how many times. <u>You need to double click on the icon for the audio to start.</u>

**Step 1:** Listen to **Recording 1 only once** and then answer the questions below.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Recording 1.mp3</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>How easy was it to understand recording 1?<br>1 = very difficult<br>5 = very easy</td><td>1 2 3 4 5</td></tr><tr><td>Did you find any pronunciation aspect particularly challenging to understand?<br>Please describe it in your own words.</td><td></td></tr></table>

**Step 2:** Listen to **Recording 2 only once** and then answer the questions below.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Recording 2.mp3</figcaption></figure>
Duckinoska-Mihajlovska
Perceptions of naturalness, difficulty & speech rate

<table><tr><td>How easy was it to understand recording 2?<br>1 = very difficult<br>5 = very easy</td><td>1 2 3 4 5</td></tr><tr><td>Did you find any pronunciation aspect particularly challenging to understand?<br>Please describe it in your own words.</td><td></td></tr></table>

**Step 3:** Listen to **Recording 1** and **Recording 2 one more time**, if necessary, and then compare Recording 1 and Recording 2. Please read the questions first before listening.

<table><tr><td>Which of the two recordings sounds more natural to you?</td><td>a) Recording 1<br>Please explain why:<br>b) Recording 2<br>Please explain why:<br>c) They both sound the same to me.</td></tr><tr><td>Did you notice any obvious differences between the two recordings? Choose as many as applicable.</td><td>a) The speaker speaks faster.<br>b) Some sounds have been left out.<br>c) Some extra sounds have been added.<br>d) Some words have been left out.<br>e) Some words are pronounced shorter.<br>f) Sometimes there are no pauses between two words.</td></tr></table>

**Step 4:** You will listen to excerpts from both recordings and answer the questions below. You can listen to each excerpt **up to five times**.

Listen to **Excerpt 1**. Pay attention to the way ‘was’ is pronounced in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 1.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Is ‘was’ pronounced the same in both recordings?</td><td>a) Yes<br>b) No<br>If not, what is different?</td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 2**. Pay attention to the way ‘as’ is pronounced in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 2.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Is ‘as’ pronounced the same in both recordings?</td><td>a) Yes<br>b) No<br>If not, what is different?</td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 3**. Pay attention to the verb phrase in the clause in both recordings.
Duckinoska-Mihajlovska
Perceptions of naturalness, difficulty & speech rate

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 3.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Are all the words in the verb phrase fully pronounced?<br/>Please explain if you notice any difference between<br/>Recording 1 and Recording 2.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 4**. Pay attention to the first two words in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 4.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Do you notice any additional sound(s) in<br/>between the two words?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>If yes, what sound(s)?<br/>b) No</td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

Listen to **Excerpt 5**. Pay attention to the first two words in both recordings.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Excerpt 5.wav</figcaption></figure>

<table><tr><td>Do you notice any additional sound(s) in<br/>between the two words?</td><td>a) Yes<br/>If yes, what sound(s)?<br/>b) No</td></tr><tr><td>Is it easy to understand the verb phrase?<br/>Please explain your answer.</td><td></td></tr></table>

## About the author

**Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska** is a Language Instructor in the Department of English Language and Literature, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia, where she teaches courses in Contemporary English and Academic Writing. Her main interests include English phonetics and phonology, learner autonomy, and teacher and student wellbeing. She serves as treasurer of IATEFL's PronSIG and assists with blog writing.

Email: iduckinoska@flf.ukim.edu.mk
Gyurka, N. (2025). Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study. In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humánez-Berral, & A. Henderson (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 28–42). Université Grenoble-Alpes. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16694398

# Hungarian secondary school teachers’ pronunciation teaching practices: A questionnaire study

Noémi Gyurka

Pázmány Péter Catholic University

ELTE Eötvös Loránd University

## Abstract

While pronunciation teaching is often promoted, teachers frequently prioritise other skills, due to various reasons. Yet, research shows that explicit pronunciation instruction is effective, as raising awareness helps students understand key language features. In most international contexts as well as in many European countries, teachers' reluctance to explicitly teach pronunciation often results from limited training, lack of confidence, or insufficient resources. However, in the Hungarian educational context, there is limited available data on teachers' practices or the reasons behind choosing to teach or ignore pronunciation. Therefore, the paper reports the results of a study aiming to investigate Hungarian secondary school teachers' pronunciation teaching practices. A questionnaire completed by 64 teachers revealed a reliance on listen-and-repeat" exercises and coursebook content, with minimal use of explicit techniques. The participants commonly addressed silent letters and dental fricatives, even though these are not the features that are of utmost importance for Hungarian learners. In addition, teachers who believed in the importance of pronunciation tended to engage more actively in teaching it. These findings suggest the need for teacher training programmes to focus on pronunciation teaching so that teachers understand the benefits of pronunciation instruction and have appropriate knowledge and skills to teach this subskill effectively.

**Keywords:** pronunciation instruction, pronunciation teaching, secondary education, teachers' beliefs

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

This chapter is based on the oral presentation given by the author at the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 8) held May 8–10, 2024 at the University of Cantabria in Santander, Spain. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
**1. Introduction**

Pronunciation teaching is no longer considered less important in English language teaching than the other language skills (Murphy & Baker, 2015). It helps learners increase their intelligibility (Pennington, 2021), contributes to the development of their listening skills (Gilbert, 1995; Nunan & Miller, 1995), as well as to lowering their anxiety levels (Baran-Łucarz, 2017). However, pronunciation still remains an underrepresented skill in the language classroom. Many second and foreign language teachers are hesitant about teaching pronunciation. This hesitancy is often linked to a variety of external constraints (e.g., time, school curriculum, etc.) and also to teachers' beliefs about the relevance of pronunciation teaching. Therefore, understanding both the beliefs and the practices of teachers is essential for understanding how pronunciation is approached in different educational contexts.

**2. Theoretical and empirical background**

**2.1 Teacher beliefs**

Teachers' beliefs have been defined as “teachers' psychologically held thinking, conceptions and understanding about EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching and learning” (Zheng, 2015, p. 14). In addition to other aspects of teacher cognitions, these beliefs play a pivotal role in the decision-making process in or outside the classroom (Borg, 2003). A teacher's beliefs can influence their practices and, thus, corroborate with the teachers' methods (Zheng, 2015). Nevertheless, this is not always the case. Numerous outside factors related to the educational context can prevent teachers from implementing their beliefs in their practices, for instance, curricula, learner goals, available materials, available timeframe, etc. (Borg, 2005).

In addition, the educational context, classroom practices and beliefs form a system where each component can impact another (Zheng, 2015). For example, classroom experiences can have an influence on beliefs, while beliefs can also change classroom practices. An illuminating example of the latter would be teacher education. In the case of British pre-service ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers, it was found that an intensive education programme on teachers' beliefs enabled them to consciously validate or change their beliefs and modify their practices accordingly (Borg, 2011). Moreover, as mentioned above, the context of education also affects the teacher's beliefs; the school's curriculum, the students' goals and social expectations all interact with the teacher's belief system. In terms of pronunciation teaching, the shortage of time (e.g., Shah et al., 2017), the lack of suitable materials (e.g., Georgiou, 2019), and assessment criteria which do not include pronunciation (e.g., Bai & Yuan, 2019) are all factors that may discourage teachers from teaching it.

**2.2 Pronunciation teaching practices across contexts**

The paradigm shift from considering pronunciation teaching as the “Cinderella of language teaching” (Kelly, 1969, p. 87) to accepting the benefits of explicit pronunciation instruction has already taken place (Jenkins, 2000; Levis, 2018). Research has shown that pronunciation has a positive effect on the learners and teaching it ensures intelligibility (Bai & Yuan, 2019; Buss, 2016; Jafari et al., 2021; Szyszka, 2016). However, even if teachers express the belief that pronunciation instruction is valuable, their practices are not always in line with their beliefs. For example, in the case of Hong Kong primary and secondary school teachers, most participants reported difficulties in terms of integrating pronunciation (Bai & Yuan, 2019). The study examined 16 primary and secondary school teachers with qualitative methods (i.e., written reflections and follow-up semi-structured interviews). The respondents mentioned their
lack of confidence as the main obstacle to teaching pronunciation, which may stem from an
underlying adherence to the nativeness principle within their school environment. The
nativeness principle emphasises the attainment of native-like pronunciation, while the
intelligibility principle prioritises clear and comprehensible speech as the primary goal (Levis,
2005). The influence of the nativeness principle was further reflected in participants' belief that
only native-speaker teachers are qualified to teach pronunciation, suggesting that native-like
competence was regarded as a prerequisite for effective instruction. The same could be
observed with Iranian and Spanish teachers (Jafari et al., 2021; Nagle et al., 2018). Altogether
66% of the Iranian participants (n = 74) said they would prefer a native-speaker teacher to
cover the pronunciation aspect of language teaching (Jafari et al., 2021). On the other hand,
61% of the 74 Iranian EFL teachers indicated that they included some form of pronunciation
in their classes, despite believing that a native speaker would be a more suitable model. Sifakis
and Sougari (2005) revealed a similar discrepancy among Greek EFL teachers. Teachers
upheld native speakers as the model, although they also acknowledged that a non-native
speaker above a threshold intelligibility level – achieved when a speaker is fully understood by
a listener – could use the language just as effectively.

In terms of how teachers act upon their beliefs, teachers from Brazil, Poland, and Vietnam have reported incorporating pronunciation teaching in their classrooms (Buss, 2016; Szyszka, 2016). Nonetheless, the majority of the techniques applied were implicit and traditional pronunciation teaching methods (e.g., error correction, imitation, and read-aloud sessions) (Szyszka, 2016). In Buss’s study (2016), one participant even considered merely speaking to a student as a pronunciation teaching strategy. Use of only implicit pronunciation techniques with occasional corrective feedback is representative of most studies on teachers’ pronunciation teaching practices (Georgiou, 2019; Quoc et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2017). Only in a few cases are communicative activities or non-traditional methods cited (e.g., Baker, 2014; Jafari et al., 2021). Baker (2014) mentioned that teachers in the US (both native and non-native) used kinaesthetic and tactile methods for reinforcing pronunciation, while Jafari et al. (2021) described a variety of role-play exercises that were more frequently used than repetition. Therefore, despite the fact that teachers advocate for pronunciation instruction and acknowledge the benefits of it, their classroom practices do not necessarily coincide with their beliefs.

The lack of innovative techniques can be attributed to various factors. In most cases, teachers did not receive adequate training in pronunciation pedagogy (Baker, 2011; Buss, 2016; Henderson et al., 2012; Shah et al., 2017). In addition to insufficient training, limited available time (Georgiou, 2019; Quoc et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2017) and a lack of suitable teaching materials (Georgiou, 2019) were among the other aspects that discouraged teachers from using more explicit pronunciation teaching activities in their classroom. Providing teachers with the appropriate tools to integrate pronunciation is crucial: without this, teachers are less confident and less willing to teach pronunciation. Additionally, courses on pronunciation teaching could have an impact on the teachers’ beliefs (Baker, 2011), which might encourage them to include pronunciation more often and in a different manner.

Variables that can influence teachers' beliefs are highly context-dependent, and while teachers' beliefs and practices have been researched, there are no empirical studies specifically on Hungarian EFL teachers' pronunciation teaching beliefs and practices. The few studies available focus on students (Gyurka, 2022; Gyurka & Piukovics, 2023; Piukovics, 2016), and while they do not target teaching practices, data from the students suggest that teachers do not focus on explicit pronunciation teaching (Gyurka, 2022). Uncovering the factors which influence teachers' practices could inform training for pre- and in-service teachers. Therefore, this study was designed to fill the existing gap in the literature and to gain insight into the Hungarian secondary educational context, as well as to address a methodological issue by
validating a questionnaire that could provide information about Hungarian teachers' pronunciation teaching practices on a larger scale. The present research sought to address the following research questions:

**RQ1:** Do the constructs of the questionnaire measure reliably?

**RQ2:** What characterises Hungarian secondary EFL teachers' practices regarding pronunciation as reported by teachers?

**RQ3:** What kind of variables influence Hungarian secondary school EFL teachers' practices regarding pronunciation?

**RQ4:** Are there any significant differences between the pronunciation teaching practices of Hungarian secondary school teachers in terms of (not) having received training in pronunciation teaching methodology?

# 3. Research methodology

## 3.1 Participants

The sample of the study involved Hungarian secondary school teachers working in various types of secondary institutions (e.g., general secondary schools, vocational secondary schools, vocational schools). To recruit them, an online questionnaire was used applying convenience as well as snowball sampling.

A total of 64 secondary school teachers participated in the study with a mean age of 47.78 (SD = 9.57). This showcases the ageing population of primary and secondary school teachers, a phenomenon observed throughout Hungary. The teachers of the study had considerable experience in teaching English as a foreign language measured as number of years in the profession (M = 22.39; SD = 9.66); the youngest participant (age = 25) had 2 years, while the oldest (age = 71) had 49 years of teaching experience.

## 3.2 Data collection and analysis procedures

To answer the research questions, a questionnaire was designed (see Appendix), with questions related to participants' demographic and professional background (e.g., age, teaching experience, prior education in pronunciation teaching), as well as 4 types of Likert scales for rating statements. Items related to two of the constructs from Buss's (2016) survey were adapted to the Hungarian secondary school context.

One set of 16 items targeted teachers' beliefs related to pronunciation teaching in a secondary school environment, e.g., *I think pronunciation teaching is important at a secondary school level*. A second set of 4 items focused on teachers' attitudes regarding such teaching, e.g., *I am confident when teaching pronunciation*. These items used 5-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree.

Likert scales were also used to measure declared frequency of items: first, 15 items explored the construct of how frequently different pronunciation teaching techniques were used, e.g., *Focus on rules: Explicitly teaching English phonetic and phonological rules and showing how they differ from the rules of Hungarian*. Another 15 items probed how often teaching focused on English pronunciation features which are specifically relevant to Hungarian learners of English, e.g., *Word stress e.g., imPORT (verb) – IMport (noun)*. These 30 items also utilised a Likert scale, but the five points represented frequency ranging from never to weekly: 1 = *never*, 2 = *less frequently than every 2-3 months*, 3 = *every 2-3 months*, 4 = *monthly*, 5 = *weekly*. In addition, the questionnaire included an open-ended question, where participants had to type in how frequently they taught pronunciation in general and provide an explanation as to what they
meant by pronunciation teaching. This question was asked at the end of the questionnaire as well to see if their answers had changed.

The questionnaire was administered in May 2023 in an online format, and it took two months to recruit enough participants to be able to validate the questionnaire. The respondents were informed that participation was voluntary and anonymous, and they could opt out at any time. For the quantitative data analysis process, IMB SPSS was used. As a next step, descriptive statistics was used to describe the dataset, and later on, based on the distribution of the data, inferential statistical procedures were run.

# 4. Results

## 4.1 The internal reliability of the constructs (RQ1)

To answer the first research question, the reliability of the scales was checked. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated for each scale to see internal consistency (see Table 1). Dörnyei and Csizér (2012) suggest that the desired Cronbach's alpha level is above 0.7, and in accordance with this, the results showed that the scales had acceptable Cronbach's alpha values except for the pronunciation teaching beliefs. Although the scale measuring attitudes toward pronunciation teaching yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.67, this value was deemed acceptable, as the lower reliability coefficient may have been due to the limited number of items in the scale. However, the scale measuring pronunciation teaching beliefs barely reached the minimum 0.6 Cronbach's alpha value suggested by Dörnyei (2007), therefore, during the analysis, the items were used individually and not as one construct.

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Reliability Analysis of the Scales*

<table><thead><tr><td>Scales</td><td>Cronbach's alpha</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beliefs</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation features</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching techniques</td><td>0.88</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2 Hungarian secondary-school EFL teachers' pronunciation teaching practices (RQ2)

Qualitative data gathered with the open-ended questions showed that a considerable number of teachers equated pronunciation teaching with teaching vocabulary; teaching a new vocabulary item was mentioned as a form of pronunciation teaching in 20 responses (31.25%). Another frequent occurrence was treating pronunciation teaching as corrective feedback: "If somebody pronounces a word incorrectly, I correct it and ask them to repeat it" (P24). Respondents indicated that they correct their students when necessary, rather than devote time to
pronunciation specifically. These open-ended results are seemingly in line with the most commonly used pronunciation teaching technique the teachers reportedly used (see Table 2).

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Descriptive Statistics of Pronunciation Teaching Techniques*

<table><thead><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching technique</td><td><em>M</em></td><td><em>SD</em></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>using listen-and-repeat</td><td>3.77</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>teaching an exercise from the coursebook</td><td>3.39</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>using pair work</td><td>3.06</td><td>1.50</td></tr><tr><td>marking pronunciation in drawing<br>(e.g., underlining the stressed syllable)</td><td>2.91</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td>using the minimal pair technique</td><td>2.89</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>teaching how to read the IPA symbols</td><td>2.39</td><td>1.33</td></tr><tr><td>using a game to practice pronunciation</td><td>2.30</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td>giving metalinguistic explanations; pointing out the<br>differences between English and Hungarian</td><td>2.20</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>teaching pronunciation by relying on touch<br>(e.g., touching the neck to feel voiced consonants)</td><td>2.13</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td>using videos</td><td>2.06</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td>using online games for practice</td><td>2.03</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>teaching how to recognise IPA symbols</td><td>1.97</td><td>1.20</td></tr><tr><td>using Jazz Chants</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>using movement (e.g., clapping)</td><td>1.77</td><td>1.18</td></tr><tr><td>having the students record themselves</td><td>1.69</td><td>0.87</td></tr></tbody></table>

The participants stated that they most frequently employed the “listen and repeat” technique for pronunciation teaching, once every month. This suggests that they only used ‘listen and repeat’ when correcting errors, because vocabulary items are introduced more often than just every month. The second most commonly used technique was using exercises from a coursebook every two to three months. Interestingly, respondents reported very limited use of IPA symbols in the classroom. The results showed that IPA symbols were used for demonstration purposes less frequently than every two to three months, whereas teaching how to write and use IPA symbols was even rarer.

In terms of pronunciation features (see Table 3), silent letters and the dental fricatives were taught the most often; both features were reported to come up around every month. Among the least frequently taught features were the stress-timed rhythm, the weak pronunciation of grammar words, and aspiration. These features were rarely addressed, less frequently than two to three months.
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

*Descriptive Statistics of Teaching Pronunciation Features*

<table><thead><tr><th>Pronunciation feature</th><th><em>M</em></th><th><em>SD</em></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>silent letters</td><td>4.05</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>the dental fricatives</td><td>3.87</td><td>1.24</td></tr><tr><td>word stress</td><td>3.84</td><td>1.35</td></tr><tr><td>the differences between SSBE (Standard Southern British English) and GA (General American)</td><td>3.55</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>the -ed suffix</td><td>3.53</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>the -s suffix</td><td>3.52</td><td>1.17</td></tr><tr><td>the difference between /w/ and /v/</td><td>3.50</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>the /ŋ/ sound</td><td>3.25</td><td>1.32</td></tr><tr><td>vowel reduction in unstressed syllables</td><td>3.23</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td>syllabic consonants</td><td>3.06</td><td>1.44</td></tr><tr><td>the difference between /əʊ/ and /ɔ:/</td><td>3.03</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>aspiration</td><td>2.83</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>the differences between native accents of English (other than SSBE and GA)</td><td>2.50</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>weak forms of grammar words</td><td>2.39</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>stressed-time rhythm</td><td>2.36</td><td>1.24</td></tr></tbody></table>

The overall results of these two scales suggest that Hungarian secondary school teachers include pronunciation features every two to three months (M=3.23; SD=0.91), and that they use some teaching techniques only occasionally (M=2.30; SD=0.71).

**4.3 Variables influencing Hungarian teachers' pronunciation teaching practices (RQ3)**

First, to determine which variables might impact on teachers' pronunciation teaching practices, a series of regression analyses were run using the frequency of pronunciation teaching techniques, and then the frequency of teaching pronunciation features as a dependent variable. The 16 items measuring beliefs about pronunciation teaching were initially entered into the model as independent variables. Items that did not exert a statistically significant influence on the dependent variables were subsequently removed one at a time, with the analyses being rerun after each removal.

The results (see Table 4) show that the explanatory power of the first model is somewhat stronger as it accounted for a greater percentage of variance in the case of the pronunciation features (R² = 0.54) Notwithstanding, the second model also accounts for a considerable proportion of the variance (R² = 0.49). The belief that pronunciation teaching is important at a secondary school level had a positive, albeit weak impact on the frequency of pronunciation features addressed in the lessons. Interestingly, the belief that pronunciation teaching can improve the learners' confidence had a moderately positive effect on the various techniques employed during the lessons, but this did not have an impact on the pronunciation features
taught. The similarity between the two models is that the belief that pronunciation can improve on its own had a weak, but negative influence on how frequently teachers taught pronunciation features and used various pronunciation teaching techniques.

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

*Linear Regression Predicting Frequency of Pronunciation Features and Teaching Techniques*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>R<sup>2</sup></th><th>Importance</th><th>Confidence</th><th>Improve</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pronunciation features</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.36</td><td>n.s.</td><td>-0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation teaching techniques</td><td>0.49</td><td>n.s.</td><td>0.40</td><td>-0.23</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Notes.* (p<0.05). Importance = belief that teaching pronunciation is important at a secondary school level; Confidence = belief that pronunciation teaching improves the learners' confidence; Improve = belief that the learners' pronunciation can improve on its own.

**4.4 The effect of training on pronunciation teaching practices (RQ4)**

To determine whether the training teachers received related to pronunciation teaching methodology played a significant role in terms of their practices, independent-samples *t*-tests were run on the construct of pronunciation teaching techniques and pronunciation features. As there was no significant difference between teachers with and without prior education in relation to either the frequency of teaching pronunciation features or the frequency of using pronunciation teaching techniques, the latter construct was examined for possible latent dimensions to see whether the different dimensions would show a significant difference. The 15 items of the scale were subjected to factor analysis.

<caption>**Table 5**</caption>

*Result of the Factor Analysis*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Pronunciation teaching techniques</th><th colspan="2">Factor loadings</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>reading IPA symbols</td><td>.837</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>writing IPA symbols</td><td>.888</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>teaching rules (metalinguistic explanation)</td><td></td><td>.480</td></tr><tr><td>the minimal pair technique</td><td></td><td>.692</td></tr><tr><td>listen and repeat</td><td></td><td>.467</td></tr><tr><td>drawing</td><td></td><td>.841</td></tr><tr><td>pair work</td><td></td><td>.700</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Notes.* Extraction method: Maximum likelihood; Rotation method: Oblimin. Loadings smaller than 0.45 were removed.
Prior to this, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was verified.<fnref n="1" /> The results yielded a two-factor solution, which can be seen in Table 5. Factor 1 presents a dimension that subsumes teaching the IPA symbols, while factor 2 contains teaching techniques other than the use of IPA in the classroom.

The independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare teachers with prior education in pronunciation teaching methodology (n = 28) and teachers without prior education (n = 36). As the results in Table 6 indicate, there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the frequency of pronunciation teaching when it comes to teaching IPA in the classroom, but not in the case of the other pronunciation teaching techniques.

<caption>**Table 6**</caption>

*The Results of the Independent-Samples t-tests*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">frequency of using other techniques</td><td>with education</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.99</td><td rowspan="2">1.69</td><td rowspan="2">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>without education</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">frequency of teaching IPA</td><td>with education</td><td>2.57</td><td>1.11</td><td rowspan="2">2.30</td><td rowspan="2">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>without education</td><td>1.90</td><td>0.84</td></tr></tbody></table>

**5. Discussion**

The results revealed that Hungarian secondary school teachers indicate that they did not address pronunciation often during lessons, and whenever they did devote time to pronunciation teaching, it was to teach vocabulary items. Dealing with pronunciation only when teaching a new vocabulary item is not sufficient on its own; pronunciation should be considered as worthy of being taught, just like other language aspects, e.g., grammar.

In terms of teaching techniques, “listen and repeat” and coursebook exercises were selected as among the most frequently used techniques, showing the same tendency as in other geographical contexts (see Jafari et al., 2021; Szyszka 2016). Furthermore, the extensive use of listen-and-repeat” is not surprising, as a considerable number of the participants considered vocabulary teaching or mere corrective feedback to constitute explicit pronunciation teaching.

Respondents selected silent letters as the most commonly addressed pronunciation feature. This may be linked to pronunciation being included in the lessons whenever the pronunciation of a vocabulary item seemed problematic. While it is possible to teach the appearance of silent letters as a system, it is highly unlikely that teachers devoted time to demonstrate the pattern to their students. Based on the qualitative answers, teachers probably addressed this feature whenever it caused an issue related to a single vocabulary item. The other pronunciation feature with the highest frequency of teaching was the dental fricatives. This finding leads to an interesting discrepancy between the theoretical underpinnings of pronunciation teaching and

<footnote n="1">¹ The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.73, which exceeded the 0.60 recommended minimal value (George & Maller, 2019); the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity proved to be statistically significant ($X^2$ = 138.70, *p* < 0.001), which further demonstrated that the data was sufficient for the analysis. Then, factor analysis was performed using maximal likelihood and Direct oblimin rotation as it was assumed that the results would correlate.</footnote>
sactual practices, which indicates that the participants' teaching practices might not have been informed by pronunciation teaching theory. As it has been established that pronouncing the dental fricatives does not influence intelligibility (Jenkins, 2000), it might be unnecessary to focus on teaching them. It may nevertheless be valuable to identify and target specific pronunciation features that present persistent challenges for Hungarian learners (e.g., word stress) and whose improvement could further enhance overall intelligibility.

In relation to the different variables which might influence teachers' pronunciation teaching practices, it was found that the belief that pronunciation improves on its own negatively impacts the frequency of teaching. Along these lines, the belief that pronunciation should be taught in secondary education and that it improves the students' confidence had a positive impact on the frequency of inclusion. These findings undeniably highlight the need for well-designed pronunciation teaching methodology courses in teacher education, since only training can provide insight to teachers that can equip them with the necessary knowledge to inform their practices (Borg, 2011).

The important role of teacher education in influencing teachers' practices was also evident as there was a difference between teachers who had a course on pronunciation teaching and teachers who did not. As could be seen above (Table 6), there was a significant difference in terms of teaching IPA symbols, which was expected, since using the IPA symbols to adequately provide metalinguistic explanations might be difficult for untrained teachers. All of these results point to the same tendency observed in contexts outside Hungary: teacher education plays a pivotal role in later pronunciation inclusion (see Henderson et al., 2012; Shah et al., 2017).

**6. Implications**

The findings of this study underscore several important pedagogical implications for pronunciation instruction in Hungarian secondary education. First, the limited nature of pronunciation teaching (typically tied to vocabulary instruction) suggests a need to move beyond this approach. Pronunciation should be taught systematically in the same manner as other language skills, and not merely addressed when individual lexical items are problematic or when introducing new vocabulary items. Second, the results of this study point to the importance of teacher education in pronunciation teaching methodology. More than half of the teachers indicated that they had not received formal instruction in this area. Therefore, there is a pressing need for pronunciation teaching methodology courses in pre-service and in-service teacher education in Hungary. If this came to pass, and teachers had adequate theoretical knowledge of why and how to integrate pronunciation effectively into their classroom practice, their beliefs might change and they might promote pronunciation in their classrooms just like any other language skill.

**Acknowledgements**

The research has been supported by the EKÖP-24 University Excellence Scholarship Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the Source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. This study was also conducted in the frame of project no. PPKE-BTK-KUT-23-2, supported by the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Pázmány Péter Catholic University.
References

Bai, B., & Yuan, R. (2019). EFL teachers' beliefs and practices about pronunciation teaching. *ELT Journal*, 73(2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy040

Baker, A. (2011). ESL teachers and pronunciation pedagogy: Exploring the development of teachers' cognitions and classroom practices. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 2nd pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference* (pp. 82–94). Iowa State University. https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/221/2015/05/PSLLT_2nd_Proceedings_2010.pdf

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. *TESOL Quarterly*, 48(1), 136–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.99

Baran-Łucarz, M. (2017). FL pronunciation anxiety and motivation: Results of a mixed-method study. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. Szymańska-Czaplak & M. Szyszka (Eds.), *At the Crossroads: Challenges of Foreign Language Learning* (pp. 107–133). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55155-5_7

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. *Language Teaching*, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903

Borg, S. (2005). Teacher cognition on language teaching. In K. Johnson (Ed.), *Expertise in second language learning and teaching* (pp. 190–209). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523470_10

Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. *System*, 39(3), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009

Buss, L. (2016). Beliefs and practices of Brazilian EFL teachers regarding pronunciation. *Language Teaching Research*, 20(5), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815574145

Dörnyei Z. (2007). *Research methods in applied linguistics*. Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), *Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide* (pp. 74–94). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340.ch5

Georgiou, G. P. (2019). EFL teachers' cognitions about pronunciation in Cyprus. *Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development*, 40(6), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1539090

Gilbert, J. (1995). Pronunciation practice as an aid to listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), *A guide for the teaching of second language listening* (pp. 97–102). Dominie Press.

Gyurka, N. (2022). Pronunciation activities in the EFL classroom: Important or useless? In K. Heller & I. Steiner (Eds.), *Under the umbrella of applied linguistics* (pp. 200–214). ELTE BTK Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti és Fonetikai Tanszék. [original title: Kiejtésfeladatok a középiskolai angol nyelvórán: fontos vagy felesleges? In K. Heller & I. Steiner (Eds.), *Az alkalmazott nyelvészet esernyője alatt* (pp. 200–214). ELTE BTK Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti és Fonetikai Tanszék.] https://www.eltereader.hu/media/2022/10/alknyelv-2021-22_jav.pdf

Gyurka, N., & Piukovics, Á. (2023). Tailoring international activities for Hungarian learners of English. *Research in Language*, 21(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.21.3.06

Henderson, A., Frost, D., Tergujeff, E., Kautzsch, A., Murphy, D., Kirakova-Naskova, A., Waniek-Klimczak, E., Levey, D., Cunningham, U., & Curnick, L. (2012). The English pronunciation teaching in Europe survey: Selected results. *Research in Language*, 10(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0047-4
Jafari, S., Karimi, M. R., & Jafari, S. (2021). Beliefs and practices of EFL instructors in teaching pronunciation. *Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning, 10*(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.21580/vjv11i110812

Jenkins, J. (2000). *The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals*. Oxford University Press.

Kelly, L. G. (1969). *25 centuries of language teaching*. Newbury House Publishers.

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. *TESOL Quarterly, 39*(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485

Levis, J. M. (2018). *Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108241564

Murphy, J. M., & Baker, A. A. (2015). History of ESL pronunciation teaching. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 36–65). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch3

Nagle, C., Sachs, R., & Zárate-Sánchez, G. (2018). Exploring the intersection between teachers’ beliefs and research findings in pronunciation instruction. *The Modern Language Journal, 102*(3), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12493

Nunan, D., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1995). *New ways in teaching listening* (2nd ed.). TESOL.

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

Piukovics, Á. (2016). The changing role of the IPA in the EFL classroom. In A. Á, Reményi, Cs. Sárdi, & Zs. Tóth (Eds.), *Perspectives in contemporary Hungarian applied linguistics* (pp. 155–164). Tinta Könyvkiadó. [original title: The changing role of the IPA in the EFL classroom. In A. Á, Reményi, Cs. Sárdi, & Zs. Tóth (Eds.), *Távlatok a mai magyar alkalmazott nyelvészetben* (pp. 155–164). Tinta Könyvkiadó.]

Quoc, T. X., Thanh, V. Q., Dang, T. D. M., Mai, N. D. N., & Nguyen, P. N. K. (2021). Teachers’ perspectives and practices in teaching English pronunciation at Menglish Center. *International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1*(2), 158–175. https://ijte.org/index.php/journal/article/view/62

Shah, S. S. A., Othman, J., & Senom, F. (2017). The pronunciation component in ESL lessons: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. *Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6*(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4844

Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. *TESOL Quarterly, 39*(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588490

Szyszka, M. (2016). English pronunciation teaching at different educational levels: Insights into teachers’ perceptions and actions. *Research in Language, 14*(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0007

Zheng, H. (2015). Teacher beliefs as a complex system: English language teachers in China. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23009-2
# Appendix

*Study questionnaire*

## Part 1. The frequency of pronunciation teaching in general

*How often do you teach pronunciation in your lessons?*

1. never

2. less frequently than every 2-3 months

3. every 2-3 months

4. weekly

5. almost every single lesson

*Can you explain in a few sentences why?*

## Part 2. Beliefs about pronunciation teaching

*Below you will find statements about pronunciation teaching. Please indicate your level of agreement on a scale of 1 to 5.*

1. completely disagree; 5. completely agree

1. Teaching pronunciation is important at secondary school level.

2. Pronunciation should be taught to beginners.

3. The language learner's age influences the effectiveness of pronunciation teaching.

4. English spoken with a strong Hungarian accent leads to discrimination abroad.

5. The aim of pronunciation teaching at secondary school level is to eliminate the Hungarian accent.

6. The aim of pronunciation teaching at secondary school level is to make the learner's accent intelligible.

7. The best teacher for teaching pronunciation is a native speaker.

8. When teaching pronunciation, teachers should point out the differences between the sound systems of English and Hungarian.

9. Pronunciation is best taught by explaining rules.

10. Students' pronunciation improves spontaneously with language use.

11. Spending at least six months in the target language country helps improve the learner's pronunciation.

12. Explicit pronunciation instruction helps improve pronunciation.

13. My students like it when I correct their pronunciation.

14. I think my students would like to change their pronunciation.

15. Teaching pronunciation gives students confidence when using the language.

16. Knowing the pronunciation of words improves the learners' listening comprehension.
**Part 3. Attitudes related to pronunciation teaching**

*The following are statements related to your experience when teaching pronunciation. Please also indicate here how much you agree with them on a scale of 1 to 5.*

1 – completely disagree; 5 – completely agree

1. I enjoy teaching pronunciation.

2. I am confident when teaching pronunciation.

3. Teaching pronunciation is difficult.

4. It is exhausting to teach pronunciation.

**Part 4. Pronunciation features**

*How often do you teach the following features? Consider all your groups regardless of level and age.*

1 – never, 2 – less frequently than every 2-3 months, 3 – every 2-3 months, 4 – monthly, 5 – weekly

1. “th” sounds, e.g., *thanks, mother*

2. the difference between *wet* and *yet*

3. the difference between *boat* and *bought*

4. in words ending in -ng, there is no pronounced ‘g’, e.g., *sing*

5. the three-way pronunciation of the -ed suffix, e.g., *loo‘kt’ – clea‘nd’ – nee‘id’*

6. the three-way pronunciation of the -s suffix, e.g., *ca‘tsz’ – do‘gz’ – bus‘iz*<fnref n="2" />

7. word stress, e.g., *poLICE, parTicular*

8. silent letters, e.g., *debt, pneumonia, gnome, write*

9. pronouncing a short ‘h’ after ‘p’, ‘t’, ‘k’, e.g., ‘pʰiɛ, tʰaɪp, kʰite*

10. the pronunciation of -ism at the end of words, e.g., *tourism* pronounced ‘turizöm’ and not ‘turizmö’<fnref n="3" />

11. the pronunciation of grammar words with an ö-like sound, e.g., the sentence *There was a boy* sounds like ‘döörtözö’

12. unstressed syllables, e.g., *pencil, lemon* sound like ‘penszöl’, ‘lemön’, respectively

13. rhythm, e.g., pronouncing the sentence *‘Bob died’* takes the same amount of time as *‘Bob could have died’*

14. the difference between British and American accents

15. differences between other accents, e.g. Canadian, Australian, North of England, etc.

**Part 5. Pronunciation teaching techniques**

*How often do you use the following techniques? Consider all your groups regardless of level and age.*

1 – never, 2 – less frequently than every 2-3 months, 3 – every 2-3 months, 4 – monthly, 5 – weekly

<footnote n="2">² Hungarian orthography was used to represent the endings (/s/, /z/, and /ız/) for easier understanding.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Hungarians often equate the sound /ø/ (represented with <ö> in spelling) with the schwa, which is why this item was formulated as is.</footnote>
1. Completing the pronunciation tasks in the coursebook.

2. Teaching how to recognise phonetic symbols.

3. Learning how to write phonetic symbols.

4. Students listen to the teacher or a recording and then repeat the utterance/word, trying to imitate it as accurately as possible.

5. Practising the difference between words which only differ in one sound, e.g., *bed* – *bad*, *bought* – *boat*, *wet* – *vet*, etc.

6. Marking pronunciation in a text, e.g., marking stress, drawing intonation arrows, etc.

7. Teaching pronunciation by feeling, e.g., touching the neck with a hand while pronouncing voiced and voiceless sounds

8. Teaching pronunciation through movement, e.g., clapping, head bobbing, etc.

9. Using pronunciation teaching videos in class.

10. Using classroom games focusing on pronunciation.

11. Teaching pronunciation using online games.

12. Practising in pairs or groups with dialogue or role-play, with particular attention to pronunciation.

13. Explaining English pronunciation rules and comparing them with Hungarian.

14. Using Jazz Chants for rhythmic practice.

15. Learners record their pronunciation and listen to it.

## Part 6. The frequency of pronunciation teaching in general (again)

I would like to ask you the very first question again. Please answer how often you usually teach pronunciation and if you think your opinion has changed, please describe why.

1. never

2. less frequently than every 2-3 months

3. every 2-3 months

4. weekly

5. almost every single lesson

Can you explain in a few sentences why?

## About the author

**Noémi Gyurka** is Assistant Lecturer at Pázmány Péter Catholic University (PPCU). She holds an MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Teaching Hungarian Language and Literature as a First Language (PPCU, 2022). She is doing her PhD in Language Pedagogy and English Applied Linguistics at Eötvös Loránd University. Her research interests are pronunciation teaching and pronunciation integration in the Hungarian English as a foreign language classroom. She has been working at PPCU since 2022, as a full-time lecturer since September 2024.

Email: gyurka.noemi@btk.ppke.hu
# Fluency in spontaneous description versus story-reading: Learner performance and views

Xavier Martin-Rubió

University of Lleida

## Abstract

One potentially effective way to get learners of an additional language to improve their pronunciation is to ask them to record themselves and reflect on their pronunciation outcomes. This pilot pedagogical study explores that approach in the context of a compulsory one-semester phonology course. The participants (N = 45) were first-year English majors of the English Studies degree at a Catalan university. They were asked to record themselves carrying out two different tasks as part of a compulsory phonology course: describing two images and reading a children's book aloud. Following these tasks, students carried out three activities designed to encourage reflection on their pronunciation: 1) analysing the main fluency measures, 2) selecting three segmental phenomena, and 3) focusing on prosody. The goal of these activities was to get them to reflect on the complexity of the concepts dealt with in the theoretical sessions by seeing the effects of carrying out two very different tasks. Whereas fluency in the first task very much depended on the students' language levels, other factors, such as their attitudes towards character voicing or pitch modulation, played a more prominent role in the second task.

**Keywords:** accent, fluency, pronunciation accuracy, prosody, story-reading

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
**1. Context and objectives**

English Phonetics and Phonology is a course in the first semester of an English Studies bachelor's degree at University of Lleida, in Catalonia, Spain. The course is divided into two sections: the first deals with phonemes and allophones, while the second covers connected speech and intonation. Students record themselves engaging in different types of tasks, and then calculate the fluency measures of their productions, and analyse segmental and suprasegmental phenomena they may find relevant. In other words, students record themselves, and they then analyse and reflect on their oral productions. These students, despite having B2-C1 levels of proficiency, struggle with certain pronunciation aspects, such as pronouncing silent letters, or applying syllable-timed rather than stressed-time rhythm to connected speech.

In this pilot study, my goal was to use two different tasks so that students could see the task impact on fluency, pronunciation accuracy, and prosody. The aim was for them to see, that elements such as their speech rate, pausing, and prosody need to be adapted to meet the task function.

**2. Research on task function and fluency**

Fluency is seen as something positive to be attained when learning another language. A basic definition of fluency is: "the ability to talk with normal levels of continuity, rate and effort" (Starkweather, 1987, p. 12). When speech is constantly interrupted by pauses, continuity is affected; when only a small number of syllables are uttered in a given second, the speech rate is low; and when the speaker struggles to find the suitable word, listeners have to make an unusual amount of effort to understand. However, fluency is not just about speaking fast and pausing in the right places. Speed and pausing are task dependent and thus vary for the same speaker across tasks.

Concerning the relation between fluency and task function, Foster and Skehan (1996) compared spoken productions for a picture narrative, a personal information exchange, and a collaborative decision-making task. They found that the picture narrative contained more silence than the other two. Ejzenberg (2000) found that tasks that entailed interaction were less demanding than monologic tasks. In turn, Derwing et al. (2004) also compared three tasks (a picture narrative, a monologue, and a dialogue), and found that the perception of fluency was lower for the picture description task, explaining that: "the picture narrative imposed constraints that could not be avoided completely ... whereas the monologue and conversation tasks may have allowed [the participants] to rely on scaffolding and formulaic sequences and to have greater control of the content" (p. 671).

The perception of fluency is also influenced by prosody. For example, Derwing et al. (2004) found that prosodic factors varied little across tasks. Wennerstrom (2000) showed that prosody affects listeners' perceptions of L2 fluency when different speakers are compared, but not when different tasks are carried out by the same speakers. The results showed that L2 speakers who used a broad pitch range and who paused in syntactically appropriate places, such as clause boundaries, were rated by trained judges as more fluent than those with limited pitch range who tended to pause mid-phrase.

For this study, two types of tasks are compared: an image-description task and monologic story-reading. Although narratives typically contain more action, image descriptions also impose constraints, as the speaker needs to find the right words to describe what they are seeing, rather than reading words aloud from a page. In turn, reading a story differs greatly in several aspects. Even if the speaker has practised as much as they like and they are 'just' reading words aloud, they still have to differentiate the narrator from the characters, attach emotions to the
words read, and think of the audience, generally children, and how they might enjoy the story the most.

# 3. Methodology

## 3.1 Participants

The initial pool consisted of 59 first-year students enrolled in the English Phonetics and Phonology course as part of the English Studies degree at a Catalan university during the 2023–2024 academic year. Forty-six of the students were female, whereas 13 were male, and all were B2-C1 level, as determined by the placement test which they complete at the start of their first academic year.

## 3.2 Task types, materials and procedure

Two production tasks were used. In the first task, students had to look at two images (see Appendix) for at least one minute and then audio-record themselves describing the two images. For the second task, students were instructed to read a specific children's book aloud: "*Stick Man*" Donaldson, 2008). This kind of book has proven beneficial to teach children new vocabulary (Read, 2014). *Stick Man* is a rhyming book where each line contains four stressed syllables, and the last syllables of each pair of sentences rhyme. The first six lines, for example, end in the following rhymes: *tree* /tri:/ and *three* /θri:/, *jog* /dʒɒg/ and *dog* /dɒg/, *stick* /stɪk/ and *trick* /trɪk/. In our context the rhymes may help students notice the standard pronunciation of words with opaque spelling, for instance *choir* which rhymes with *fire*. The six lines presented below appear in the first four pages of the story, :

Line 1: *Stick Man* lives in the family tree | With his *Stick Lady Love* and their stick children three.

Line 2: One day he wakes early and goes for a jog. | *Stick Man*, *oh Stick Man*, *beware of the dog!*

Line 3: “A stick!” barks the dog. “An excellent stick! The right kind of stick for my favourite trick.

Line 4: “I’ll fetch it and drop it, and fetch it -- and then | “I’ll drop it and fetch it and drop it again.”

Line 5: “I’m not a stick! Why can’t you see, I’m Stick Man, *I’m Stick Man*,

Line 6: I’M STICK MAN, that’s me, And I want to go home to the family tree!”

In the lines, inverted commas are used to indicate a character other than the narrator. *Stick Man* is the main character, and his name is capitalised, as is his *Stick Lady Love*. Italics and an exclamation mark are used to indicate that the narrator is warning *Stick Man* of different dangers he will be facing. The first to speak is the dog (lines 3 and 4), followed by *Stick Man* himself (lines 5 and 6). The dog has confused *Stick Man* with an average stick, so *Stick Man*, after clarifying he is not a normal stick, says “I’m *Stick Man*” three times: the text appears in italics the second time, and in upper case the third time. The dog uses an exclamation mark to indicate how happy he is to have found a stick, and *Stick Man* uses it to indicate how desperate he is to go back home.

The students could rehearse as many times as they wanted. They could also plan, for example, whether they would make voices for the characters in the story, and how they would interpret the use of italics or upper case in the text. Students were asked to submit two audio
files: the one corresponding to the first time they had read the story aloud, and the final version, i.e., the one they were most satisfied with.

These tasks were not assessed, but students had to do them in order to get a mark for three assessed 'activities' in which they analyse their productions from the two tasks. Activity 1 consisted of calculating fluency measures, comparing these measures, and recording an audio analysis of the two sets of results. Activity 2 focused on segmental phenomena in the oral productions of the students. They had to identify and analyse three vocalic and three consonantal phenomena, thinking in terms of pronunciation accuracy and accent variation. Finally, Activity 3 concerned prosody, specifically pitch range.

The two production tasks differed in purpose and degree of spontaneity. For the image description, the limited time students had (1 minute) to prepare what they were about to say meant the degree of spontaneity was expected to be high. In terms of function, the purpose was that the listener could imagine what the images contained. In other words, informational content was the most important component in the text. In contrast, in the final version of the second task spontaneity is supposed to be very limited, as students are all reading aloud the same written text. However, the fact that there are several characters in the story means that students must still choose what to do with this diversity. In terms of function, students were told they had to appeal to their potential audience, i.e., children listening to their rendering of the story. Therefore, entertainment rather than the exchange of information was the main goal.

## 3.3 Calculating fluency measures

The students followed a procedure explained on a website created by the author<fnref n="1" /> in order to calculate the fluency measures of their recordings. They were required to identify three types of chunks in the audio file: silent pauses (of 0.25 seconds or longer), filled pauses (of any length), and bp-units (i.e., between-pauses units, traditionally referred to as runs). They entered the following information into a spreadsheet: the type of chunk, the length of the chunk in milliseconds, and in the case of bp-units, the number of syllables. Then, they calculated the following fluency measures (adapted from Ginther et al., 2010):

* The speed or Speech Rate of the bp-unit (i.e., the number of syllables produced per second) is calculated by dividing the number of syllables by time lengths.

* Speed of production can be calculated in two ways. One way is to calculate the Articulation Rate (AR) per bp-unit (i.e., to add up all bp-unit rates and divide the sum by the total number of bp-units). Another way is to calculate the Rate of Speech Time (ROST); this involves adding up the total number of syllables and dividing it by the speech time (which results from adding the time lengths of all the bp-units). While the first measure is the average rate of all the bp-units, the second provides the overall rate, as if the whole description was a single unit. The two measures render similar rates, which helps students to check they have calculated the rate correctly.

* The Mean Syllables per Run (MSR) is calculated by dividing the total number of syllables by the total number of runs (or bp-units).

* The Speech Time Ratio (STR) is calculated by determining the percentage of the time the student is producing syllables rather than pausing (i.e., Speech Time is multiplied by 100 and divided by the Total Response Time).

<footnote n="1">¹ Xavier Martin-Rubió, https://fmart37.wixsite.com/fluency-accuracy</footnote>
# 4. Results

## 4.1 Fluency and task type

The activities were assessed using the following rubric: spontaneity and length of their oral production (3 points), correctness of the fluency measures (4 points), and clarity and accuracy of their audio analysis of their work (4 points). Of the 45 recordings submitted, 23 were discarded from this study because for these students the accuracy of their fluency measures (item 2) was assessed at less than 3 points. Only the fluency measures which were at least relatively correct (at least 3 out of 4 points) will be analysed here.

The results are presented in Table 1 with the MSR, ROST and STR for task 1 (T1), task 2 (T2), and a section (only the opening four pages) of task 2 (T2s), ordered from the lowest MSR for task 1 to the highest. The 22 students have been assigned a code. The last row includes the average of the measures, and measures above the average in each column are boldfaced. The validity of each student's measures for T1 (i.e., image description) and for T2s

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

*Students' MSR, ROST, STR and Number of Syllables*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Student code</th><th colspan="3">MSR</th><th colspan="3">ROST</th><th colspan="3">STR</th><th colspan="3">Nº of syllables</th></tr><tr><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T2s</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T2s</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T2s</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T2s</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S13</td><td>5.05</td><td>5.23</td><td>4.83</td><td>2.93</td><td>3.08</td><td>3.64</td><td>61.22</td><td>70.53</td><td>66.95</td><td>313</td><td>842</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S07</td><td>5.65</td><td>5.62</td><td>6.44</td><td>3.03</td><td>3.40</td><td>3.78</td><td>71.99</td><td>66.15</td><td>72.45</td><td>226</td><td>820</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S11</td><td>6.80</td><td>5.45</td><td>6.16</td><td>3.67</td><td>3.02</td><td>3.43</td><td>73.88</td><td>68.67</td><td>71.75</td><td><strong>415</strong></td><td><strong>856</strong></td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>S06</td><td>6.97</td><td>6.03</td><td>6.80</td><td><strong>3.98</strong></td><td>3.69</td><td>3.73</td><td>59.24</td><td>68.61</td><td>70.30</td><td>209</td><td>825</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>S18</td><td>6.97</td><td><strong>9.93</strong></td><td><strong>8.14</strong></td><td>3.31</td><td><strong>3.90</strong></td><td><strong>4.11</strong></td><td>63.70</td><td><strong>76.28</strong></td><td>76.33</td><td>244</td><td>844</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>S02</td><td>7.00</td><td>6.52</td><td>7.80</td><td><strong>4.30</strong></td><td><strong>4.21</strong></td><td><strong>4.34</strong></td><td>64.34</td><td>64.04</td><td>73.44</td><td>364</td><td>848</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>S05</td><td>7.22</td><td>5.97</td><td><strong>8.36</strong></td><td>3.25</td><td>2.78</td><td>3.12</td><td>70.91</td><td><strong>74.92</strong></td><td><strong>78.17</strong></td><td><strong>426</strong></td><td>848</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>S15</td><td>7.98</td><td><strong>8.19</strong></td><td><strong>8.29</strong></td><td><strong>4.11</strong></td><td><strong>3.96</strong></td><td><strong>4.17</strong></td><td><strong>78.56</strong></td><td><strong>81.00</strong></td><td><strong>84.47</strong></td><td><strong>511</strong></td><td>835</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S19</td><td>8.40</td><td><strong>7.66</strong></td><td><strong>9.62</strong></td><td>3.55</td><td><strong>3.83</strong></td><td><strong>4.09</strong></td><td>73.75</td><td><strong>74.29</strong></td><td><strong>83.95</strong></td><td><strong>403</strong></td><td><strong>858</strong></td><td><strong>125</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S01</td><td>8.54</td><td>7.04</td><td>7.19</td><td><strong>3.95</strong></td><td><strong>3.83</strong></td><td><strong>4.09</strong></td><td>74.84</td><td>71.85</td><td>74.80</td><td><strong>504</strong></td><td>845</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>S20</td><td>9.01</td><td><strong>9.96</strong></td><td>6.94</td><td>3.26</td><td>3.02</td><td>3.89</td><td><strong>76.69</strong></td><td><strong>80.48</strong></td><td><strong>82.64</strong></td><td><strong>626</strong></td><td>820</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>S09</td><td><strong>9.53</strong></td><td>6.82</td><td><strong>8.93</strong></td><td><strong>4.10</strong></td><td><strong>3.89</strong></td><td>3.79</td><td>74.64</td><td>61.27</td><td>72.64</td><td><strong>410</strong></td><td><strong>914</strong></td><td><strong>125</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S17</td><td><strong>10.06</strong></td><td>5.29</td><td>7.25</td><td>3.73</td><td><strong>4.20</strong></td><td><strong>4.17</strong></td><td><strong>81.31</strong></td><td>65.58</td><td>75.43</td><td><strong>694</strong></td><td>852</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S08</td><td><strong>10.26</strong></td><td><strong>8.80</strong></td><td><strong>11.50</strong></td><td>3.32</td><td><strong>3.90</strong></td><td><strong>4.17</strong></td><td><strong>81.34</strong></td><td><strong>83.68</strong></td><td><strong>83.22</strong></td><td>277</td><td>845</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>S10</td><td><strong>10.84</strong></td><td><strong>7.44</strong></td><td>7.59</td><td><strong>4.28</strong></td><td><strong>4.49</strong></td><td><strong>4.21</strong></td><td><strong>83.27</strong></td><td>72.75</td><td>76.35</td><td><strong>423</strong></td><td><strong>925</strong></td><td><strong>129</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S21</td><td><strong>11.13</strong></td><td><strong>8.28</strong></td><td><strong>8.29</strong></td><td>3.60</td><td>3.66</td><td><strong>3.96</strong></td><td><strong>84.94</strong></td><td><strong>77.17</strong></td><td><strong>80.19</strong></td><td>356</td><td>853</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S22</td><td><strong>11.18</strong></td><td><strong>8.43</strong></td><td><strong>12.89</strong></td><td><strong>4.26</strong></td><td><strong>4.15</strong></td><td><strong>4.71</strong></td><td><strong>81.48</strong></td><td><strong>78.64</strong></td><td><strong>85.40</strong></td><td><strong>425</strong></td><td>835</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S12</td><td><strong>11.22</strong></td><td>6.78</td><td>5.41</td><td><strong>3.86</strong></td><td>2.94</td><td>2.87</td><td><strong>80.15</strong></td><td><strong>76.72</strong></td><td><strong>78.43</strong></td><td>303</td><td><strong>875</strong></td><td><strong>119</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S16</td><td><strong>12.53</strong></td><td><strong>8.11</strong></td><td><strong>9.08</strong></td><td><strong>4.06</strong></td><td>3.52</td><td>3.63</td><td><strong>78.53</strong></td><td><strong>81.24</strong></td><td><strong>83.42</strong></td><td><strong>426</strong></td><td>852</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>S04</td><td><strong>13.37</strong></td><td>6.00</td><td>6.72</td><td><strong>4.53</strong></td><td><strong>4.10</strong></td><td><strong>4.48</strong></td><td><strong>84.81</strong></td><td>68.07</td><td>73.62</td><td><strong>401</strong></td><td>846</td><td><strong>121</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S14</td><td><strong>13.54</strong></td><td><strong>9.74</strong></td><td><strong>10.55</strong></td><td><strong>4.60</strong></td><td><strong>4.33</strong></td><td><strong>4.36</strong></td><td><strong>83.40</strong></td><td><strong>80.28</strong></td><td><strong>80.90</strong></td><td>325</td><td><strong>886</strong></td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>S03</td><td><strong>13.96</strong></td><td><strong>7.30</strong></td><td>7.56</td><td><strong>4.24</strong></td><td><strong>3.85</strong></td><td>3.89</td><td><strong>83.88</strong></td><td><strong>74.36</strong></td><td><strong>81.07</strong></td><td><strong>391</strong></td><td><strong>913</strong></td><td><strong>121</strong></td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>9.42</td><td>7.30</td><td>8.02</td><td>3.81</td><td>3.72</td><td>3.94</td><td>75.77</td><td>73.48</td><td>77.50</td><td>380</td><td>856</td><td>118</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* Results are ordered from the lowest MSR for task 1 to the highest. Figures above the average in each column are typed in bold. The last row shows students' mean (M) scores per measure (T1, T2, T2s).
(i.e., the first four pages of the story) was manually checked by the author.<fnref n="2" /> The measures for reading aloud the start of the story (T2s) were deemed a sufficiently representative sample of how each student measured it for the rest of the story, and thus the accuracy of measures was not verified or assessed for the rest of the story (T2).

Two initial conclusions can be drawn from the results. First, students have quite different fluency levels, and second, students approach the tasks differently. Students S12, S14 or S22 produce more than 10 syllables between pauses on average in T1, whereas S07 or S13 produce fewer than 6 syllables between pauses. S22 produces 8.43 syllables in T2, whereas S12's result for T2 is quite different, with an MSR of 6.78 syllables. Both students show great fluency in the spontaneous task, but while S22 does not change the style for the story-reading task, S12 makes voices and pauses within text lines for dramatic effect, which might be the reason why the result shows a low MSR for T2. This difference is even more remarkable at the start of T2 – in the first four pages, the MSR's difference between S12 and S22 is 7.48 syllables (5.41 for S12 and 12.89 for S22).

There is also great diversity in the total number of syllables produced for the image description task. The two images for the description were chosen so that students had numerous elements to comment on, and as discussed above, item 1 of the rubric rewarded the spontaneity as well as the length of the student's production. The recommendation was to produce descriptions lasting between 2–5 minutes, and some students seem to have decided to limit the description to two minutes, whereas others described it in greater detail over a longer stretch of time.

Also noteworthy is the different number of syllables for T2, given that all students were reading the same text. In the opening pages of the story, there is a 15-syllable gap resulting from the different pronunciation of words like *family* (produced with two or three syllables), or *Stick Man* (with two or three syllables); in the latter case, 3 syllables were produced by adding a vowel before the initial /s/. In the whole story, there is a difference of 105 syllables between the student who read the text using the smallest number of syllables and the one producing it with the greatest number of syllables.

Figure 1 presents changes in the syllable count across bp-units for each of the 22 students, from the 6 lines recorded in T2s. It reflects how different strategies were adopted for reading

<caption>Figure 1</caption>

Syllable count in T2s: Bp-Units (x-axis) and Syllables (y-axis)

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="2">² The author/researcher is also the study participants' teacher.</footnote>
the story: the flatter lines represent those who paused more often, and the steeper lines represent those who read entire lines without pausing.

## 4.2 Fluency and prosody of story-reading

The impact of fluency and prosody in story-reading can be illustrated by comparing two students with opposite approaches to the task. S12 and S22 had very similar MSRs for T1 (11.18 and 11.22 respectively), but their approach to T2 was different in many respects. In terms of the number of syllables, S22 produces the canonical 116 syllables, whereas S12 produced 119. S12 mistakenly said *be aware* (which adds one syllable) rather than *beware*, adds *ah* (one more syllable) before the second *I'll drop it* that is not in the text, and does not use the contraction *I'm* the third time Stick Man tells us who he is, i.e., *I AM STICK MAN*, which has one more syllable than *I'M STICK MAN*.

More detail for this comparison is provided in Table 2, where numbers in brackets indicate the rounded lengths (in milliseconds) of the pauses. S12 pauses 13 more times than S22, with a total length of pausing of 12.5 seconds for S12 and just 4.2 seconds for S22. S22 reads the first two lines without pausing, whereas S12 pauses three times. The same happens when the dog starts talking; S22 delivers the first two lines by the dog without pauses, whereas S12 pauses three times.

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*The Two Renderings of the First Four Pages by S12 and S22*

<table><thead><tr><th>S12</th><th>S22</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stick Man (<b>0.5</b>) lives in the family tree (<b>0.8</b>) with his Stick Lady Love (<b>0.5</b>) and their stick children three (<b>1.2</b>) one day (<b>0.4</b>) he wakes early and goes for a jog (<b>0.8</b>) Stick Man (<b>0.4</b>) oh Stick Man (<b>1.0</b>) be aware of the dog (<b>1.0</b>) a stick (<b>0.9</b>) barks the dog an excellent stick (<b>0.6</b>) the right kind of stick (<b>0.3</b>) for my favourite trick (<b>0.7</b>) I'll fetch it (<b>0.5</b>) and drop it (<b>0.4</b>) and fetch it (<b>0.3</b>) and then ah I'll drop it and fetch it and drop it again (<b>0.8</b>) I'm not a stick (<b>0.3</b>) why can't you see I'm Stick Man (<b>0.4</b>) I'm Stick Man (<b>0.3</b>) I am Stick Man that's me (<b>0.4</b>) and I want to go home to the family tree</td><td>Stick Man lives in the family tree with his Stick Lady Love and their stick children three (<b>0.7</b>) one day he wakes early (<b>0.3</b>) and goes for a jog (<b>0.4</b>) Stick Man oh Stick Man beware of the dog (<b>0.8</b>) a stick barks the dog an excellent stick the right kind of stick for my favourite trick (<b>0.3</b>) I'll fetch it and drop it and fetch it and then (<b>0.3</b>) I'll drop it and fetch it and drop it again (<b>1.1</b>) I'm not a stick why can't you see I'm Stick Man I'm Stick Man I'm Stick Man that's me (<b>0.3</b>) and I want to go home to the family tree</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* Numbers in brackets indicate the rounded lengths (in milliseconds) of pauses.

S12 and S22 also had to decide whether to individualise the voices of the narrator, the dog and Stick Man, and how to convey the emotions of these characters as represented by exclamation marks. S12 decided to vary the voices. For example, the voice of her dog had a
different quality (lower pitch) from the other two voices, and she used a very wide pitch range (see Figure 2, blue line right). In contrast, S22 did not change voice quality and her pitch range remained unaltered (see Figure 2, blue line left).

<caption>Figure 2</caption>

S22's Dog (left) and S12's Dog (right)

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Regarding productions for Stick Man, the contrast is even greater as shown in Figure 3. S12 adopted a low-pitched voice and decided to translate the italics and upper case into pitch variations. In the first rendering, S12 placed the tonic syllable on *Stick* and used a falling tone. For the text in italics she moved the stress to the word *Man* and used a fall-rise tone. For the upper-case version, she disregarded the contraction in the text and generated an extra syllable, and also used a fall-rise tone. Finally, in the last tone unit, she pronounced the tonic syllable *me* with a rise-fall tone (even though she wrote fall-rise (F/R) in her Praat image).

S22's version (see Figure 4) is a single tone unit in which the three times Stick Man shouts *I'm Stick Man* are read in exactly the same way, delivering all the syllables with no pauses for 0.25s or more (as shown in Table 2), and with the final falling tone on the tonic syllable *me*. Pitch variation is also minimal, compared to the productions of S12.

The Praat images presented here are from students' work, as they were taught how to use Praat to analyse the intonation of their own productions, using Tench's (2011) tripartite notion of intonation as tonality, tonicity, and tone. The analysis for Activity 2 was submitted as a text document with Praat images on the page. The analysis for Activity 3 was submitted in a video, in which they shared their screen, and used a PowerPoint presentation including Praat images and corresponding audio files. Overall, they did well to master these basics of Praat, despite inevitable errors (as in Figure 3).<fnref n="3" />

<footnote n="3">³ See Herment (2018, 2023) on the difficulty of using Praat with students.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
## 4.3 Student impressions of the tasks

In order to understand how students experienced the tasks, a short questionnaire was used before the end of the course. It was answered by 20 of the 22 students analysed for this study. To the question: "Did you make voices for the dog, the girl? If not, did you consider doing it and decided not to in the end? Or you just thought there was no need?", the answers were evenly split. Five tried to differentiate the characters somehow but considered what they had done did not amount to making voices as illustrated in the following comment: "I tried to change a little bit the intonation but I didn't make voices" (S15). Ten students answered they had indeed made voices, and five gave a negative answer. Of these five responses, two students felt it was not necessary, S22 being one of them. They gave the following reasons: "it was necessary but I decided not to do it" (S02), "didn't think to do it" (S14), and "because I did not like how they were turning out" (S19).

## 5. Discussion

This study presents the results of a teaching approach implemented in an undergraduate course. The approach focuses on using the differences between two tasks to make students reflect on the concepts of fluency, pronunciation accuracy, and prosody. The story-reading instructions allowed the students the freedom to choose whether they wanted to make voices or not, because not everyone would be comfortable making them; this freedom was suggested by a colleague who teaches optional, practical theatre workshops which these students can take for credit within the degree programme.

Given the results, including the answers to the questionnaire, I would like to replicate this pilot study, encouraging students more explicitly to try and differentiate the voices more and to play with the possibilities at hand. Students' questionnaire responses suggest that a good option may be to show students what people do when reading stories and to reflect on the impact these decisions have. For instance, some students make voices that sound very different from the narrator's, with extreme pitch variation, others make enough minor variations so that the listener can identify a new character has appeared, and some do nothing at all. In the first task, it is just a matter of providing information in a clear way, and speech rate and pausing should correspond to their proficiency level, whereas the second task is an entirely different endeavour and students should be aware of this. Those who do nothing at all sound monotonous and would probably not capture children's attention, and thus fail to fulfil the task's entertainment function. In addition, being able to widen one's pitch production and to realise that the intensity, pitch, and tonicity variations can impact on the audience's perception is of great importance for improving learners' overall speech performance. In other words, this story reading task could represent a golden opportunity for learners to experience success in playing with their voice, in changing, for example, their prosody and voice quality.

This study presents insights derived from a pedagogical approach to teaching about phonemes, fluency, connected speech, and intonation. On the one hand, it confirmed my intuition that fluency measures would change in the two tasks because, apart from the student's level, their approach to story-reading would translate into a different way of delivering syllables. On the other hand, it made me realise that some students simply see no need to vary pitch and differentiate characters, which might mean more work is needed to make them understand the relevance of pitch variation and character differentiation.
## 6. Conclusion

This pilot study presents an approach to teaching phonology in which students are asked to record themselves spontaneously describing images and reading a children’s book. For the spontaneous picture description task, the student’s proficiency level was a very important factor, something of which they were well aware. However, for the story-reading task, some participants seem to be unaware of what they need to do pronunciation-wise to make their speech more appealing. Providing learners with more opportunities to play with and grasp the importance of voice and pitch variations might raise their phonological awareness and further improve their L2 pronunciation.

## References

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). *Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.2.14)* [Computer program]. www.praat.org

Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M.J. & Thomson, R.I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. *Language Learning, 54*(4), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x

Donaldson, J. (2008). *Stick Man*. Alison Green Books.

Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), *Perspectives on fluency* (pp. 287–313). University of Michigan Press.

Foster, R., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18*(3), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047

Ginther, A., Dimova, S., & Yang, R. (2010). Conceptual and empirical relationships between temporal measures of fluency and oral English proficiency with implications for automated scoring. *Language Testing, 27*(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364407

Herment, S. (2023). From research to teaching: The case of English rising contours. In A. Henderson & A. Kirkova-Naskova (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 83–96). Université Grenoble-Alpes. https://hal.science/hal-04168829

Herment, S. (2018). Apprentissage et enseignement de la prosodie : l’importance de la visualization. *Revue française de linguistique appliquée, 23*(1), 73-88.

Read, K. (2014). Clues cue the smooze: Rhyme. pausing. and prediction help children learn new words from storybooks. *Frontiers in Psychology, 5*, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00149

Starkweather, C. W. (1987). *Fluency and stuttering*. Prentice Hall.

Tench, P. (2011). *Transcribing the sound of English: A phonetics workbook for words and discourse*. Cambridge University Press.

Wennerstrom, A. (2000). The role of intonation in second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), *Perspectives on fluency* (pp. 102–127). University of Michigan Press.
# Appendix

*The two images for the spontaneous description task*

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Image B</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

## About the author

Xavier Martin-Rubió holds bachelor degrees in English Philology and in Audiovisual Communication from Universitat de Lleida, and a master's degree in European Studies from Maastricht Universiteit. He defended his doctoral dissertation in 2011. He worked as an English teacher in a high school, two official language academies and two private universities before moving back to Universitat de Lleida. He started working full-time at UdL in December 2014, where he is now an associate professor. He has been involved in several competitive projects as a member of CLA, and after a gap of several years, he is publishing again on the internationalisation of and EMI in higher education, beliefs and emotions in additional language learning, and fluency and accuracy measurements across tasks.

Email: xavier.martinrubio@udl.cat
Pennington, M. (2025). A critical examination of research on the teaching of pronunciation in a second language.
In A. Kirkova-Naskova, P. Humánez-Berral, & A. Henderson (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 55–70). Université Grenoble-Alpes.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16695648

# 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_22.png" /></figure>

This chapter is based on the plenary talk given by the author at the 8th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 8) held May 8–10, 2024 at the University of Cantabria in Santander, Spain. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.