# Proceedings of the 7th International Conference English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 7)

Alice Henderson, Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova

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

## To cite this version:

Alice Henderson, Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova (Dir.). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 7). Université Grenoble-Alpes, 2023, 10.5281/zen-odo.10205580. hal-04306572

HAL Id: hal-04306572

https://hal.science/hal-04306572v1

Submitted on 3 Dec 2023

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>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on
English Pronunciation: Issues
and Practices (EPIP 7)

edited by
Alice Henderson
Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova

Université Grenoble-Alpes,
Grenoble, France
2023
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on
English Pronunciation: Issues
and Practices (EPIP 7)

edited by
Alice Henderson
Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova

Université Grenoble-Alpes,
Grenoble, France
2023
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.10205580

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

2023
# Table of Contents

<table><tr><td>Acknowledgements</td><td>i</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction: Extending the reach of English pronunciation issues and practices<br>Alice Henderson & Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova</td><td>iii</td></tr><tr><td>Regional accents are OK for teaching but not too regional: A discussion of accent preference in British teaching<br>Alex Baratta</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Computer-aided pronunciation training in 2022: When pedagogy struggles to catch up<br>Sylvain Coulange</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Peer pronunciation teaching: Initial training of Czech pre-service primary teachers<br>Kristýna Červinková Poesová</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Pronunciation of Czech secondary school English teachers and their cognition about pronunciation<br>Lenka Čtvrtečková, Ondřej Fischer & Radek Skarnitzl</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>A short teaching intervention on word-stress rules and pronunciation learning strategies: An exploratory study<br>Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska & Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Englishville: A new way of practising prosody<br>Kizzi Edensor-Costille</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching EFL pronunciation with audio-synchronised textual enhancement and audiovisual activities: Examining questionnaire data<br>Valeria Galimberti, Joan C. Mora & Roger Gilabert</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>From research to teaching: The case of English rising contours<br>Sophie Herment</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>How L2 English pronunciation contributes to miscommunication in two French/English tandem conversation tasks<br>Céline Horgues & Sylwia Scheuer</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Production and perception aspects of weak form in Czech-accented English<br>Lenka Kalvodová & Radek Skarnitzl</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Engaging research: Empowering ESL/EFL teachers to teach pronunciation<br>Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova</td><td>122</td></tr></table>
"Thinking about your pronunciation": Examining phonological self-awareness with a novel task 138

Hanna Kivistö de Souza & Pekka Lintunen

English-medium-instruction lectures: Tackling the issue of (dis)fluency and accuracy measures 149

Xavier Martin-Rubió

L2 pronunciation: Seven learning/teaching paradigms found in instructed learning 160

Piers Messum & Roslyn Young

Task-based pronunciation teaching helps to improve L2 vowel production: Generalisation effects 172

Ingrid Mora-Plaza

Effects of silent letters on the L2 English pronunciation of L1 French learners 188

Marine Mouquet & Paolo Mairano

Lyrics as a means of raising phonetic awareness: Transcription, pronunciation, and descriptive phonetics combined 199

Marta Nowacka

A longitudinal study of individual difference in foreign language pronunciation development: The case of vowel production in Ecuadorian learners of English 214

Alejandra Pesantez & Volker Dellwo

English Pronunciation in a Global World: A MOOC course for pronunciation teaching 225

Laura Rupp, Amrita Das, Alisah Kamps & Ericka Acosta

French learners of English struggle to identify nasalised American vowels in CVN words 236

Francesca Sanvicente, Emmanuel Ferragne, Sylvain Navarro & Anne Guyot Talbot

Understood or not? Issues in using orthographic transcription for assessing intelligibility to international listeners of English 249

Veronika Thir

Reducing acoustic overlap of L2 English vowels through gestures encoding lip aperture 261

Xiaotong Xi, Peng Li & Pilar Prieto

Pointing on charts is a third way of working in the pronunciation classroom 271

Roslyn Young & Piers Messum

Index 281
Acknowledgements

Preparing a text for publication requires the attentive, eagle-eyed efforts of numerous people, starting with the authors. We thank them all profusely for trusting us with their work. It was a true leap of faith to send us a text, with the vague promise of an online publication that would have a DOI. We hope the final result meets your expectations.

Reviewers have also played a critical role in bringing these Proceedings to life, ensuring double-blind peer-reviews. They brought much more than just another pair of eyes and their intellectual openness; they also freely contributed their specific expertise – sometimes dropping other work to engage in back-and-forth discussions about possible solutions, potential exceptions. The following colleagues worked extremely hard to bring out the best in each text:

<table><tr><td>Gemma Archer</td><td>University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland</td></tr><tr><td>Małgorzata Baran-Łucarz</td><td>University of Wrocław, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Walcir Cardoso</td><td>Concordia University, Montréal, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Vincent Chanethom</td><td>Princeton University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Graeme Couper</td><td>Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand</td></tr><tr><td>Tracey Derwing</td><td>University of Alberta, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Rias van den Doel</td><td>University of Utrecht, Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Jonás Fouz González</td><td>University of Murcia, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Helen Fraser</td><td>University of Melbourne, Australia</td></tr><tr><td>Dan Frost</td><td>University Grenoble-Alpes, France</td></tr><tr><td>Francisco Gallardo Del Puerto</td><td>University of Cantabria, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Esther Gomez Lacabex</td><td>University of the Basque Country, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Nadine Herry-Bénit</td><td>University Paris Nanterre, France</td></tr><tr><td>Amanda Huensch</td><td>University of Pittsburgh, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Anna Jarosz</td><td>University of Łódź, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Okim Kang</td><td>North Arizona University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>David Levey</td><td>University of Cadiz, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Pekka Lintunen</td><td>University of Turku, Finland</td></tr><tr><td>José Mompéan-Gonzalez</td><td>University of Murcia, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Charlie Nagle</td><td>University of Austin, Texas, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Mireia Ortega</td><td>University of Barcelona, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Mirosław Pawlak</td><td>Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Arkadiusz Rojczyk</td><td>University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Leticia Quesada</td><td>Nebrija University, Madrid, Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Veronica Sardegna</td><td>Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Linda Shockey</td><td>University of Reading, England</td></tr><tr><td>Radek Skarnitzl</td><td>Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic</td></tr><tr><td>Sinem Sonsaat-Hegelheimer</td><td>Iowa State University, USA</td></tr><tr><td>Arizio Sweeting</td><td>University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Elina Tergujeff</td><td>University of Jyväskylä, Finland</td></tr><tr><td>Linda Terrier</td><td>University Toulouse - Jean Jaurès, France</td></tr><tr><td>Jan Volín</td><td>Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic</td></tr><tr><td>Shona Whyte</td><td>University Côte d'Azur, France</td></tr><tr><td>Adam Wilson</td><td>University of Lorraine - Metz, France</td></tr><tr><td>Magdalena Wrembel</td><td>Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Elisabeth Zetterholm</td><td>Linköping University, Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Beth Zielinski</td><td>Macquarie University, Australia</td></tr></table>

Online access to the Proceedings only became a reality thanks to the enthusiastic efforts of three colleagues who operate very much behind the scenes. Isabelle Rousset, the research engineer in the LIDLEM research group at University Grenoble-Alpes, lobbied hard to make sure all group members had regular, individual access to reference librarians from our university libraries. Thanks to Isabelle's foresight and tenacity, we came into contact with two formidably competent and patient colleagues: Sandrine Corvey-Biron and Anne-Christine Jacob. They repeatedly came to our rescue, explaining Creative Commons Licenses and the value of DOIs to us, as well as walking us through all the steps to create a collection of texts on HAL. We cannot thank them enough for their friendly smiles and creative calm in finding solutions to every problem we brought to them. We would also like to thank Aynur Kaso for helping us with the front cover design for the Proceedings.

Finally, we both feel a deep debt of gratitude towards our families and friends who accepted our (temporarily) hermit-like existence and inability to go out and play as much as we would have liked, especially in the final months. Without their support, it would not have been possible for us to bring these Proceedings to you.

Alice Henderson and Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova
France and North Macedonia

August 2023
# Introduction: Extending the reach of English pronunciation issues and practices

Alice Henderson
Université Grenoble-Alpes

Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje

*English Pronunciation: Issues & Practices* is an international bi-annual conference devoted to how English pronunciation is taught and learnt, together with the associated scientific, social, and pedagogical issues. The central goal of EPIP conferences is to bring together teachers and researchers at all stages of their careers, from undergraduate students to well-established and internationally renowned scholars.

These proceedings provide extended accounts of selected oral presentations, posters, and workshops from EPIP7,<fnref n="1" /> held in 2022 at the Université Grenoble-Alpes in France. As our aim was to bring out people's best work and to help authors at the beginning of their career paths, we asked reviewers to provide constructive criticism, as well as analyses of each paper's strengths and weaknesses. Although the double-blind peer-review process resulted in the rejection of some contributions, the ones included here cover a range of current research themes, as shown by the words with at least 41 occurrences in the proceedings (Table 1):<fnref n="2" />

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

*Number of Occurrences (#) of Keywords in Compiled Proceedings (82,756 tokens; 6513 types)*

<table><thead><tr><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>554 pronunciation</td><td>136 vowels (pl.)</td><td>79 instruction</td><td>55 sentences</td></tr><tr><td>552 English</td><td>127 target</td><td>74 perception</td><td>54 errors</td></tr><tr><td>432 learners (pl.)</td><td>125 accent</td><td>71 orthographic</td><td>54 listeners</td></tr><tr><td>288 participants</td><td>102 learner</td><td>69 British</td><td>51 transcription</td></tr><tr><td>243 speech</td><td>99 French</td><td>66 intonation</td><td>49 syllables (pl.)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹ Earlier EPIP conferences were held in Skopje, North Macedonia (2019), Caen, France (2017), Prague, Czech Republic (2015), Murcia, Spain (2013), Grahamstown, South Africa (2011), after being launched in Chambéry, France (2009).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² These results were extracted from the compiled Proceedings using the software AntConc (Anthony, 2022).</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td><td># – Keyword</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>229 teaching</td><td>94 tasks</td><td>66 syllable</td><td>48 comprehensibility</td></tr><tr><td>214 vowel</td><td>91 intelligibility</td><td>64 Czech</td><td>45 prosody</td></tr><tr><td>194 teachers (pl.)</td><td>90 accents (pl.)</td><td>64 pointing</td><td>45 rising</td></tr><tr><td>183 learning</td><td>90 teacher</td><td>62 awareness</td><td>43 contrasts (pl.)</td></tr><tr><td>179 native</td><td>89 training</td><td>61 accented</td><td>42 gestures</td></tr><tr><td>176 language</td><td>88 sound</td><td>60 feedback</td><td>41 Spanish</td></tr><tr><td>150 stress</td><td>85 input</td><td>60 proficiency</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>141 production</td><td>85 phonological</td><td>59 MOOC</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. The words followed by (pl.) also occur in the singular form.

The search terms are merely the keywords suggested by authors or terms which seemed important to the editors, so the results do not provide a representative picture of the field of L2 pronunciation research. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how such results change over time, and having online proceedings for EPIP makes this sort of text query much more accessible. For example, will MOOCs and gestures appear more frequently as objects of study? Will the interest in researching orthography, strategies, intelligibility or comprehensibility endure? And which populations or aspects of spoken English will dominate future studies?

As editors, we wanted to make sure that EPIP proceedings are accessible to as wide and varied a readership as possible. We also felt that it was an ideal time for the EPIP community to benefit from a new format, rather than the printed books published following previous editions of EPIP (Henderson, 2010; Kirkova-Naskova et al., 2021; Mompeán & Fouz-González, 2015; Volin & Skarnitzl, 2018). Although these books were fine accomplishments and remain tremendously useful, each one took up to 3 years to produce and was often relegated to dusty shelves. Our challenge was, therefore, to find a way of sharing research more quickly and more openly. A major source of inspiration in this quest was the online PSLLT archives<fnref n="3" /> at Iowa State University. These archives are a recognised source of stimulating, often-cutting edge work in our field and many of us frequently browse them to update our knowledge, even if we were able to attend the actual conference in North America. It therefore seemed logical to publish proceedings to EPIP conferences online and thereby create another reliable location for publishing and sharing research freely.

One means of presenting research online is to create a website, another is to extend a conference website and host the contributions within it. We discussed the available options with the reference librarians at Université Grenoble-Alpes, and they argued that the best way to promote our field in general, as well as the individual authors and the LIDILEM<fnref n="4" /> research group, was to opt for Open Access and to procure Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) for each text. DOIs make it easier to retrieve documents and these remain accessible over the long term, because the identifier is not linked to a conference or research group website. Moreover, some countries give more value to documents with a DOI when assessing public research institutions, so DOIs are also strategically important for many researchers' careers. Working in Europe, and given the urgent need to promote the values of freedom, peace, social justice, scientific progress, and cultural and linguistic diversity, in line with European Union aims,<fnref n="5" /> we felt it was important to obtain the DOIs from a European institution, rather than from a commercial

<footnote n="3">³ https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/conferences/pronunciation-in-second-language-learning-and-teaching-conference/psllt-archive/</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ https://lidilem.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en</footnote>
service. To our surprise, we learned that we could obtain DOIs from a repository called Zenodo, “a memory institution for particle physics”<fnref n="6" /> founded in 2013 at CERN<fnref n="7" /> and originally intended for European Community funded research. Zenodo’s mindset is perfectly in sync with ours at EPIP:

> To fully understand and reproduce research performed by others, it is necessary to have all the details. In the digital age, that means all the digital artefacts, which are all welcomed in Zenodo. [...] Quite literally we wish there to be no reason for researchers not to share! (Zenodo, About section, para. 7)

Zenodo is one manifestation of the international open access and open data movement, which we fully support. However, we also wanted to have an online space where we could assemble the contributions as a recognisable object. We thus chose the open science archive created by France's ministry for research and higher education. Known as HAL, the archive ensures that all uploaded documents are “well referenced by search engines and interconnected with other services (ORCID, preprint servers).”<fnref n="8" /> Each time a reader opens or downloads a text via HAL, their actions are cross-referenced. This raises the online profiles of researchers and, more broadly, bolsters the field's representation in citation and abstract databases.

Investigating the technicalities of Open Science, DOIs, and Creative Commons licenses is one way we have tried to show respect for our contributors. Authors' trust and reviewers' generosity must be encouraged and facilitated, as they are crucial to all of us in the field and essential in preventing the commodification of academia. Indeed, many of us have been contacted by journals or publishers who will publish research work, but only for a fee. By supporting Open Science, we can foster the ideal of sharing our work widely without such fees, but it is up to us to remain our own gatekeepers while ensuring (and raising) the quality of our work. The entire field can benefit from this, but it requires us to engage in rigorous, double-blind, peer review.

The rest of this introduction briefly summarises the 23 contributions included in these proceedings and reflects the diversity of issues, approaches, and contexts. The Table of Contents lists contributions in author-alphabetical order, as we chose not to group them into sections (thematically or based on the format of the conference contribution). Because all the contributions start with a detailed abstract, the following summary presents them in relation to three aspects which often guide how we read proceedings. These aspects are not always self-evident from titles or abstracts, yet may inspire readers to seek deeper contact with each contribution:

- *contextual*: Where are the researchers working? What type of participants are involved?

- *methodological*: Is the work quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods – and if the latter, which methods and tools have been combined?

- *pedagogical*: Is a transfer to teaching made explicit or implied?

First, the research contexts are predominantly European, reflecting the fact that all EPIPs but one have been hosted in a European country. One contribution is about Ecuadorian students and another involves listeners from 81 countries, but otherwise the participants are all European – ranging from English teachers in Britain, to users of Catalan and Spanish, Czech, Finnish, French, Italian, Macedonian, or Polish, in their respective countries. Participants are primarily

<footnote n="6">⁶ https://about.zenodo.org/</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ https://www.home.cern/</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ https://hal.science/</footnote>
in the 19 to 25-year-old bracket and majoring in English at university, although two studies focus on teenagers in high school (Mora-Plaza; Galimberti et al.). Proficiency levels vary from intermediate to advanced (B1-C2). In future we hope to see work from other contexts and countries, and with learners who are younger or older than the average here, especially as research into ageing and language learning gains momentum. Five contributions focus on future or in-service teachers, addressing teacher cognition (Čvrtečková et al.), degree of pedagogical content knowledge (Červinková Poesová), issues related to accent and models (Baratta), choice of teaching/learning paradigm (Messum & Young), and the value of pointing on charts (Young & Messum). Four contributions explore technology – phone apps (Coulange), a website with a real-time 3D spectrogram (Edensor-Costille), a plugin for visualising prosody (Herment), and a MOOC (Rupp et al.) – and are primarily aimed at adults, even though these tools can be accessed by people of any age and from anywhere on Earth with a good Internet connection.

The widest diversity is found in relation to methodology and tools, which is a sign of a dynamic field that brings together researchers from many academic and professional backgrounds. Mixed methods seem to be well-established, with more than half of the contributions combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. For example, numerous contributions include acoustic analyses of learner productions and combine them with questionnaire data, and/or interviews, and/or Likert-scale assessments. One exploits learner diaries of strategy use (Duckinoska-Mihajlovska & Kirkova-Naskova), and another taps into peer teaching observations and reflections, lesson plans, and feedback provided by the teacher trainer (Červinková Poesová). Such combinations enrich the explanatory power of discussion sections and provide new insights. Two contributions draw on spoken corpus data, one from tandem conversations (Horgues & Scheuer), and one from both read-aloud and spontaneous speech (Herment). One contribution tackles the methodological issues of measuring intelligibility with extremely diverse listener populations (Thir), while another provides an honest, semi-narrative account of how difficult it can be for a multinational team to agree on measures (Martin-Rubió). We are delighted to be able to include a longitudinal study (Pesantez & Dellwo), as we need to know more about what happens over the long term – what is retained and what fades, at what rate, and by whom.

Finally, it is encouraging that so many contributors address pedagogical implications or applications, as we did not require contributors to include a detailed section on this.<fnref n="9" /> Eight intervention studies explore issues such as word stress and strategy instruction (Duckinoska-Mihajlovska & Kirkova-Naskova); input types (hand gestures, Xi et al.; audio-synchronised textual enhancement, Galimberti et al.; written forms, Mouquet & Mairano); task-based pronunciation teaching (Mora-Plaza); using lyrics to promote phonetic awareness (Nowacka); using a web-based tool (Edensor-Costille); and promoting phonological self-awareness (Kivistö-De Souza & Lintunen). These constitute solid responses to the need for more research on teaching interventions, to determine what works. Twelve contributions either imply or make clear recommendations on the following: how to analyse apps and the need for more collaboration between teachers, researchers, and engineers (Coulange); how technology can promote social, cultural, and linguistic inclusion (Rupp et al.); the need for teachers to be aware of the paradigms they adopt or set aside (Messum & Young); how reflecting on teaching practices and contexts can be empowering (Baratta; Kirkova-Naskova); the importance of individual differences in learning trajectories (Pesantez & Dellwo) and of multimodal pronunciation teaching strategies (Xi et al.); the importance of not trying to cover too much (Nowacka); the need to take into consideration the orthographic systems available to learners

<footnote n="9">⁹ This was obligatory for the book which followed EPIP 6 (Kirkova-Naskova et al., 2021). Similarly, the title of a recent book from a related conference – *Accents*, founded by Prof. Ewa Waniek-Klimczak at the University of Łódź, Poland – showcases pedagogical implications (Sardegna & Jarosz, 2023).</footnote>
(Mouquet & Mairano); and, finally, the influence of learners' proficiency levels when choosing how to broach intonation (Herment), vowels in nasalising contexts (Sanvicente et al.), or connected speech phenomena (Kalvodová & Skarnitzl).

To conclude, we believe that readers from many different horizons will find something of interest in these proceedings. They may discover new authors to follow in the future, or even discover work by established researchers of which they were unaware. Hopefully delving into the proceedings will be as enjoyable as the experience of editing them.

## References

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

Henderson, A. (Ed.). (2010). *English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP): Proceedings of the first international conference*. Université de Savoie.

Kirkova-Naskova, A., Henderson, A., & Fouz-González, J. (Eds.). (2021). *English pronunciation instruction: Research-based insights*. John Benjamins.

Mompeán, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (Eds.). (2015). *Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sardegna, V., & Jarosz, A. (Eds.). (2023). *English pronunciation teaching: Theory, practice and research findings*. Multilingual Matters.

Volin, J., & Skarnitzl, R. (Eds.). (2018). *The pronunciation of English by speakers of other languages*. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

## About the authors

**Alice Henderson** is an Associate Professor at Université Grenoble - Alpes, France where she teaches English for Specific Purposes to Science & Technology students. She taught English phonetics and phonology to English majors for 24 years and has been involved in training teachers in France, Norway, Poland, and Spain. In 2009 she initiated the international bi-annual conference *English Pronunciation: Issues & Practices*. Her research interests include English pronunciation teaching and learning, the perception of foreign-accented speech, and English Medium Instruction (EMI). Much of her research has focused on speakers, but she is now intrigued by listeners' roles, from an intercultural and sociolinguistic perspective.

Email: alice.henderson@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr

**Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova** is an Associate Professor in English phonetics and morphology in the Department of English Language and Literature, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia. She also teaches research methodology (MA 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* (John Benjamins, 2021). She was an assistant editor-in-chief for *The Journal of Contemporary Philology*.

Email: akirkova@flf.ukim.edu.mk
**Regional accents are OK for teaching but not too regional: A discussion of accent preference in British teaching**

Alex Baratta

University of Manchester

Accent can still be a contentious topic in Britain, with accent-based preference, if not prejudice, in turn reflecting class-based prejudice. Thus, accent in Britain often functions as a linguistic proxy for class and as such, negativity ascribed to accents judged to be working class still exists. This paper reflects the views of two British teachers from a larger sample within the primary and secondary sectors of teaching, seeking to better understand the role that accent plays in the British teaching profession. In doing so, it addresses the central question: what are the implications for teachers with broad accents in a profession that champions equality, yet set against the societal reality of accent-based prejudice? From these two teachers’ accounts, the results show that accents perceived as broad and/or too ‘regional’ are those which are targeted for modification by senior staff. However, the two teachers have different attitudes, with one agreeing to the modification, and the other in complete disagreement. From these two accounts, we can glean an insight, however small, into the role that accent plays in one’s professional identity as a teacher, in a country where accent continues to be of particular relevance.

**Keywords:** accent, teaching, accentism, class, professionalism

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# 1 Introduction

Accent-based prejudice is hardly a unique phenomenon. In some cases, it can be reflected in banter, perhaps not intended to offend. However, it can lead to negative judgements made of individuals, with accompanying stereotypes linked to their supposed intelligence, trustworthiness and friendliness (Baratta, 2021; Hughes et al., 2012; Mugglestone, 2003).

This has relevance for the teaching profession, in which a teacher's voice, and by implication accent, is of importance. If we consider the British context of teaching in particular, at both the primary and secondary levels, then an issue is the class-consciousness which is still present in British society (Rickett, 2023). Putting the two points together, what are the implications for British teachers who have accents judged to be working-class, accents often referred to as broad varieties (Baratta, 2021)? What might the implications be for these teachers, whose accents are stigmatised in society? That is, if these negative judgements are just as relevant in the classroom as they are on the city streets, then are teachers expected to modify their accents in some way? If so, the modification might be self-selected by the teachers, and responded to with an overall objective attitude – in principle, no different than choosing formal attire for teaching as opposed to wearing, for example, pyjamas. However, we need to consider the implications for teachers who do not agree with modifying their ‘home accents’, as it were, despite directives from senior staff and/or mentors.<fnref n="1" /> When we consider the need for ‘professionalism’ in teaching, what might this mean on a linguistic level? Such a question is largely unaddressed in the context of British teaching, with the focus within this paper addressing this gap, and for the following reasons.

First, given the sheer diversity of accents in Britain, a study within British teaching would be useful. This is because such linguistic diversity might be represented within a profession in which one's accent – notably for phonics teaching – is relevant. Granted, while there are only two teachers whose accounts are presented within this paper, their feedback derives from larger studies which involved, or focused on, teachers' accents in British teaching (Baratta, 2016, 2018). These are, to my best knowledge, the only studies which have focused solely and exclusively on the British teaching profession, though Sharma et al. (2020) have further discussed the role of accent in professional contexts overall in Britain, discovering that accent-based prejudice is a live issue. Second, as mentioned, what might the implications be for stigmatised accents within the teaching profession? Do negative societal connotations apply to teachers' accents? And yet should this be the case, for a profession in which equality is surely encouraged and for teachers who are otherwise fully qualified to teach? Finally, in instances of accent modification, what are the specific phonological targets teachers are expected to aspire to, as part of what might be considered a professional – if not standard – accent?

# 2 Previous research on accentism

A dislike of certain accents can lead to negative judgements made of the speakers, based on accents which are perceived to lack societal prestige and/or attractiveness (see Coupland & Bishop, 2007). Accentism can lead to action, such as people having their job threatened, or not being hired, based on their accent (Lippi-Green, 1997; Udavant, 2020), and there are implications for credibility within the courtroom based on the accents of witnesses (Cantone et al., 2019).

In the British context, accentism has an arguably long history, based in large part on class-based assumptions. The accent referred to as Received Pronunciation (RP) is one that has

<footnote n="1">¹ In British teacher training, a mentor is responsible for guiding the trainee teacher throughout their course, offering feedback and advice, for example.</footnote>
existed as a prestige accent (Snell & Andrews, 2016; Trudgill, 2002) and exists in Britain, and certainly England, as a class-based accent. Its associations with the upper-middle, and upper-class, reflects its prestige, given positive associations and connotations connected with the upper-class. RP is not a linguistic monolith, however, and comes in several varieties, with Wells (1982, p. 280) discussing U-RP, adoptive RP and mainstream RP, with U-RP having connotations of ‘an elderly Oxbridge don’ or ‘a jolly-hockey-sticks schoolmistress at an expensive private girls’ school’. More recently, Cruttenden (2014) references RP as having been influenced by more regional accents such as Cockney, which, to some extent, might reflect Estuary English (Przedlacka, 2001). While current associations of RP, certainly the more conservative varieties (e.g., U-RP), might reflect snobbery (Hughes et al., 2012), and even be regarded as outdated (Lindsey, 2019), RP nonetheless maintains, in all its varieties, connotations of upper-class status and with this, specific images that can reflect education and sophistication (Addison & Mountford, 2015), for example. Given that RP exists as a class-based accent, this in turn implies a lack of *regional*-based phonology. Herein is arguably a key to the prestige of RP – it can be spoken from Newcastle to London, and everywhere in between. By removing regional features, it frees speakers from being tied to a given city region, which subsequently means that the stereotypes associated with inner cities in Britain are also removed (Baratta, 2021).

This leads to the need to clarify what is meant by terms such as broad in relation to accents. Such a term reflects societal labels in Britain, often used to describe people in terms of indeed having broad/strong accents (as well as mild accents) (Baratta, 2018). The opposite end of the accent spectrum involves individuals being viewed as *not* having an accent, which simply means that regional sounds – those that could immediately tie the speaker to a given region, whether on a city- or local-level – are absent (Baranowski & Turton, 2015; Cardoso et al., 2019; Ramsaran, 2015; Strycharczuk et al., 2020). The implications for such neutral accents in Britain are that they – and the speakers – are perceived as middle-class (Cardoso et al., 2019; Strycharczuk et al., 2020). From here, associations connected with positive connotations, such as social mobility (Donnelly et al., 2019; Friedman, 2016), can be derived. In this manner, we are essentially dealing with a linguistic means to signal social mobility in the workplace by means of avoiding accents which might, in society’s view, suggest the opposite. There is indeed evidence that noticeably regional accents can have negative implications for the workplace (see Sharma et al, 2020), including contexts such as finance (Moore et al., 2016), library work (Lippi-Green, 1997), and banking in Britain (The Sutton Trust, 2017).

In terms of the implications for accent within the British teaching profession, information is limited. Garner (2013) reports on an OFSTED<fnref n="2" /> inspection in which a teacher from Cumbria (in Northern England), but teaching in the South of England, was told at an inspection to sound ‘less Northern’. Addison and Mountford (2015) investigate the speech of both teachers and students in higher education settings in England, notably in terms of class perceptions and the ways in which broad regional accents are perceived to be disfavoured in higher education, lacking social capital, and the overall perception of a need to ‘fit in’, with regional accents sometimes perceived as not being an appropriate fit. In terms of the particular phonemes which serve as linguistic examples of broad accents, examples are now provided. To illustrate, words such as *back*, *face*, and *baby*, if respectively realised with broad Liverpool, Yorkshire and Newcastle accents, would sound thus [bax], [fe:s], and [bɪəbi]. Such identifiable features are referred to as phonological giveaways (Baratta, 2021), or as salient features (Labov, 1972). But regardless of who is doing the listening, if individuals seek to present an image of being upwardly mobile, such broad accents might be perceived incompatible for certain professions.

<footnote n="2">² OFSTED stands for Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, an organisation in Britain dedicated to maintaining (and improving where necessary) standards for schools and teaching.</footnote>
Likewise, it is accents that are perceived, to some extent, as being regionless (and simultaneously not reflecting a working-class background), that are arguably perceived as standard (Bibby et al., 2017).

## 3 Research question

This research is guided by the question: what are the implications for two British trainee teachers of having a broad regional accent?

## 4 Research methodology

I conducted three studies from 2014 – 2015. My first study (Baratta, 2016) obtained the views of 92 British participants from a range of locations and professions, using a questionnaire to explore their accents in terms of: a) how accent defined them and contributed to their personal identity; b) instances in which they had chosen to modify their accent, or been told to, and the rationale for such modification; and c) how accent modification impacted on their personal identity, if at all. Six of the responses came from teachers and the nature of their responses led to the following two studies, which focused solely on teachers in Britain. Study two interviewed 11 trainee teachers from two Northern English universities, with study three again using a questionnaire to obtain the views of 15 trainee teachers from two Southern English universities. For both studies two and three (Baratta, 2018), the questions remained the same, but with a questionnaire being used for study three. This was a necessary compromise for data collection, which otherwise would have involved multiple instances of travel and expense.

A notable departure from study one in terms of focus is that studies two and three did not focus on identity but instead focused solely on instances in which teachers had been told to modify their accents as part of their teaching role. From here, rather than ask participants to explain how modification impacted on personal identity, I instead focused on something more concrete – the teachers’ immediate feelings on the matter. These three studies provided me with a great number of accents, including from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland, though the majority of accents were English.

Out of a total of 32 teachers, only two teachers’ accounts have been provided in this paper; the first teacher is from study two, self-identified as having a Huddersfield accent; the second teacher is from study three, self-identified as having a South London accent (see Table 1 below, which provides an overview of each study, in terms of identifying key aspects such as the teachers’ accents, and whether they were told to modify or not). The two teachers will be identified in the paper as T1 and T2, respectively. This decision to focus on just two teachers is first and foremost based on purely practical concerns, as the kind of qualitative depth this paper seeks to provide within the word limits cannot be accomplished for larger numbers of teachers’ accounts. Second, the two accounts have been selected as they illustrate the mentors’ rationale for accent modification for all the teachers in studies two and three (Baratta, 2018) – the need to be understood. Again, this does not suggest, nor can it imply, that this is a nationwide issue. Nor can the accounts of just two teachers hope to speak for other teachers who have been provided with accent-based guidance or directives. But what can hopefully be gleaned from these two accounts are the ways in which accent is relevant in the context of teaching, more so when teachers are in training to become fully-fledged teachers and enter the profession; as such, what is deemed to be a ‘professional’ accent?

Finally, it is acknowledged that the presentation of these two accounts might seem one-sided. That is, we have two teachers who were told by mentors to modify their accents during training, yet there are thirteen teachers from the three studies (Baratta, 2016, 2018) who were *not* given accent-based guidance or directives. However, there are two points to mention in this
<table><caption>**Table 1**</caption><caption>Presentation of Teachers' Backgrounds</caption><thead><tr><th>Study #</th><th>Self-identified accent</th><th>Teaching level</th><th>Asked to modify language use?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Study 1</td><td>Rosendale</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Manchester</td><td>Primary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Glaswegian</td><td>University</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Stockport</td><td>University</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Barnsley</td><td>University</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Rochdale</td><td>EFL, secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Study 2</td><td>Huddersfield</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Stoke-onTrent</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Manchester</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Broad Manchester</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Derbyshire - Yorkshire mix</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Warrington, so a Manchester-Liverpool mix</td><td>Primary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Nottingham</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Rochdale</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>'Not quite posh enough for RP' (the teacher is from Portsmouth)</td><td>Secondary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Liverpool</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Derry, Northern Ireland</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">Study 3</td><td>Midlands</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Medway</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>South London, quite strong</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Irish, Dublin</td><td>Secondary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Estuary English</td><td>Secondary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>RP/Lancastrian</td><td>Primary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>'Standard English'</td><td>Secondary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>A mixture of Cockney and Irish (Republic of Ireland)</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Mostly RP with some Estuary English</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>A happy medium between Estuary English and RP</td><td>Primary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Mild Belfast</td><td>Secondary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Southern English</td><td>Primary</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Well-spoken Northern Irish</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Irish, but not strong</td><td>Primary</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Newcastle</td><td>Secondary</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

regard. First, it is arguably the case that accent-based guidance provides us with a clearer picture in terms of what the particular issues might be in the minds of mentors – and the teachers themselves. The act of providing guidelines for teachers' accents suggests that the accents are, to some extent, judged to be problematic. Once this is explained in phonological terms, then we have a more precise discussion as to what the salient features in question might be for
certain accents and more broadly, for teaching; this is something currently lacking in the specific context of the British teaching profession. Second, the two accounts provided here nonetheless offer variety in that we have two teachers provided with accent directives, who reacted to the guidance in very different ways, based in large part on how these two individuals understood what is meant by the development and projection of a ‘professional’ teacher identity.

5 Data analysis and results

The first account is from T1, an individual from Huddersfield in the Northern English county of Yorkshire, who teaches at the primary level. The second account comes from T2, a secondary Art teacher from Croydon, South London, who described her accent as strong South London. Both teachers also identified as being working class, with their accents arguably a reflection of such.

T1 was told to modify his accent by his mentor in specific phonological terms that indeed involved removal of the more salient features – the phonological giveaways tied to his region of origin. T1 illustrated this with the expression *go home*, in which, as he put it, the ‘teacher me’ would realise this expression as [gɔ hɔ:m]. This still allows for an overall Yorkshire accent to be used for teaching, but a variety that is “shined up a bit” (Baratta, 2018, p. 129), as T1 explained. T1 then referenced his self-described ‘home me’, which would realise the expression thus [gə hɔ:m]; the use of the schwa vowel in place of the long [o] sound is clearly identifiable to Yorkshire (Finnegan, 2015). T1 also referenced removing glottal stops from his speech, a feature often thought of in connection with Cockney speech, but now found throughout England (Baranowski & Turton, 2015). However, T1 was in complete agreement with the need to modify his accent and regarded the directive in largely neutral terms. As he explained, there is a constant need to make students “enunciate and speak properly” (Baratta, 2018, p. 127). While T1 also explained that there is a “richness to be had” (p. 128) regarding the variety of accents in Britain, his view regarding accent within teaching is that teachers need to be understood by their students and in turn, students need to be understood in society. Thus, T1 explained the need to speak with a less regional accent as a means to be better understood by his students but also, to act as a linguistic role model of sorts, so that the students would in turn emulate his speech. T1 even felt that his students respected him based on his teacher accent but also based on his own instruction to students to adjust their accents, such as avoiding glottal stops. Given that T1 was teaching in his home region during his training placement, it seems unlikely that a broad accent would be difficult to understand. But if we consider the wider societal considerations, then a broad Yorkshire accent might, outside this region, be less understood. Though speculative, it may well be that T1 is exhorting his students – by self-demonstration – to avoid broad accents so as to avoid negative stereotyping for their future. This reflects the views of a primary school principal in England as reported in several British news outlets, who instructed his students to avoid 10 expressions which were effectively banned from the classroom, some of which were accent-based (e.g., *somefink*), as a means to create a more professional persona for their future careers (Fricker, 2013). That T1 used the word ‘proper’ in relation to his, and students’ speech, is telling. Notions of ‘proper’ speech can be a controversial issue, but for T1, and the school principal referenced, this idea is tied to avoidance of specific regional sounds to create more positive perceptions in the future workplace.

T2 explained that she was “very proud” (Baratta, 2018, p. 156) to be from Croydon, and as such, she was proud of her accent as a phonological symbol of her regional – and class-based – origins, acknowledging that Croydon is referred to as “the ghetto” (p. 156). As with T1, she took pride in her origins associated with a specific part of a city; thus, we can see the
intersection of class and region (Donnelly et al., 2022). For T2, her accent served to benefit her teaching, as she explained that she can “easily relate to students...because I sound more like them” (p. 156). Thus, an accent shared by teachers and students, especially if it is a stigmatised accent, can serve to build a strong rapport, as T2 believes. T2’s mentor was somewhat of an outlier, in that in addition to referencing the need to be understood, he had also told T2 that she needed to use an accent deemed ‘professional’ for teaching. As a phonological example of an ‘unprofessional’ accent by implication, T2’s mentor instructed her to write the word *water* with a capital < t >, as in *waTer*, in order to remind her to avoid the glottal stop. Here, then, is a clear phonological giveaway, one which serves to signal pride in T2’s regional and class origins, but signals unprofessionalism, at least in speech, according to her mentor. T2 further explained that her mentor “was very patronizing and tried everything to change my accent” (p. 155), causing T2 to feel that she “was never good enough” (p. 155). For T2, however, her accent *is* professional, because she believed it helped her students to approach her and perceive her more positively.

# 6 Discussion of results and key findings

Findings based on the discussion of just two individuals do not constitute a firm base on which to generalise to the wider population of British teachers, nor do the full results from 32 British teachers (Baratta, 2016, 2018). However, the purpose of these studies was never to make generalisations in the first instance but rather, to simply investigate the role that accent plays in British teaching, whether positive, negative or neutral, and from here, determine what insights, if any, can be gleaned from the sample. On that basis, the results suggest that for these two teachers, their regional accents per se are not necessarily proscribed for teaching; it is the broad nature of their accents that appears to be the issue. This reference to broad accents (and by implication, neutral or mild accents) is arguably reflective of terms used by people within society, as well as being referenced in studies focused on accent (Baratta, 2018; Strycharczuk et al., 2020). The phonological implications are a removal of the more readily distinctive sounds, those that identify an individual immediately to a region, be it a city region or indeed a locality within a city, and with this, suggested working-class origins. The *societal* implications of such modification are that individuals are arguably perceived better, precisely because their modified accents give less clues to regional – or class-based – origin.

Though speculative, it might be the case that within the teaching profession, and other professions connected to social mobility, individuals might choose to lessen their broad accents (Baratta, 2018; Donnelly et al., 2019, 2022; Sharma et al., 2020). This in turn might signal to interlocutors – in this case mentors – that such individuals seek to present a more ‘fitting’ image for the context. Phonologically-speaking, this means modifying accents which suggest working-class status, precisely by removing the more salient features, or, phonological giveaways. The need to ‘fit in’ and develop linguistic capital as a means to do so was clearly illustrated in the study of Addison and Mountford (2015), which was focused on higher education. Within my paper, while there was no specific discussion from mentors or teachers regarding ‘fitting in’ or developing more linguistic capital, it is strongly suggested that these notions are implied, given the directives for ‘professional’ language, a point over which T1 and T2 disagree.

Overall, however, there is little linguistic clarity for teachers in Britain on any official level, beyond the need to use standard English (which can be spoken using any accent). The linguistic guidance that was provided to trainee teachers in particular within the entirety of my studies appears to be based, officially, on mentors’ desire to ensure the teachers they train are understood by their students (Baratta, 2016, 2018). Again, however, by implication students are being prepared for the world beyond school, and thus accent intelligibility, as demonstrated
by their teachers, might be regarded as code for speaking with a less stigmatised accent. As
Addison and Mountford (2015) make clear, “being able to ‘talk the talk’ can have a significant
return on investment in this game of worth because of how talking and accent is coded with
symbolic value” (p. 10). While their study provided more depth and specificity in terms of class
perceptions within higher education, my study has sought, in part, to provide phonological
clarity regarding accents perceived as working-class, those perceived to be notably regional.

7 Conclusion

Based on the results from a sample of merely two teachers, there is no room to generalise. What
can be stated, however, is that we have an insight into the experiences of these two teachers in
particular, even though they are teaching different subjects, at different levels and using
different accents. The commonality is that they both have accents self-described as ‘strong’
and ‘working-class’. Thus, rather than generalise, I instead seek to merely ask whether or not
the experiences of these two teachers might be similar for others with broad accents? While
this appears to be the case when taking into consideration the results of my overall studies on
this matter (Baratta, 2016, 2018), only a large-scale study across the UK and involving a variety
of taught subjects could give us a more comprehensive picture as to the reality when broadly-
accented teachers enter the teaching profession. For the one mentor who explained to T2 the
need for ‘professional’ speech, perhaps it could be argued that while this is somewhat of a blunt
directive, it could be seen as nonetheless more honest – a reflection of what society, and even
students’ parents, might indeed believe. If so, this could mean that accents deemed compatible
for British teachers are those which avoid the broader varieties and instead seek to sound more
neutral, as has been described. The result would be that the negative connotations associated
with such accents, often based on class assumptions are diminished, if not removed, and
teachers are perceived to be more professional as a result.

However, in the absence of any specific or official accent-based guidance in Britain,
teachers' accents may continue to be discussed between themselves and mentors during
training. A joint discussion between teachers and mentors could be a useful starting point to
initiate a conversation on this topic, leading to updated standards, to include a full description
of what exactly the expected accent standards are. On the other hand, this might also appear
prescriptive, which is arguably what some teachers wish to avoid regarding their accents. In
either case, whether official or unofficial, this small-scale study at least implies that there are
expectations for accent within British teaching beyond these two individuals. For some
teachers, being told to modify their accent is regarded as an inconvenience at least, prejudicial
at worst (Baratta, 2018). A vast array of accents is heard outside the school gates, so to include
those accents within the classroom – including broad varieties – could help students with
similar accents feel empowered, because ‘sir/miss sounds like me’.

References

Addison, M., & Mountford, V. (2015). Talking the talk and fitting in: Troubling the practices of speaking and ‘what you are worth’ in higher education in the UK. *Sociological Research Online*, *20*(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3575

Baranowski, M., & Turton, D. (2015). Manchester English. In R. Hickey (Ed.), *Researching Northern Englishes* (pp. 293–316). John Benjamins.

Baratta, A. (2016). Keeping it real or selling out: The effects of accent modification on personal identity. *Pragmatics and Society, 7*(2), 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.2.06bar

Baratta, A. (2018). *Accent and teacher identity in Britain: Linguistic favouritism and imposed identities*. Bloomsbury.
Baratta, A. (2021). Varieties of 'standard accents' among teachers in contemporary Britain. *World Englishes*, 1–16. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.111/weng.12561

Bibby, T., Lupton, R., & Raffo, C. (2017). *Responding to poverty and disadvantage in schools*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cantone, J., Martinez, L., Esqueda, C., & Miller, T. (2019). Sounding guilty: How accent bias affects juror judgments of culpability. *Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 17*(3), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2019.1623963

Cardoso, A., Levon, E., Sharma, D., Watt, D., & Ye, Y. (2019). *Inter-speaker variation and the evaluation of British English accents in employment contexts* [Conference presentation]. *19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019*. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.

Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. *Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11*(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00311.x

Cruttenden, A. (2014). *Gimson's pronunciation of English*. Penguin.

Donnelly, M., Baratta, A., & Gamsu, S. (2019). A sociolinguistic perspective on accent and social mobility in the UK teaching profession. *Sociological Research Online, 24*(4), 496–513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418816335

Donnelly, M., Gamsu, S., & Baratta, A. (2022). Accent and the manifestation of spatialised class structure. *The Sociological Review, 70*(6), 1100–1118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221076188

Finnegan, K. (2015). Sheffield. In R. Hickey (Ed.), *Researching Northern English* (pp. 227–250). John Benjamins.

Friedman, S. (2016). Habitus clivé and the emotional imprint of social mobility. *The Sociological Review, 64*(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12280

Fricker, M. (2013, November 14). Yow cor spaek lyuke that! West Midlands school bans pupils from using ‘damaging’ regional slang. *The Mirror*. http://mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/black-country-slang-banned-halesowen-2791066.

Garner, R. (2013, November 18). Teacher ‘told to sound less Northern’ after Southern Ofsted inspection. *The Independent*. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/teacher-told-sound-less-northern-after-southern-ofsted-inspection-8947332.html

Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., & Watt, D. (2012). *English accents and dialects*. Hodder.

Labov, W. (1972). *Sociolinguistic patterns*. Blackwell.

Lindsey, G. (2019). *English after RP: Standard British pronunciation today*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). *English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States*. Routledge.

Moore, J., Higham, L., Mountford-Zimdars, A., Ashley, L., Birkett, H., Duberley, J., & Kenny, E. (2016). *Socio-economic diversity in life sciences and investment banking*. Social Mobility Commission.

Mugglesone, L. (2003). *Talking proper: The rise of accent as social symbol*. Clarendon Press.

Przedlacka, J. (2001). Estuary English and RP: Some recent findings. *Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36*, 35–50.

Ramsaran, S. (2015). RP: Fact and fiction. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.), *Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson* (pp. 178–190). Routledge.

Rickett, B. (2023). "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." The discursive (un)stitching of classed (un)belonging in 'elite' ideals. [Presentation]. *Psychology of classed (un)belonging in 'elite' work Symposium*. University of Leeds, January 27th, 2023.

Sharma, D., Erez, E. Watt, D., & Perry, C. (2020). Accent bias in Britain. Project report, Queen Mary University of London & the University of York.

Snell, J., & Andrews, R. (2016). To what extent does a regional dialect and accent impact on the development of reading and writing skills? *Cambridge Journal of Education, 47*(3), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1159660

Strycharczuk, P., López-Ibáñez, M., Brown, G., & Leemann, A. (2020). General Northern English: Exploring regional variation in the North of England with machine learning. *Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 48*, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00048
The Sutton Trust (2017). Four-fifths of senior figures in finance think presentation at interview affects disadvantaged people's chances of getting a job. Sutton Trust press release.

Trudgill, P. (2002). *Sociolinguistic variation and change*. Edinburgh University Press.

Udavant, S. (2020, November 1). Stop discriminating against me because of my accent – how I talk doesn't affect my ability to do the job. *The Independent*. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/accent-discrimination-work-job-prejudice-b1399561.html

Wells, J. (1982). *Accents of English: The British Isles, Vol. 2*. Cambridge University Press.

**About the author**

**Alex Baratta** is a sociolinguist, researching language and identity; linguistic prejudice; and linguistic rights within educational contexts. His research has included topics such as the ways in which certain accents are proscribed in British teacher training; the societal means of codifying expanding circle varieties of English, such as Korean English; and even the role that accent plays in the cinematic character of James Bond. Alex has presented his work globally at prestigious conferences in locations such as South Africa, Singapore and Australia, published in high-ranking journals including *World Englishes* and *Linguistics and Education*; and his upcoming book with Routledge (2024) is focused on the use of China English in Chinese students' academic writing.

Email: Alex.Baratta@manchester.ac.uk
# Computer-aided pronunciation training in 2022: When pedagogy struggles to catch up

Sylvain Coulange
Université Grenoble-Alpes

Numerous language learning applications and websites have recently introduced automatic pronunciation training features which are popular, particularly among young learners. However, language teachers may struggle to understand the capabilities, efficacy, and reliability of these programs. This chapter provides a critical overview of English pronunciation training features in mainstream applications such as DuoLingo, Memrise, Babbel, Busuu, Rosetta Stone, ELSA Speak, and IELTS Speaking Practice. It also surveys the rare studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of these tools and whether learners make meaningful improvements by using them. We conclude that communication and collaboration need to develop among engineers, language teachers, linguists, pronunciation experts, and entrepreneurs to promote useful pedagogical outcomes for learners and to align with contemporary objectives in the field of English as a foreign language.

**Keywords:** CAPT, automatic pronunciation assessment, pronunciation training, language learning apps

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

In today's globalized world, more than three quarters of English speakers are non-native (Walker et al., 2021). It is likely that a given learner of English will have more opportunities to speak with fellow non-native English speakers than native ones. Learning pronunciation by focusing on intelligibility and comprehensibility has become key for successful communication; what the listener understands and how much effort they have to make is seen as more important than how native the speaker sounds.

Although the concept of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) became much more widespread after Jenkins' book was published (2000), only recently has there been a paradigm shift in terms of realistic goals for pronunciation training, from native-likeness to comprehensibility. For instance, Walker et al. (2021) in their Oxford University Press position paper insist on the necessity to be easily understood rather than to speak with native-like pronunciation. They suggest concentrating on very specific features to effectively improve pronunciation, such as vowel length and word stress, along with most consonant sounds. On the other hand, aspects such as vowel quality or pitch movement are not considered a priority for good comprehensibility, but rather as a means to get closer to a given native accent if that is the learner's goal (Walker et al., 2021). The 2020 update of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages acknowledges that the former focus on native-speaker accent was "detrimental to the development of the teaching of pronunciation" (Council of Europe, 2020, p. 134). Influence from the L1 is now accepted at C2 level as long as it does not hinder comprehensibility. Furthermore, half of the updated CEFR phonological control scale is now devoted to prosodic features.

Assessment scales such as that of the CLES<fnref n="1" /> Certification emphasize that at B2 level pronunciation and intonation should be “clear enough to be easily understood, even if an accent subsists”, and that at B1 level pronunciation should be “globally understandable despite a foreign accent and/or pronunciation errors”<fnref n="2" />. Isaacs et al. (2018) designed a comprehensibility scale for English formative assessment, helping teachers identify the aspects of L2 that they should prioritize with their learners in order to promote the production of comprehensible English and also to help L2 learners develop awareness of their strengths and weaknesses. Their scale puts the emphasis on word stress and hesitation markers’ position more than on phoneme quality, and much more than on vocabulary and grammar accuracy. Word stress is also considered a priority in Frost and O'Donnell's (2018) prosody-based descriptors for assessing oral production in English, along with intonation, unreduced vowel quality and connected speech.

With ever-advancing AI technology, it seems potentially achievable to integrate immediate feedback focusing on intelligibility features into pronunciation practice. This chapter focuses on technology made for pronunciation training in language applications (apps hereafter) and websites. Research on automated pronunciation error detection started in the early 1970s and gained in popularity in the late 1990s, but results were rather limited, and few programs made it to the commercialization stage (Witt, 2012). In the last decade however, with the ever-growing degree of computation power, the democratisation of smartphones, and enhanced speech recognition technologies, the most popular language learning apps and websites now integrate automated feedback for pronunciation training. These systems are used by a large number of people and are becoming more popular than ever, especially among young learners. However, how they function remains little known to students and teachers.

<footnote n="1">1 The CLES (Certificat de Compétences en Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur) is a national, government certified test of language proficiency in France (see https://www.certification-cles.fr/).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 The CLES Oral Interaction assessment grids are available at: https://www.certification-cles.fr/se-preparer/grilles-d-evaluation/grilles-d-evaluation-1196363.kjsp.</footnote>
The following section of this chapter will give an overview of how recent mainstream CAPT tools tackle pronunciation practice. Then we will review some studies which have investigated the pedagogical efficacy of these tools, before discussing current systems limitations and suggesting potential solutions.

## 2 Pronunciation assessment in today's mainstream language apps

According to the website Top10.com<fnref n="3" />, the five most widely used apps for learning languages in 2022 are DuoLingo, Memrise, Babbel, Busuu, and Rosetta Stone.<fnref n="4" /> All of them provide automatic speaking evaluation tools as part of their contents. Apps and websites dedicated to English speaking practice, such as ELSA Speak or IELTS Speaking Practice, can also be found online. This section will describe how these apps tackle speaking production, going through their types of activities and how speech is elicited, as well as what kind of feedback is given to the learner. It is important to mention that apps constantly update, so this description covers the features available in spring 2022.

### 2.1 Types of activities, stimuli and focus

In 2022, the most frequent English-speaking practice activity is an interface with a series of words or short phrases on the screen to be read aloud while pressing a record button. Most of them also offer immediate feedback, as shown in Figure 1. In most cases, audio is also played over the written form when it appears. All apps cited above provide an audio model of what is to be said as well as the written form, except for Rosetta Stone, which sometimes does not display text until after the recording. Words and sentences are mostly practiced out of context, generated from a vocabulary bank or sentences from the current lesson, with increasing difficulty. Student productions judged to be incorrect may reappear later – and repeatedly –, until the program considers the pronunciation to be correct.

All apps presented here are limited to this same basic read-and-repeat type of exercise, except for Rosetta Stone which provides more contextualised activities; each unit ends with a complex story activity presenting a succession of pictures, telling a story which involves the learners in the first person. The text for each character appears on the screen with a picture and is read aloud. When their turn comes, the students must read aloud the text appearing on the screen or speak spontaneously according to the illustration displayed. Rosetta Stone also provides another type of exercise in which the learners see two successive questions and answers, with the second answer being hidden until they say the target words. In both cases, there is only one target sentence, and the app recognises only words that match with it, even if the learners say something different that is also correct.

<footnote n="3">3 Top10.com https://www.top10.com/language-learning-apps (November, 2022)</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Language learning apps (presented in alphabetical order):</footnote>

<footnote>Babbel (2022). https://www.babbel.com/</footnote>

<footnote>Busuu Online S.L. (2022). https://www.busuu.com/</footnote>

<footnote>DuoLingo Inc. (2022). https://www.duolingo.com/</footnote>

<footnote>Memrise (2022). https://www.memrise.com/</footnote>

<footnote>Rosetta Stone Inc. (2022, v5.0.37). https://www.rosettastone.com/</footnote>
<caption>Figure 1</caption>

*Examples of Speaking Practice Activity on Memrise (top) and Duolingo (bottom)*

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Along with the written transcription and the audio, some apps provide a translation in the learner's L1, by default such as Memrise or Babbel, or on demand word by word on DuoLingo. The audio may come with a video or a picture giving contextual hints. ELSA also provides IPA transcription, but this was found in no other app. ELSA and Memrise also provide a feature to play the audio more slowly.

## 2.2 Types of feedback

Adequate feedback provision is crucial in CAPT, with binary feedback (correct/incorrect) being the most common. In ELSA, for example, after recording, a green screen is displayed with congratulations if correct, or an orange screen with encouragement but no particular advice on how to pronounce it better (see Figure 1). Busuu and Duolingo also provide a
translation when the production is correct. Other apps show a success percentage indicating how well the words were recognised by the system.

ELSA and IELTS Speaking Practice go much further, displaying words or letters in colours: green (correct), orange (almost), red (wrong or missing). By clicking on a word, the learner can see what phonemes were expected, and which were recognized by the system. ELSA also gives explicit tips about how to pronounce incorrect segments and computes an overall English proficiency score (in percent), as well as scores for listening performance, fluency, word stress, intonation, and different categories of phonemes. ELSA and IELTS Speaking Practice calculate an estimated IELTS score, as well as the average number of correct words per minute. ELSA and IELTS Speaking Practice calculate an estimated IELTS score as well as the average correct words per minute (see Figure 2).

<caption>**Figure 2**</caption>

*Examples of Feedback on ELSA (left), and Overall Scores on ELSA (middle) and IELTS Speaking Practice (bottom)*

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Feedback on lexical stress is also provided by ELSA in some specific exercises. In these activities, a single word appears on the screen with the expected stressed syllable written in larger characters. After recording, this syllable is coloured in green if the system detected the stress on that syllable in the learner's speech, or red otherwise. There is also a visual representation of the word's prosodic shape as a succession of bars, showing the syllable to stress and the syllable stressed by the student (see Figure 3).

<caption>Figure 3</caption>

Examples of a Word Stress Detection Activity on ELSA

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
In September 2022, ELSA launched a new premium feature on their website called Speech Analyzer<fnref n="5" />, allowing students to record free speech and get an overall speaking score, as well as detailed scores for pronunciation, intonation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary. ELSA also provides global score predictions for IELTS, TOEFL, CEFR, and Pearson. In this feature, pronunciation feedback detects segmental errors and provides tips to pronounce them better. It also estimates intonation and gives average pitch variation, suggesting a range between 50 and 150Hz (typical of adult males), regardless of the learner's gender or age. Fluency estimations give a pace score (number of words per minute) and a pausing score as a so-called nativeness percentage.

## 2.3 How it works

Except for the word stress detection exercise of ELSA, all systems mentioned above work in a similar way: a speech recognition engine tries to match the target word or sentence, and compute a global, word or phoneme-level percentage of recognition confidence. The answer is considered correct when the confidence score is above a given threshold value. This value indicates how similar the user's speech is to the native model. In IELTS Speaking Practice or ELSA, non-constrained phoneme recognition allows the student to see which phonemes they actually pronounced, though this is limited to recognition of English phonemes only, and to the target number of phonemes.

In the case of ELSA's word stress detection exercises, an automatic speech recognition system (ASR) is probably used<fnref n="6" /> to segment the word in syllables, and a stress classifier used to identify the stress pattern from acoustic measures such as duration, intensity, or pitch.

## 3 Do the students actually improve their pronunciation?

There are very few independent papers reviewing the effectiveness of CAPT tools for pronunciation improvement. Most studies either were funded by the company that created the app, or have one or more authors working for it; both situations present a conflict of interest. For example, the final report of Duolingo Effectiveness Study by Vesselinov and Grego (2012) claims that the vast majority of participants in the study succeeded in improving their knowledge, with a statistically significant improvement of mean average points (M = 8.1) on the WebCAPE placement test, per hour of use of the app. It would then take about 34 hours to reach 275 points on the test, 270 being the minimum to access the second semester of a university course. Based on this, Duolingo's home page claims that their app was scientifically proven to be more efficient than university courses. Krashen (2014) deplored this and took a closer look at the data. He found that there was great variability between participants (SD = 12.1, median = 3.9 points per hour), with participants studying Spanish for personal interest or school getting worse results (M = 5.7) than those studying for business (M = 11.4) or travel (M = 17.6). As for the participants, of the 156 who volunteered (having responded to an online advertisement), only 58% of them continued until the end. Learning time ranged from 2–133 hours depending on the person. This great variability across users makes it hard to generalise any results to university students, who may be obliged to take a course and often are less motivated. Anguera and Van (2016), the two creators of ELSA, did a study on 50 regular users to see how many repetitions they needed to pronounce a word without any error. They then computed their relative nativeness improvement over time; their graphs show decreasing and increasing curves, but no axis label is provided, nor is there any further textual information

<footnote n="5">5 ELSA's Speech Analyzer https://speechanalyzer.elsaspeak.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Details on ELSA's stress analysis are not publicly available.</footnote>
about interpretation of the results. Doan et al. (2021), all employees of ELSA Corporation, carried out a study using ELSA at the private Chamakura Malla Reddy University, Bangalore, India. They had 206 students work with ELSA for six weeks. Improvement evaluation was done by the app itself, through the English proficiency score percentage. The improvement found in this study was 10.44%, but the paper does not specify how this number was calculated. This also means that improvement is only measured for contents studied in the app. The authors insist on the fact that every student improved their pronunciation. Other papers about ELSA's effectiveness are limited to questionnaires given to students, showing that a majority of them subjectively find the app useful and motivating: 18 university students (Kholis, 2021), five junior high school students (Pangastuti, 2021), 12 college students (Samad & Aminullah, 2019), and 25 college students (Silaen & Rangkuti, 2022).

Loewen et al.'s (2020) study on Babbel in Spanish was funded by Lesson Nine GmbH, the third author being employed by Babbel. Eighty-three university volunteers used the app 10 minutes a day for three months. The attrition rate was 32%. The evaluation was done on the 58 students who had spent at least three hours on Babbel, using an ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. This involves assessment by two human raters of 15 responses recorded by each student during the test. The study showed that the more time spent learning with the app, the better the results, and that most improvements were observed in grammar and vocabulary knowledge, rather than speaking ability.

Jiang et al. (2021) carried out a study specifically on Duolingo's efficacy for teaching speaking skills. It was funded by Duolingo and involved six authors from the company and one associate professor in applied linguistics at Northern Arizona University. They contacted random users of Duolingo who had completed the beginning-level course in French and Spanish. They asked them to take the Pearson Versant Test (an automatic speaking test using ASR on read and listen-and-repeat tasks, as well as say-the-opposite or reorder-the-words tasks). One hundred seventy-five learners of Spanish and 155 of French did the test. Sixty-six percent of Spanish learners and 53% of French learners achieved speaking A2 level or above, according to the Versant test, which corresponds to Duolingo's expected proficiency objectives for speaking skills. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that 28% of learners of French did not even receive a score with the Versant test, probably because of too poor pronunciation, according to the authors.

Becker and Edalatishams (2019), two independent researchers, also carried out a study on ELSA. According to them, one major shortcoming is that the app focused only on segmental aspects of pronunciation. They do not mention the stress detection activities, which might have been launched later than their study. Even if global scores of fluency and intonation are provided in today's version, no exercise allows the user to practice these aspects specifically. Becker and Edalatishams (2019) regret the fact that quantity overrides quality; hundreds of phrases are available, but all the exercises are very similar, and the feedback is the same. The paid version only gives access to more exercises about the same skills and topics. In February 2022, ELSA was claiming to offer over 3000 lessons. The two authors also note that ELSA often mistakenly identifies incorrect sounds as correct, leading to wrong and confusing feedback. They also deplore the absence of any applied linguists or English language learning experts in the ELSA development team. In February 2022, the ELSA web site<fnref n="7" /> indicated that one speech advisor had been added to the team and he was described as "a world-class accent reduction coach with more than 35 years of training executives and Hollywood stars". In November 2022, out of 40 open positions listed on their website, 21 concerned business development and growth marketing, eight product design, seven management and marketing,

<footnote n="7">⁷ https://elsaspeak.com/en/</footnote>
and four speech science – not a single one was listed for pedagogical engineering, linguistics, or pedagogy.

## 4 Discussion

The CAPT tools reviewed here are easy to use, with a simple and intuitive design, and a great deal of graphic design rich in colours. Incorporated into gamified learning scenarios with various modalities of contents, everything is done to maintain learner motivation and to enhance the user experience. Even though most exercises are very similar, the contents and topics approached are varied. Providing this kind of automatic tool to learners allows them to get immediate feedback on their production, practice whenever and as much as they want without fear of being judged by others, and, above all, it gets them to practice speaking.

Notwithstanding, several limitations can be seen in the way these tools approach pronunciation training. These limitations can be divided into four categories: the stimulus, the focus, the model, and the feedback.

First, regarding the stimulus: with the exception of ELSA's brand new, (initially) free Speech Analyzer module, the speech stimulus of every type of exercise is a predetermined word or phrase the student has to read, repeat, or in rare cases to guess. Reading aloud may however lead to disfluencies or phonological errors, due to either pronunciation difficulties or to problems with decoding the written text before the reader's eyes. Repetition often leads to phonological imitation of the audio model, which makes it hard to diagnose student's spontaneous oral production proficiency. Furthermore, interactions and real communication situations are essential for practising speaking. Rosetta Stone was the only tool covered here to integrate student's production in a communicative situation, with much more context than the other apps (which tend to stick to micro-exercises out of context). This raises the question of the long-term effects of this predominance of micro-learning, which is observable to a larger extent in most language learning apps. Assessing spontaneous speech is a great challenge, but ELSA is proving that it is possible. Making pairs of learners speak to each other about a specific subject and providing individual feedback would be a very interesting type of activity, as well as integrating assessment features into an audio chatbot.

In terms of focus, assessment tools that go beyond mere word recognition mostly focus on phoneme quality and do not consider prosodic phenomena. ELSA Speak is the only app that seriously considers prosody in its scores and feedback. This, however, is only given as overall measures. In order to better suit students' needs, it seems important to target primarily those phenomena that hinder communication (such as speech rhythm and stress), and to give more weight to high functional load phonemes (Derwing & Munro, 2015), since their impact on speaker comprehensibility is widely accepted (Council of Europe, 2020).

All apps presented here compare students' speech production to a native model, using ASR or stress classification models. However, this tendency to base scores on the distance between one's production and a model only reflects how similar the users' production is compared to the model but not how acceptable their production is. Moreover, one might wonder how representative that model is of the diversity of voices, ages, accents, or types of discourse. This might also give more prominence to some hegemonic accents and ignore other less represented ones.

Concerning feedback, most systems still stick to binary response (good/bad) at phoneme, word or utterance level. Some apps also display a success percentage, often based on the ASR confidence score, which, in fact, can be hard to interpret. In the best cases, incorrect words or phonemes are displayed in colours along with what has been pronounced by the app user, and sometimes tips are provided on how to improve the pronunciation of incorrect phonemes. Yet, there is no error prioritization nor filtering depending on the learner's level or mother tongue,
for example. Above all, the main issue is that too many mistakes are considered correct by the
apps. Memrise especially, tends to validate every attempt by the student, even when the
pronunciation is extremely poor. Encouraging any answer might be seen as a positive
reinforcement strategy to maintain learners' motivation, but it could become detrimental to the
learning process. This issue of faulty feedback in CAPT systems was already considered a
major issue by Levis (2007) and is still considered a real limitation of recent CAPT tools
(O'Brien et al. 2018; Rogerson-Revell 2021). Basically, there is a need not only for more
feedback, but also for more pedagogical feedback – and it needs to be prioritized instead of
being displayed all at once with no hierarchy. Detey et al. (2016) call for a better consideration
of diversity in learner profiles, providing adaptive feedback (as well as contents) according to
intra- and inter-individual variables, such as observed difficulties, progress, and needs.

5 Conclusion

Research in CAPT seems to be focused on the technical challenges rather than the pedagogical ones. Very few studies analyse the actual impact of these technologies on language learning or how well these tools evaluate pronunciation. As for most of the commercial CAPT tools presented in this paper, it is likely that these are more often appealing technological creations intended to impress potential clients, rather than truly pedagogical tools that add value. This follows Rogerson-Revell's (2021) analysis that technological novelty “may temporarily disguise lack of pedagogic rigour” (p. 191) or even that “as technology progresses, pedagogy appears to regress”.

Contemporary language learning apps are based on artificial intelligence and there is a worrying tendency to uncritically praise AI and to use it for marketing reasons rather for true pedagogical plus-value. For the learner's sake, it is important to clearly indicate how accurate the automatic evaluation is and inform them that it might not always work properly. The lack of knowledge about how the automated scoring system works makes it hard for students and teachers to interpret the scores. This is probably one reason why many teachers doubt the effectiveness of these tools (Agarwal & Chakraborty, 2019). According to Evanini and Zechner (2019), engineers who make CAPT tools are not aware of the issues in the field, such as the need for reliability, validity and fairness of evaluation, as well as for a transparent description of how scores are computed, in order to encourage a positive wash-back effect. They join Agarwal and Chakraborty (2019), O'Brien et al. (2018), Detey et al. (2016), and many others in calling for more collaboration between teachers and engineers.

Another important issue to bear in mind is data privacy. None of the apps examined here indicate what data is used, which data is stored, where it is kept, for how long, and for what purpose. It does not seem to be a real concern for companies or users.

To conclude, CAPT tools are an opportunity to complement classwork, giving learners the chance to practice and get feedback as much as they like on aspects that may not be studied in class because of a lack of time or teacher training. As Levis (2007) points out, CAPT is “tireless”, “consistent”, and it “can meet varied individual needs”, and “promotes learner autonomy” (p. 197). The technology is here, we need to shape it according to our needs, rather than adapting our way of learning to available technology. In order to make pedagogically effective CAPT tools, engineers need to better understand the foundations of pronunciation acquisition and teaching.
Coulange
CAPT in 2022

References

Agarwal, C., & Chakraborty, P. (2019). A review of tools and techniques for computer aided pronunciation training (CAPT) in English. *Education and Information Technologies, 24*(6), 3731–3743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09955-7

Anguera, X., & Van, V. (2016). English Language Speech Assistant. *Proceedings of InterSpeech*, 1962–1963.

Becker, K., & Edalatishams, I. (2019). ELSA Speak - Accent Reduction [Review]. In J. Levis, C. Nagle, & E. Todey (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 10th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference*, ISSN 2380-9566, Ames, IA, September 2018 (pp. 434-438). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Council of Europe. (2020). *Common European framework of reference for languages*. Council of Europe.

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

Detey, S., Fontan, L., & Pellegrini, T. (2016). Traitement de la prononciation en langue étrangère : approches didactiques, méthodes automatiques et enjeux pour l’apprentissage. *TAL Traitement Automatique des Langues*, 57, 15–39. ISSN 1248-9433 https://hal.science/hal-01919021

Doan, T., Nguyen, Q., Nguyen, B., Anguera, X. (2021). How ELSA speaking app improves learners' speaking skills - A use case from the CMR University in India. [White paper]. ELSA Corp.

English Language Speech Assistant (ELSA, 2022). https://elsaspeak.com/

Evanini, K., & Zechner, K. (2019). Overview of Automated Speech Scoring. In Zechner, K., & Evanini, K. (ed.) *Automated speaking assessment* (pp. 3–20). Routledge.

Frost, D., & O'Donnell, J. (2018). Evaluating the essentials: the place of prosody in oral production. In J. Volín & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), *The Pronunciation of English by Speakers of Other Languages* (pp. 228–259). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Isaacs, T., Trofimovich, P., & Foote, J. A. (2018). Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility scale for English-medium universities. *Language Testing, 35*(2), 193–216.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217703433

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

Jiang, X., Rollinson, J., Chen, H., Reuveni, B., Gustafson, E., Plonsky, L. & Pajak, B. (2021). How well does Duolingo teach speaking skills? *Duolingo Research Report DRR-21-02* June 1, 2021.
https://blog.duolingo.com/how-well-does-duolingo-teach-speaking-skills/

Kholis, A. (2021). Elsa Speak app: Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) for supplementing English pronunciation skills. *Journal of English Language Teaching, 9*(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.32332/joelt.v9i1.2723

Krashen, S. (2014). Does Duolingo 'trump' university-level language learning? *The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9*(1), 13–15. ISSN 2165-767X.

Levis, J. (2007). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. *Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27*, 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070098

Loewen, S., Isbell, D. R., & Sporn, Z. (2020). The effectiveness of app-based language instruction for developing receptive linguistic knowledge and oral communicative ability. *Foreign Language Annals, 53*(2), 209–233.

O'Brien, M. G., Derwing, T. M., Cucchiarini, C., Hardison, D. M., Mixdorff, H., Thomson, R. I., Strik, H., Levis, J., Munro, M., Foote, J., Levis, G. M. (2022). Directions for the future of technology in pronunciation research and teaching. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 4*(2), 182–207.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.17001.obr

Pangastuti, D. (2021). The effect of ELSA Speak application on students' pronunciation in English. *Prosiding Pekan Ilmiah Mahasiswa Unis, 1*(1), 127–133.

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

Samad, I. S., & Aminullah, A. (2019). Applying ELSA Speak software in the pronunciation class: Students' perception. *Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan, 3*(1), 56–63.
https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v3i1.85
Silaen, T. N., & Rangkuti, R. (2022). Elsa Speak app usage in blended learning during the Covid-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. *Journal of Basic Education Studies, 5*(1), 26–34. e-ISSN 2656-6702

SpeechAce (2022). IELTS speaking practice
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ielts.speechace.ieltsace&gl=US

Vesselinov, R., & Grego, J. (2012). Duolingo effectiveness study. Final Report.
https://static.duolingo.com/s3/DuolingoReport_Final.pdf

Walker, R., Low, E., & Setter, J. (2021). English pronunciation for a global world. Position paper.
Oxford University Press.
https://elt.oup.com/feature/global/expert/pronunciation?cc=fr&selLanguage=en

Witt, S. (2012). Automatic error detection in pronunciation training: Where we are and where we need to go. *Proceedings of the International Symposium on Audiovisual Detection of Errors in Pronunciation Training (ISADEPT)*, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2012 (pp. 1-8). KTH, Computer Science and Communication. http://www.m-a-arabia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Published-paper_isadept_ISADEPT-proceedings.pdf

## About the author

**Sylvain Coulange** is in the second year of his interdisciplinary PhD at the Université Grenoble-Alpes, affiliated with the LIDILEM research group (Linguistics & First and Second Language Education) and the LIG (Grenoble Computer Science Laboratory), as well as the Speech and Language Processing Laboratory (SLPL) at Doshisha University in Japan. His research focuses on the automatic diagnosis of L2 pronunciation in spontaneous speech. At LIDILEM he co-directs the working group in Didactics of Languages and Multimodality and is part of the Language Acquisition Evaluation working group.

Email: sylvain.coulange@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
# Peer pronunciation teaching: Initial training of Czech pre-service primary teachers

Kristýna Červinková Poesová
Charles University, Prague

The current paper attempts to shed light on student teachers' ability to transform phonological knowledge into a pronunciation activity for primary pupils. The ad hoc study reported herein was inspired by the different extent of pre-service teachers' knowledge in the initial phase of teacher training – on the one hand, detailed knowledge of the subject matter, i.e., English phonetics and phonology, and on the other, very basic knowledge of pronunciation instruction. The study draws on data derived from multiple sources over a period of six years: peer teaching observations and reflections, lesson plans, and feedback provided by the teacher trainer. Despite the limited scope of pedagogical knowledge, the micro-teachings demonstrated elements of pedagogical content knowledge, especially in the lead-ins of pronunciation activities.

**Keywords:** teacher training, peer teaching, pedagogical content knowledge, English pronunciation teaching, primary education

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
# 1 Introduction

Teaching pronunciation effectively might be a dream for many foreign language teachers. One way of making this dream come true could involve the development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). This synthesis of content and pedagogical knowledge referred to as the ability to “do things effectively in language classrooms” (Murphy, 2017, p. 23) is believed to create the uniqueness of the teaching profession, clearly distinguishing a teacher from a content specialist, for instance a pronunciation teacher from a phonetician (Baker & Murphy, 2011; Shulman, 1987).

Although introduced by Shulman in the late 1980s, the nature of PCK has been widely debated by educational experts to date (Neumann et al., 2019). For example, Van Dijk (2009) conceptualized it as follows: “PCK is understood as topic-specific teacher knowledge that involves the transformation of content and pedagogical knowledge into instruction” (p. 19). Similarly, Bromme (1997 quoted in Neumann et al., 2019) states that “content-specific pedagogical knowledge is a necessary pre-requisite to finding adequate representations of subject matter content, and deciding about the selection and sequencing of ideas, that is, to enable transforming subject-matter structure into an instructional structure” (p. 850). Finally, Nilsson (2008, p. 1284) views PCK as dynamic knowledge generated in practice through the capability of the teacher to combine their knowledge of pedagogy, the subject matter, and contextual knowledge. The present research focuses on the interplay of these three types of knowledge, specifically in the process of transforming pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the English sound system into meaningful and comprehensible forms within the context of primary pronunciation teaching.

# 2 The study: Research design

## 2.1 Motivation for the research

The first impulse to carry out the research presented in this paper arose when a five-year-long study programme for primary teachers with English specialisation<fnref n="1" /> was cancelled permanently in the academic year 2019/2020, after approximately twenty-five years of existence. It was replaced by a newly accredited programme in which the time devoted to individual specialised fields was dramatically reduced – from nine to five semesters. In the original study programme, in the first two years the focus was put on language, linguistics, and cultural studies. In the following three years, the students were trained mainly in ELT methodology. Within the linguistic strand the study programme offered the luxury of four semesters of English phonetics and phonology spread equally over the first two years.

When the course was taken over by the author of this paper, it had been an unwritten rule to do some practically oriented activities in the last semester of English phonetics and phonology. In the first couple of years, this involved reading aloud or dramatising selected children's books, and this gradually changed to pronunciation peer teaching. Within the microcosm of the phonetics courses it seemed logical that the knowledge and skills acquired in the first three semesters<fnref n="2" /> would be looked at from the pronunciation instruction perspective in the last

<footnote n="1">¹ The whole teacher training programme was provided by the Department of Pre-Primary and Primary Education at the Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague. Only the specialisation (e.g., English, German, Music, Drama) chosen by the students in the first year was the responsibility of the corresponding departments e.g., the courses within the English specialisation were provided by the Department of the English Language and Literature at the same faculty.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The content of the courses English phonetics and phonology I–III focused on the description of the English sound system including segmentals (vowels, consonants), processes of connected speech (assimilation, elision,</footnote>
semester. This would be in line with Murphy’s (2017) assumption that “teachers need at least some knowledge of phonology before the development of PCK becomes possible” (p. 23). The main task for the student teachers was to prepare a pronunciation activity according to certain instructions, peer teach it, and then reflect on that experience. Bearing in mind that it was the first peer teaching experience for the vast majority of students, the feedback towards them was both encouraging and constructive.

Taking into consideration the broader perspective of the whole study programme, it is important to state that when the students did the peer teaching, they were almost ‘blank slates’ as they had not attended any general pedagogy or ELT methodology courses yet; they had only spent a week observing classes at state schools, and these sessions did not necessarily include English. Therefore, the factors that probably influenced their performance were their beliefs and prior experience with English (pronunciation) learning. To summarize, on the micro level it made sense to introduce pronunciation teaching as the culmination of a three-semester-long phonetics course, even though the students’ didactic skills were rather intuitive or non-existent. On the macro level, the pronunciation teaching activity was done too early, as the students were not educated or trained sufficiently and systematically in this respect. This particular situation in the English specialisation provided a rare window of opportunity for ad hoc research, looking more closely at how the students coped with the challenging task.

## 2.2 Treatment: Preparing teacher trainees to teach pronunciation

The student teachers were given clear guidelines on how to prepare and conduct a pronunciation activity in front of their peers. They were clearly instructed to devise a 15-minute-long activity on a pronunciation feature from one of the four areas: segmentals, connected speech, suprasegmentals, or miscellaneous (e.g., silent letters, homophones, accent differences). The obligatory parts were a lead-in (during which the topic had to be introduced interactively with pupils’ active involvement) and pronunciation practice (oriented either perceptually and/or productively). The submission of a detailed activity plan was required. To provide more support, the lecturer taught one activity herself and the students were guided through a model activity plan with all its compulsory parts. Furthermore, they were given a number of practical tips, for instance to rehearse the instructions and explanations at home, avoid complicated terminology and follow the principle that “less can sometimes be more”. The teacher trainees were also encouraged to adapt or create their own handouts or materials, relying on a wide range of pronunciation books, resource packs and/or recommended online sources. Thus, one of the subsidiary aims was met; the students became acquainted with some of the wealth of pronunciation teaching/learning literature.

While planning their pronunciation activity the student teachers could draw on three types of knowledge bases (Nilsson, 2008). Firstly, *pedagogical knowledge* was presented with the help of Hancock’s (2014) pronunciation map. It introduces the landscape of pronunciation teaching based on three essentials: why, how and what to teach. In addition, short-term goal setting was demonstrated and a list of possible techniques for pronunciation teaching suitable for young learners was provided. For the lead-in the teacher illustrated how pupils’ involvement can be secured, for instance by eliciting what they already know or having them notice certain things instead of telling them everything. Secondly, the *subject matter knowledge* was revised and briefly discussed as the students had acquired the knowledge of the English sound system in three courses of English phonetics and phonology. Lastly, the *contextual knowledge* was delimited by the age and language level of the imagined pupils: fourth or fifth

<footnote>linking), syllable and suprasegmental phenomena (stress, rhythm, intonation) and simple comparison with L1.
The reference variety was General British and transcription skills were developed throughout the courses.</footnote>
graders (nine- or ten-year-old children). Regarding the language level it was stated what grammar, lexical fields and language functions the pupils should be able to use (e.g., present and past simple, animals, family members, hobbies, giving directions). The extent of the subject matter knowledge was greater than the other two types of knowledge, which were presented in a condensed form during one or two, 90-minute classes right before the micro-teaching began.

## 2.3 Participants

The total number of respondents was 73 (F = 70; M = 3), ranging in age from 19–21. They were all undergraduate students at the Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague, and of Czech nationality. On the basis of multiple observations of primary school teacher trainees, they could be characterised as creative and playful, with a lower level of English but strong determination to stay in the teaching profession. They were didactically inexperienced and were pronunciation peer teaching for the first time. Their dominant knowledge base was the subject matter knowledge gained during three semesters of English phonetics and phonology. They all received identical pronunciation teaching basics in the fourth semester.

## 2.4 Research questions

The aim of the current study was to document the first encounter of pre-service teachers with the concept of pedagogical content knowledge, specifically to find out whether they were able to present the target content in a way that facilitates pupils’ understanding of selected pronunciation aspects. The study addressed the following research questions:

**RQ1:** How do teacher trainees evaluate the pronunciation peer teaching experience?

**RQ2:** Does the combination of extensive, yet relatively new subject matter knowledge and rather limited pedagogical knowledge lead to the development of teacher trainees’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)?

## 2.5 Research methodology, instruments, and data collection procedures

In this study a qualitative research design was adopted, namely a case study, which enables comprehensive understanding of specific situations (Schoch, 2020). Peer teaching was the major source of data collection, with on average 3-4 presentations per lesson, each followed by a 5- to 10-minute feedback session. The immediate oral feedback was given first by the participants and second by the lecturer. As the student teachers’ experience giving feedback to their peers was little or non-existent, they were encouraged to say whether and why they liked the activity after each micro-teaching. Furthermore, they were asked to note anything confusing and to share their uncertainties. Building the skill of providing such critical feedback was the second subsidiary aim of the whole peer teaching experience. Delayed and detailed written feedback of the submitted activity plan was given by the lecturer and included critical remarks about the structure and content of the activity, mistake correction, and suggestions for alternative actions. After approximately one month, the peer teaching was completed, and the students were invited to take part in its written evaluation.

Data were collected by means of various research instruments: activity plans, two reflective posters, a survey, and the lecturer’s written feedback. All participants had to submit an activity plan before the peer teaching took place. The teacher trainees wrote their reflections about the overall peer teaching experience on two reflective posters, one titled *What did I learn from my colleagues?* and the other with *What did I learn about myself?*. The respondents typically wrote
words, phrases, feelings, or drew happy/sad faces. A quick survey was carried out after all the peer teaching had been done, in which the respondents were invited to write individually about which three pronunciation activities they enjoyed most and to state the reasons behind their choices. While the activity plans were named, the reflective posters and surveys were anonymous. The lecturer's written feedback included comments on the lesson plans and observation notes from all micro-teachings. The four years of data were amassed over six years (between 2013–2020), with one year excluded due to the teacher's parental leave and one due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The reflective posters provided answers to the first research question, and the remaining instruments were used to answer the second research question.

## 2.6 Data analysis procedures

The written responses, comments, and notes were carefully read and categorized depending on the nature of the data. For data from the reflective posters, a thematic analysis was carried out, whereas data gathered via the survey were ranked from the most to the least frequently appreciated pronunciation activity. Moreover, the reasons behind the most positively evaluated activities were thematically grouped together. The last analysis involved the lecturer's observation notes and the feedback she gave students on their lesson plans. These data were analysed for a common theme, in this case for critical remarks and limitations.

# 3 Results of the study

## 3.1 Teacher trainees’ reflections and evaluation of peer teaching experience

Data from the reflective posters<fnref n="3" /> were gathered, with the first poster garnering comments from 71 student teachers about the things they had learnt from their colleagues. The responses were grouped into 23 categories, most of which were related to: general didactic principles: easy explanation; staying calm; using pictures; new activities; use of physical movements; smile is nice; engaging pupils in the lead-in; and saying all instructions. Only two categories can be considered pronunciation-specific: a) positive comments about teaching pronunciation aids (n = 7), for instance, “rubber bands are cool”; and b) a neutral comment stating “practising perception and production more than writing” (n = 1).

The second poster focused on participants’ views of their personal gains from the course, in particular, what they learnt about themselves. It yielded 73 comments. The number of identified categories decreased to six, with two categories containing almost half of all comments, including comments capturing students’ affective states: a) positive comments (n = 25), for example, “I enjoy teaching”, “nervous but I loved it”, “I want to be a teacher”; and b) negative comments (n = 16), for example, “When I’m nervous I hesitate”, “feeling unprepared”. The other categories included: a) acknowledgement of making mistakes (n = 7), for example, “my level of English diminishes when I teach”; b) need to be prepared (n = 7), for example, “you should always have a plan B”; c) clear and simple instructions (n = 5); and d) miscellaneous (n = 13). The only two reactions reflecting pronunciation expressed the need to improve their pronunciation.

<footnote n="3">³ Due to the anonymous nature of the data, the author is unable to refer to individual participant codes where their responses are quoted in the text.</footnote>
## 3.2 Teacher trainees' reasons for the most appreciated pronunciation activities

In-depth analysis of the most appreciated micro-teachings of every year is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the following list presents the rationale behind the most popular pronunciation activities, as expressed by the teacher trainees:

* using characters, invented or real, because it is easy to remember – e.g., “Lucy’s Toby and Eva’s rabbit with hearing problems are unforgettable”, “Tom and Jerry for teaching weak and strong forms”, “Wanda and Victor for teaching /w/ and /v/ contrast”;

* using teaching aids because they are playful and entertaining – e.g., “feather or a piece of paper for aspiration”;

* providing clear illustrations and explanations of how the target sounds are created because it is easy to understand – e.g., “beaver’s teeth and sending a kiss”;

* being immersed in the pronunciation activity – e.g., “I did not realize I was learning; I enjoyed the activity and I didn’t even notice it was focused on dental fricatives”;

* using facilitating tools/helper – e.g., pictures, photos, flags, gestures, whispering, flash cards, rubber bands, and movement;

* well-prepared presentations;

* giving clear instructions;

* continuous involvement of pupils and interactive classes.

## 3.3 Lecturer's evaluation of participants' lesson plans and presentation notes

Before the results in this section are summarised, it is important to realize that all teacher trainees successfully completed the micro-teaching, except for one whose pronunciation activity turned out to be extremely chaotic. Overall, a few teacher trainees did excellent or weak micro-teachings, but most were average in their performance. As opposed to the data gathered with the two reflective posters, in which positive features related to pronunciation teaching prevailed, the analysis of the submitted lesson plans and notes from the presentations revealed that there was a lack of knowledge in the participants' pronunciation teaching. The following list includes the weaknesses of the pronunciation tasks that occurred more than five times, either within one year or over several. In the lead-ins two problems reoccurred; either the tasks were rushed through (probably because of nerves) or the explanations of the rules were too lengthy and/or did not encourage pupils' engagement. Another shortcoming identified mostly in the lead-ins was the use of complicated terminology, for instance, phoneme, grapheme, and/or fricatives. Furthermore, the respondents quite often confused sounds and letters, e.g., /b/, /p/, and /h/ for <b> /bi:/, <p> /pi:/, and <h> /ertf/, formulated unclear aims, gave confusing instructions, and made grammatical, pronunciation, and content-related mistakes.

# 4 Discussion of results and key findings

The analysis of the peer and respondents' own feedback revealed two interesting findings. Firstly, the vast majority of comments were related to general principles of teaching foreign languages rather than specifically to English pronunciation, which may confirm the absence of ELT methodology in the training at that stage. Secondly, a greater variety of comments was identified when the students assessed their classmates than when they were rating themselves. When the attention was turned to their own performances, less variety occurred and the feedback was dominated by similar themes, in particular the emotions, both positive and negative, that the teaching experience provoked. Comments about being nervous and its effect
on students' skills resonated largely through all the investigated years. The other frequently mentioned themes – making mistakes and the level of preparedness – seem to be connected to student teachers' initial lack of confidence. Gaining confidence (e.g., by rehearsing at home) may lead to fewer mistakes. The pronunciation peer teaching experience can therefore be evaluated as enriching and overall positive.

Despite the great variety of micro-teachings, the reasons for choosing the best ones were narrowed down to a few items each year. The most appreciated moments involved clear understanding of a pronunciation feature, which was typically achieved with the help of an effective teaching aid, often a real or invented character (see §3.2). Subsequently, these topics seemed to be easily retained in the respondents' memory. Such reflections arguably constitute evidence of PCK development. Moreover, the notions to be taught were selected with respect to the age and level of young learners, possible complexities were reduced, for instance, the difference between American and British varieties was illustrated using only one feature, abstract concepts were visualised (e.g., smaller and bigger dots for stress patterns), and teaching materials were employed (Janík, 2008).

On the one hand we have pre-service teachers' subjective idea of what contributed to the efficacy of the presented pronunciation topics, and this is counter-balanced by the lecturer's observation, feedback, and long experience. It is also worth investigating further the phonological content-related errors identified in approximately half of the presentations each year (e.g., confusion of voiced vs. voiceless consonants). This finding suggests that the subject matter knowledge acquired in the phonetics courses might not have been completely consolidated at the time of peer teaching. In fact, the degree to which the phonological knowledge is applied – and applied correctly – in actual pronunciation teaching seems to be a window through which we can see how well the teacher trainees have actually understood the subject matter (Nilsson, 2008).

## 5 Conclusions and implications

Despite the participants' merely intuitive knowledge of pedagogy and ELT methodology, the findings provide examples of successful PCK for pronunciation teaching at a primary school level. Drawing on the peer evaluation, the most appreciated activities contained a playful and/or creative element, were well-prepared, and easy to understand/remember. The lecturer's feedback revealed limitations in the investigated domains of knowledge, for instance, using the wrong phonemic symbols, employing difficult terminology, poorly prepared lead-ins or long explanations without pupils' engagement. Naturally, the ability to select and structure the pronunciation activity so that it resulted in pupils' understanding varied among the teacher trainees.

On a more general note, peer teaching played a crucial role in primary teacher pronunciation training. In the assigned activity, the participants experienced first-hand the necessity to reorganize the subject matter, to transform it into meaningful forms. All four parts of the peer teaching experience – preparing for teaching and teaching itself, stepping into the pupils' shoes and reflecting – contributed equally to the “moments of revelation” which are likely to have long lasting effects, helping to form future teachers' identities and cognitions. No matter how time-consuming the inclusion of micro-teaching might be, expert literature or lecturers' well-meant recommendations can never fully replace direct experience (Murphy, 2017).

The outcomes of this research are currently being implemented into the newly accredited study programme which contains only two semesters of English phonetics and phonology. Contrary to the original intention not to include any pronunciation teaching aspects due to time constraints, short micro-teachings on selected phenomena have been included (e.g., teaching word stress) for two main reasons. First, that the ability to transform theoretical knowledge into
actual teaching can be trained to some extent even before it is thoroughly covered within ELT courses, and secondly, little time is dedicated to pronunciation teaching in the Czech educational context (Červinková Poesová & Uličná, 2016). Therefore, for some respondents the pronunciation peer teaching squeezed within the phonetic course might be, sadly, the only one they experience. In conclusion, specialized training in pronunciation pedagogy plays an important role in building the confidence of future pronunciation teachers (Burri et al., 2017; Buss, 2017) and should always have a firm position in the teacher education programmes.

## References

Baker, A., & Murphy, M. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking out the territory. *TESL Canada Journal*, 28(2), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v28i2.1071

Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln der Lehrer. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), *Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule* (pp. 177–212). Hogrefe.

Burri, M., Baker, A. & Chen, H. (2017). “I feel like having a nervous breakdown” Pre-service and in-service teachers’ developing beliefs and knowledge about pronunciation instruction. *Journal of Second Language Pronunciation*, 3(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.3.1.05bur

Buss, L. (2017). The role of training in shaping pre-service teacher cognition related to L2 pronunciation. *Ilha Do Desterro*, 70(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2017v70n3p201

Červinková Poesová, K., & Uličná, K. (2016). Fonetika a fonologie anglického jazyka. *Filologické studie 2016*, 68–86.

Hancock, M. (2014). A map of pronunciation teaching. *Speak Out!*, 50, 8–11.

Janík, T. (2008). *Metodologické problémy výzkumu didaktických znalostí obsahu*. Paido.

Murphy, J. (2017). *Teaching pronunciation of English: Focus on whole courses*. The University of Michigan Press.

Neumann K., Kind, V., & Harms, U. (2019). Probing the amalgam: the relationship between science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge, *International Journal of Science Education*, 41(7), 847–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1497217

Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. *International Journal of Science Education*, 30(10), 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802186993

Schoch, K. (2020). Case study research. In Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M. & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.) *Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner* (pp. 245–258). Sage Publications.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. *Harvard Educational Review*, 57(1), 1–22.

Van Dijk, E. M. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in sight? A comment on Kansanen. *Orbis Scholae*, 3(2), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.209

## About the author

**Kristýna Červinková Poesová** is a Lecturer at the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague, where she teaches English phonetics and phonology and general English courses in various teacher training programmes. Her research interests include effectiveness of pronunciation teaching and learning, pronunciation instruction at a primary level and accent attitudes. She co-edits *IATEFL's PronSIG* bi-annual journal *Speak Out*!

E-mail: kristyna.poesova@pedf.cuni.cz
Čtvrtečková, L., Fischer, O., & Skarnitzl R. (2023). Pronunciation of Czech secondary school English teachers and their cognition about pronunciation. In A. Henderson & A. Kirkova-Naskova (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices* (pp. 31–45). Université Grenoble-Alpes. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8174033

# Pronunciation of Czech secondary school English teachers and their cognition about pronunciation

Lenka Čtvrtečková
Charles University, Prague

Ondřej Fischer
Charles University, Prague

Radek Skarnitzl
Charles University, Prague

Language teachers undoubtedly serve as important models of their learners' pronunciation. The recent growth of interest in teacher cognition also raises the question to what extent non-native English teachers' cognition about pronunciation and pronunciation teaching are aligned with their own production (from a contrastive perspective) and accent preference. In the present study, we first analysed recordings of 12 Czech secondary school teachers of English obtained directly in class. Auditory analyses revealed characteristic pronunciation features of Czech-accented English at the segmental level (e.g., vowel quality, dental fricatives, the presence of a plosive following the velar nasal, aspiration), while vowel reduction and linking were realised in a more native-like manner than by strongly accented speakers examined in previous studies. Results obtained from questionnaires investigating teachers' cognition indicated their positive attitude towards authentic input, hierarchisation of pronunciation features, and prioritisation of intelligibility in pronunciation teaching. A comparison with the teachers' overall accentedness suggested that more strongly accented participants were more convinced about the importance of native-like attainment and pronunciation teaching itself than their colleagues with a more mild-accented English. Furthermore, the results indicate only a weak relationship between teachers' accent preference and rhoticity in their own speech production.

**Keywords:** pronunciation teaching, teacher cognition, foreign accent, Czech accent in English, language transfer

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

This chapter is based on the poster presented by the authors at the 7th International Conference on English Pronunciation: Issues and Practices (EPIP 7) held May 18–20, 2022 at Université Grenoble-Alpes, France. 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

This study deals with non-native teacher cognition in teaching English as a foreign language. More specifically, it focuses on questions related to pronunciation teaching practices, aims in pronunciation instruction, the assigned value of the instruction itself and preferences in model accent. Furthermore, teachers' own pronunciation is analysed with reference to the typical features of Czech-accented English. Since teachers serve as models to their learners, the aim was to see whether their attitudes towards pronunciation are reflected in their speech production during teaching.

# 2 Previous research

## 2.1 Teaching pronunciation and teacher cognition

The current study on teacher cognition in pronunciation teaching (i.e., on their beliefs and knowledge about pronunciation teaching) explores how Czech English teachers' pronunciation and beliefs develop on an individual basis, reflecting how they are strongly tied to context and environment, and whether changes in cognition are linear, contrary to Burri and Baker's findings (2021).

Research has shown that teachers who receive training on how to teach pronunciation planned their teaching in a more systematic way (Nagle et al., 2018), and reported greater confidence when teaching it (Kochem & Levis, 2022). In Couper (2016), teachers reported that despite their knowledge of phonetics and phonology, they did not feel they had been trained enough in *how* to teach pronunciation and thus, tended to ignore the areas that were difficult for them to describe, e.g. stress and intonation. Couper also points out that teachers regarded intelligibility and accurate pronunciation on the segmental level as their objectives.

The question of how to train future teachers specifically in relation to pronunciation teaching has been gaining significant attention by researchers (Levis & Sonsaat, 2019), with studies examining, e.g., a) teachers' confidence and self-consciousness, b) constraints related to time and/or teaching materials, c) types of instruction, and d) appropriate models depending on whether the overall goal is pronunciation that is either intelligible or native-like.

Studies repeatedly report that second language teachers often lack confidence in pronunciation teaching despite their desire to address it in class (Baker, 2013; Guerra, 2017; Levis & Sonsaat, 2019). As a result, pronunciation might receive less attention in class than grammar or vocabulary skills (Burri & Baker, 2020), with feedback relegated to the level of reactive ad hoc corrections (Burri & Baker, 2020, 2021) that lack systematic approach. Tight schedules and the obligation to cover a particular syllabus are limiting factors which many teachers mention (e.g., Sicola & Darcy, 2015), but – as Darcy et al. (2020) have shown – it is possible to incorporate pronunciation activities into existing syllabi without compromising the overall course goals.

A number of varieties of English have been proposed as models for pronunciation teaching, as no single model is unequivocally suitable for all learners and purposes (Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2018). In ELT textbooks, Received Pronunciation (RP; today also referred to as Standard British English, SBE) is often adopted as a point of reference, yet generally unaccompanied by a clear reasoning (Upton, 2015). In the European context, Ivanová (2011) sees SBE as a beneficial pronunciation model for several reasons: its prestigious status; its dominance of learning and teaching materials, including dictionaries; and the notion that it is fairly easily comprehensible compared to other regional varieties of the British Isles. However, the comprehensibility of a particular variety will, to some extent, depend on the sound patterns of the learner's L1, as well as the listener's. For instance, in the Czech context, Kobák (2017)
found somewhat lower intelligibility of standard British presumably due to the absence of
rhoticity. Another variety that English learners are frequently exposed to through the Internet,
film and music is General American (GA). Czech learners predominantly rated GA favourably
in terms of pleasantness, comprehensibility, and status (Jakšič, 2018). This begs the question
of what model Czech learners should aim for, and thus, what pronunciation features teachers
should devote time to, e.g., is non-rhoticity a 'necessary' feature if one wants to be intelligible
and favourably perceived?

In general, addressing pronunciation in class may be even more challenging for non-native teachers due to their lack of confidence. However, as shown by Guerra's (2017) study of Portuguese university students, learners might hold both native and non-native teachers in equally high esteem, evaluating them in relation to other traits – e.g., pedagogical competence or interactional skills – instead of merely their degree of accentedness. Therefore, a useful first step is to compare teachers' cognition with their actual spoken English, which is the aim of the present study.

## 2.2 Czech-accented English

The nature of this study necessitates a contrastive approach, and individual pronunciation features will be treated in this paper without considering their impact on comprehensibility. Czech speakers may struggle with a number of segmental or suprasegmental aspects of English, and these were described in detail by Skarnitzl and Rumlová (2019, see also references therein); only a brief summary will be presented here.

The English vowel system is considerably more complex, especially in the open region with front /æ/ and back /ɒ/ likely to be challenging for Czech speakers of English. They are typically replaced by mid vowels [ɛ] and [o] respectively. While overall consonantal complexity seems to be greater in Czech, the English dental fricatives are typically realised incorrectly, especially the voiced /ð/ as [d]. In addition, the velar /ŋ/ is frequently followed by a velar stop /k/ in Czech-accented English.

With word stress in Czech being fixed on the first syllable of the prosodic word, Czech speakers of English may also place stress word-initially in their L2 English even in words stressed on another syllable. In addition, Czech has no systematic vowel reduction, so vowels tend to be realised as full in their quality, even in unstressed syllables in Czech-accented English. In Czech, words beginning with a vowel tend to be accompanied by a glottal stop and linking of two successive words is therefore not too common in Czech-accented English. In general, prosodic signalling is rather weak in Czech, with the stressed syllable bearing no typical signs of acoustic prominence, prosodic phrases being much longer than in English and pitch range being considerably narrower (Skarnitzl & Hledíková, 2022; Volín et al., 2015).

# 3 Research methodology

## 3.1 Research questions

While research on teacher cognition in English pronunciation teaching mostly addresses native speakers of English (e.g., Baker, 2013; Baker & Burri, 2016; Couper, 2016), more needs to be known about the thoughts, beliefs and knowledge of non-native speakers in countries where English is not the predominant L1. The present study therefore focuses on Czech L2 teachers' cognition concerning certain aspects of pronunciation teaching. In addition, we analyse teachers' own in-class pronunciation and compare relevant pronunciation features with some aspects of their cognition to see whether there is a relationship between the two. Therefore, the study aims to answer the following research questions:
**RQ1:** What are the cognitions of Czech teachers of English towards pronunciation teaching?

**RQ2:** Does their pronunciation in lessons align with the previous research of Czech-accented English? Are teachers' cognitions and their in-class production somehow interconnected?

## 3.2 Participants and recordings

Our sample of teachers consisted of 12 participants (F = 9; M = 3), professional teachers of English and native speakers of Czech. Half of them worked and resided in the capital city, Prague, the other half in the smaller Moravian city of Opava. Eight of these teachers taught at grammar schools, the remaining four at vocational secondary schools. Their average age was 41 years (ranging between 27 and 53), with the average length of teaching experience 15.5 years (ranging from 5–27). All but one possessed an MA degree in English.

The teachers were recorded during their regular English lessons using a lavalier microphone. This facilitated high-quality recordings, while the visual unobtrusiveness of the device also helped to mitigate both teachers’ and students’ potential anxiety about the recording situation. All of our participants signed an informed consent and volunteered for the research, even though they were not informed about its specific focus (i.e., pronunciation) before the recording itself, given that such information could have impaired the authenticity of their production.

The recordings were later edited to teacher talking time only, excluding especially longer pauses and any audible speech by students. We selected three approximately ninety-second excerpts from each of the recordings – one from the beginning, one from the middle and one from the final part of every lesson – to obtain a balanced sample of every teacher’s pronunciation. The resulting material, consisting of about 290 seconds of speech per participant, was used in the pronunciation analysis.

## 3.3 Pronunciation analysis and questionnaires

Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2021) was used to analyse pronunciation features which are typical of the Czech accent in English (see §2.2). The features were evaluated using careful auditory analysis by the first two authors of this study after a joint calibration session; for potential controversies the last author was consulted. Some of the features were analysed in a binary way (e.g., vowel reduction, linking), some in a ternary manner, with an intermediate realisation possible (e.g., /ð/ realised as dental stop [d]). The assessment criteria are described in Table 1. A standardised success score in the range from 0 (strongly accented) to 1 (native-like) was calculated for each of the pronunciation features analysed, with the intermediate realisation of a ternary distinction corresponding to 0.5. Each participant’s comprehensive score (0 to 1) was then calculated as the average of the scores obtained for the nine individual features.

Additionally, a questionnaire comprising 14 questions (in Czech; see Appendix for the English translation) regarding cognitions about English pronunciation teaching was distributed to our participants after the in-class recording. Answers were marked on a five-point scale, with items 1–6 evaluated in terms of importance on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), and items 7–14 asking for a degree of agreement with a statement from “definitely not” (value 1) to “definitely yes” (value 5). Pearson correlations were used to check relationships between the teachers’ pronunciation and aspects of their cognition.
<table><caption>Table 1</caption><thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Native-like</th><th>Intermediate</th><th>Czech-accented</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>/ð/</td><td>[ð]</td><td>[ð]</td><td>[d]</td></tr><tr><td>/θ/</td><td>[θ]</td><td>[ð]</td><td>[t], [f], [s] ...</td></tr><tr><td>/r/</td><td>[r], [ɪ], [ð]</td><td>[r]</td><td>[r], [r]</td></tr><tr><td>/w/</td><td>[w], in wh- also [m]</td><td>[v]</td><td>[v]</td></tr><tr><td>/ŋ/</td><td>[ŋ], in -ing also [n]</td><td>-</td><td>[ŋk], [ŋg]</td></tr><tr><td>/æ/</td><td>[æ]</td><td>[æ~ɛ]</td><td>[ɛ], [e]</td></tr><tr><td>/ə/</td><td>[ə]</td><td>-</td><td>full vowel</td></tr><tr><td>aspiration</td><td>present</td><td>-</td><td>absent</td></tr><tr><td>linking</td><td>linked</td><td>-</td><td>glottalised</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 4 Data analysis and results

## 4.1 Teachers' pronunciation

The auditory analysis revealed that the pronunciation of our sample of secondary school teachers in the Czech Republic does not differ considerably from the strongly accented speakers examined by Skarnitzl and Rumlová (2019). As shown in Table 2, which lists the mean scores of individual pronunciation features analysed in this study in a descending order from most accurate to least accurate, the approximants /w/ and /r/ were produced most accurately by our teachers. A stark contrast appears within the dental fricatives, where the voiceless dental fricative /θ/ was accurately pronounced in nearly 90% of items, whereas its voiced counterpart /ð/ turned out to be one of the most problematic sounds for our speakers, with a comprehensive score of 0.38 accurately pronounced items. The voiced /ð/ was typically realised as an alveolar stop, [d], less frequently also as a dental stop, [ð]; a more detailed analysis reveals that the pronunciation tended to be slightly more native-like in lexical words (e.g., *Southern, weather*) than grammatical words (e.g., *the, that, they*). Given previous studies which addressed the open front vowel /æ/ in Czech speakers of English, it is not surprising that this sound was mostly pronounced as a considerably higher vowel [ɛ] and scored lowest in our sample. The score of the remaining segmental features – /ŋ/ and aspiration of voiceless stops – was slightly above 0.5. As for the suprasegmental features, results show that linking did not occur frequently in the speech of the teachers, with glottalisation occurring in over one half of the possible contexts. Finally, vowel reduction occurred in about 60% of the examined items, the only value which is considerably higher than in the study reported by Skarnitzl and Rumlová (2019).
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

*Mean Scores of Analysed Pronunciation Features*

<table><thead><tr><td>Feature</td><td>Mean score</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>w</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>r</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>θ</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>ŋ</td><td>0.62</td></tr><tr><td>vowel reduction</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>aspiration</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>linking</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>ð</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>æ</td><td>0.19</td></tr></tbody></table>

To assess the pronunciation of individual teachers (T), a comprehensive accentedness score was calculated in the form of a weighted average of the analysed pronunciation features. The score reveals a range between 0.42 for T07 and 0.77 for T08 (see Table 3). Additional analysis was carried out to test whether the comprehensive accentedness scores would correlate with teachers' age, sex, length of teaching experience, type of school (grammar school vs. vocational school), or residence (the capital Prague vs. smaller Opava). However, no noteworthy relationships were revealed between the score and any of these variables.

<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

*Accentedness Scores of Individual Teachers*

<table><thead><tr><td>Teacher</td><td>Comprehensive accentedness score</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T01</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>T02</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>T03</td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>T04</td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>T05</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>T06</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>T07</td><td>0.42</td></tr><tr><td>T08</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>T09</td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>T10</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>T11</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td>T12</td><td>0.57</td></tr></tbody></table>
It is to be expected that the comprehensive accentedness scores conceal considerable individual variability, and that two similar scores are likely to be a product of different partial scores (see Skarnitzl & Rumlová, 2019). Figure 1 confirms such expectations. Speakers T04 and T09, with an identical score of 0.64, may serve as examples, with differences in the suprasegmental features but also the open front vowel. The realisation of the voiced /ð/ appears to be the feature which shows particularly high between-speaker variability, as does the pronunciation of the velar nasal /ŋ/ with or without a following plosive sound.

<caption>Figure 1</caption>

*Scores of Nine Pronunciation Features in Individual Teachers*

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
## 4.2 Teachers' cognition

The first set of questions addressed the importance which the teachers ascribed to various objectives in pronunciation teaching. As can be seen in the topmost boxplot of Figure 2, most of our teachers expressed belief in the importance of pronunciation teaching in general (M = 4.0): six teachers assigned pronunciation score 4, three teachers an average level of importance (M = 3) and the other three attributed the highest level to it. When we compare intelligibility vs. native-like production as the goal of pronunciation teaching, the teachers' evaluation of objectives 2-5 suggests that intelligibility is regarded as more important. Learners' acceptable intelligibility in speaking with and being understood by native speakers were both evaluated as important (M = 4.73 and M = 4.91, respectively), as was successful communication with other non-native speakers (M = 4.91). However, the importance of learners acquiring an almost native-like accent was seen as much less important (M = 3.18, with scores covering the entire evaluation range). An awareness of differences between various accents of English was also ascribed average importance (M = 3.55).

<caption>Figure 2</caption>

### Scores of Importance Ascribed by the Teachers to Pronunciation Teaching Objectives

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

*Note.* NSs = native speakers, NNS = non-native speakers.

In the second set of questions, the respondents were asked to express the degree of their agreement with various statements related to pronunciation teaching. The results are presented in Figure 3. These responses seem to be more varied. The most unequivocal question concerned input: teachers predominantly consider authentic input as a more effective means of acquiring English pronunciation than in-class instruction (M = 4.5). The opinion that some aspects of pronunciation are more important to effective communication than others, and that it is therefore important to teach pronunciation features in a hierarchical order, was also predominantly assumed (M = 4.17). Most teachers agreed that native speakers' ability to teach
pronunciation is better than that of non-native speakers (M = 3.83); in contrast, two teachers expressed disagreement with this statement. The belief that learners should be familiar with transcription symbols was acknowledged by the majority of teachers (M = 3.58), with two teachers disagreeing with the importance of transcription. The teachers were most sceptical about the possibility of acquiring a native-like accent at any age (M = 3.17). The responses related to English variety preferences showed that teachers on average do not regard British English as the most suitable pronunciation model (M = 3.08) and mostly find American English more comprehensible, i.e. easier to understand (M = 4.17).

<caption>Figure 3</caption>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Agreement with Statements Concerning Pronunciation Teaching</figcaption></figure>

*Note.* NSs = native speakers, BrE = British English, AmE = American English.

## 4.3 Teachers' cognition vis-à-vis pronunciation

Additional analysis was carried out to compare teachers' pronunciation with some of the items from the cognition questionnaire and their demographics.

Regarding the comprehensive accentedness score, our data reveal no significant correlations of the accentedness score (see Table 2 above) with the teachers' age, experience with teaching English, the type of school, or the region where they teach. In addition, the accentedness score does not correlate with the importance ascribed to pronunciation teaching.

The results of the relationship between the accentedness score with the teachers' cognition (see Figure 4 indicate weak negative correlations (−0.35 < *r* < −0.5) between the accentedness score on the one hand and, on the other hand, the importance ascribed to the importance of pronunciation teaching, native-like attainment, and British English being the most suitable
model. In other words, more teachers with a strong Czech-accented English believed that pronunciation teaching is important and that learners should attain native-like accent, compared to those with a lower accentedness score.

<caption>Figure 4</caption>

Relationship between Accentedness Score and the Importance Ascribed to Three Phenomena

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

As for the relationship between the preferred accent and the teachers’ rhoticity in their own pronunciation, one half of the teachers expressed preference for a general British accent. Three of these had predominantly non-rhotic pronunciation (with between 25 and 40% of post-vocalic [r] pronounced), the remaining three were rhotic (with over 90% of possible contexts pronounced with [r]). The four teachers who preferred General American were mostly rhotic, as were the two who expressed their preference for Canadian English.

**5 Discussion and conclusion**

The analysis of pronunciation features of Czech secondary school English teachers is in line with the results by Skarnitzl and Rumlová (2019). Concerning segmental features, it is clear that even for secondary school teachers, who are highly proficient in English, the native-like pronunciation of [æ] and [ð] remains a considerable challenge. While pronouncing [ŋ] without a subsequent plosive seems less demanding, there was considerable individual variance. As for connected speech phenomena and the prosodic domain, Czech teachers did not employ linking
very often, which resulted in choppy speech. On the other hand, their use of vowel reduction was slightly better compared to the results obtained in previous studies on strongly accented Czech speakers of English (Skarnitzl & Rumlová, 2019; Volín et al., 2013).

Data collected from questionnaires showed that, in general, Czech teachers in our sample valued the communicative dimensions of pronunciation (intelligibility and comprehensibility) rather than native-like attainment. While most of the teachers stated that they use British English as a model in class ("because of the textbook", as some noted), they do not perceive American English as inferior to the former – the majority of the participants even reported American English to be more comprehensible to them. Interestingly, strongly Czech-accented teachers seemed to ascribe higher value to British English, native-like attainment and pronunciation teaching in comparison with their less accented peers, for whom pronunciation teaching appeared to be of a lower priority, and British English along with native-like attainment were not highly valued.

The participants were also rather hesitant about the notion of the teacher serving as a model for pronunciation, about the benefit of in-class pronunciation instruction as compared to authentic input, as well as about the importance of using phonemic transcription in lessons; such views could be related to the low self-confidence of teachers mentioned earlier in the article.

There are certain limitations of the study which should be pointed out. The sample was rather small, consisting of twelve individuals only, which was caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and teachers' willingness to participate. It was also not balanced in terms of gender, geographical distribution or types of schools. The limited sample may also be the reason why we found no correlations of the teachers' age, region, the amount of teaching experience, type of secondary school or accent preferences with cognition and pronunciation in class. Alternatively, however, it is conceivable that these variables truly do have little effect on teachers' pronunciation and cognition. Finally, our results may also portray the situation in a slightly more favourable light: since only teachers who were willing to participate in the study and volunteered for it were recorded, we might expect an average secondary school English teacher in the Czech Republic to have a stronger accent. In future research, it would be interesting to relate teachers' cognition about pronunciation with their actual practices concerning pronunciation teaching.

The pronunciation of Czech teachers has confirmed the presence of many typical features of Czech-accented English. Importantly, teachers themselves proved they were aware of the importance of intelligibility in pronunciation teaching and noted that not all pronunciation features are equally significant. However, we are convinced that to serve as an effective model, teachers should aim for pronunciation which is comprehensible and does not result in negative social evaluations.

## References

* Baker, A. (2013). 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

* Baker, A., & Burri, M. (2016). Feedback on second language pronunciation: A case study of EAP teachers' beliefs and practices. *Australian Journal of Teacher Education*, *41*(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n6.1

* Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2021). *Praat: doing phonetics by computer* (Version 6.1.42). http://www.praat.org
Burri, M., & Baker, A. (2020). “A big influence on my teaching career and my life”: A longitudinal study of learning to teach English pronunciation. *TESL-EJ: The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 23*(4), 1–24.

Burri, M., & Baker, A. (2021). ‘I feel ... slightly out of touch’: A longitudinal study of teachers learning to teach English pronunciation over a six-year period. *Applied Linguistics, 42*(4), 791–809.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab009

Couper, G. (2016). Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: Teachers’ concerns and issues. *TESOL Quarterly, 51*(4), 820–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.354

Darcy, I., Rocca, B., & Hancock, Z. (2020). A window into the classroom: How teachers integrate pronunciation instruction. *RELC Journal, 52*(1), 110–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220964269

Guerra, L. (2017). Students' perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers. In J. D. Martínez Agudo (Ed.), *Native and non-native teachers in English language classrooms: Professional challenges and teacher education* (pp. 183–204), De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504143-010

Ivanová, J. (2011). *Hodnocení orálních dovedností budoucích učitelů anglického jazyka se zaměřením na výslovnost*. PhD Dissertation. Palacký University Olomouc.

Jakšič, J. (2018). *Comprehensibility and pleasantness of different varieties of English as judged by Czech listeners*. [Unpublished master’s thesis. Charles University.

Kobák, A. (2017). (*Non*)rhoticity in English pronunciation teaching. [Unpublished master’s thesis. Charles University in Prague.

Kochem, T., & Levis, J. M. (2022). Evolving teaching practices of pre-service language teachers in L2 pronunciation: A case study. *Ranam, 55*, 11–30.

Levis, J. M., & Sonsaat, S. (2019). Quality teacher education for pronunciation teaching in L2 classrooms. In J. D. Martínez Agudo (Ed.), *Quality in TESOL and teacher education: From a results culture towards a quality culture* (pp. 213–222). Routledge.

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

Sicola, L., & Darcy, I. (2015). Integrating pronunciation into the language classroom. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The handbook of English pronunciation* (pp. 471–487). Wiley Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch26

Skarnitzl, R., & Hledíková, H. (2022). Prosodic phrasing of good speakers in English and Czech. *Frontiers in Psychology, 13*, 857647. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.857647

Skarnitzl, R., & Rumlová, J. (2019). Phonetic aspects of strongly-accented Czech speakers of English. *AUC Philologica, 2019*(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.14712/24646830.2019.21

Szpyra-Kozłowska, J. (2018). Instructional models in the global context. In O. Kang, R. I. Thomson, & J. M. Murphy (Eds.), *The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation* (pp. 232–246). Routledge.

Upton, C. (2015). British English. In M. Reed; J. M. Levis (Eds.), *The Handbook of English Pronunciation* (pp. 251–268). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch14

Volín, J., Poesová, K., & Weingartová, L. (2015). Speech melody properties in English, Czech and Czech English: Reference and interference. *Research in Language, 13*, 107–123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0018

Volín, J., Weingartová, L., & Skarnitzl, R. (2013). Spectral characteristics of schwa in Czech accented English. *Research in Language, 11*, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0008-6
# Appendix

## Questionnaire

Gender:

Age:

Attained level of education:

City of pedagogical practice:

Type of school: ____________________

How long have you been teaching? ____________________

1) If you studied English at university, where was it? (multiple answers are possible)

a faculty of education

a faculty of arts

Other: ____________________

2) Have you stayed, studied or worked abroad (English-speaking or otherwise) for an extended period of time? If so, where and for how long?

__________________________________________________

3) Which of the following varieties of English do you personally find most pleasant?

Received pronunciation General American

Australian

Canadian

Scottish

Irish

Other: ____________________

I do not know

4) Do you strive to emulate any of the varieties above in your own speech? If so, which one?

__________________________________________________

5) What variety of English do you teach (British English, American English, other)?

__________________________________________________

6) What variety of English are the teaching materials that you use based on? (multiple answers are possible)

Textbooks (or titles):

__________________________________________________

Other materials (books, magazines, films, songs...):

__________________________________________________

7) What importance do you attribute to English pronunciation teaching?

(1 – not important, 5 – essential)

1

2

3

4

5

8) Please rate the importance of the following objectives for teaching English pronunciation:

(1 – not important, 5 – essential)

a) The learner will attain an accent close to the level of a native speaker.

1

2

3

4

5

b) The learner will understand the speech of native speakers easily.

1

2

3

4

5

c) The learner will be easily understood by native speakers.
1 2 3 4 5

d) The learner will easily communicate with other non-native speakers.

1 2 3 4 5

e) The learner is aware of the differences between varieties of English.

1 2 3 4 5

9) To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

a) A native speaker is a better pronunciation teacher than a non-native speaker.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

b) Staying abroad, communication with native speakers or listening to authentic materials are more effective means of attaining English pronunciation than in-class pronunciation instruction.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

c) Learners should be familiar with the symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) that are relevant to English. They should be able to associate them with the sounds that they represent.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

d) Certain aspects of pronunciation are more important for successful communication than others.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

e) British English is the most appropriate model for learning English as a foreign language.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

f) It is possible to attain a native-like accent at any age.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

e) American English is easier to understand for learners than British English.
*definitely not – rather not – don't know – rather yes – definitely yes*

About the authors

**Lenka Čtvrtečková** graduated from the Faculty of Education at Charles University with her bachelor thesis ‘Perception of intrusive /r/ by Czech Learners of English’ in the programme English Language Focused on Education. She completed a master’s at the Institute of Phonetics, which is based at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, with her diploma thesis on teacher cognition in pronunciation teaching.

Email: ctvrteckova.lenka@seznam.cz

**Ondřej Fischer** studied English and American Studies (BA) and English Language (MA) at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. He also graduated from Jaroslav Ježek Conservatory where he studied composition. He currently works as a radio presenter and music director at a classical music radio station in Prague.

Email: ondrej.fis@gmail.com
**Radek Skarnitzl** is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, and director of the Institute of Phonetics. He is interested in various aspects of speech communication, with expertise in speech prosody, acoustic phonetics, and second language (L2) acquisition. His research focuses on L2 pronunciation and on the effect of various pronunciation features on the socio-psychological evaluation of a speaker in both native and foreign languages. He is also interested in issues related to speaker identification and forensic phonetics, especially the effects of voice disguise on human and automatic speaker recognition performance.

Email: radek.skarnitzl@ff.cuni.cz
# A short teaching intervention on word-stress rules and pronunciation
learning strategies: An exploratory study

Ivana Duckinoska-Mihajlovska

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje

Anastazija Kirkova-Naskova

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje

Research has shown that word stress is important for improved intelligibility in an EFL context (e.g., Cutler, 2015, Levis, 2018). However, instruction on word stress is frequently avoided in the EFL classroom due to time limitation, which begs the question whether a shift of focus from classroom learning to autonomous learning by exploiting learning strategies is a viable option for overcoming time constraints. For instance, longer instruction in language learning strategy use has led to the improvement of general oral proficiency (Nakatani, 2005) or specific pronunciation features such as word stress, linking, and primary phrase stress among learners with different L1s (Sardegna, 2011, 2012; Sardegna & Dickerson, 2023), as well as greater learner autonomy.

This study investigates whether short word stress and strategy instruction yields improvement in learners with the same L1 in an EFL classroom setting. Forty Macedonian learners were assigned to a treatment and a control group (n = 20 each) and completed pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests. Only the treatment group received a four-week instruction which targeted stress placement in polysyllabic words based on four word-stress rules following the Covert Rehearsal Model (CRM) (Hahn & Dickerson, 1999). Learners were also taught to use pronunciation learning strategies (PLSs) for self-regulated practice out of class and completed a strategy diary. Results show that even a short teaching intervention on word stress and strategy use is beneficial for learners’ ability to accurately apply word stress rules in production.

**Keywords:** pronunciation instruction, word-stress rules, pronunciation learning strategies, Covert Rehearsal Model (CRM)

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
# 1 Introduction

Word stress has received divided attention in pronunciation instruction over the years – from being prioritised as a feature leading to intelligible speech, to being considered a non-core feature in the Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000). Recently, its importance for intelligibility has been more widely acknowledged, as studies have shown that accurate word stress placement contributes to more intelligible non-native speech (Hahn, 2004) and that stress misplacement at the beginning of a conversation could affect word decoding thus hindering further message processing (Levis, 2018).

Unlike languages where stress is fixed to a particular syllable in a word, English word stress is lexically designated, i.e., its placement is governed by the word itself. Non-native learners coming from diverse linguistic backgrounds have difficulty predicting English word stress. They may mainly rely on their intuition and L1 stress patterns because descriptive stress rules seem complicated. Despite this, some authors argue that English word stress is not as random as it appears (Fritz & Kotzor, 2022) and it can be predicted in polysyllabic words by use of orthography-based rules (Dickerson, 2013, 2015). Word stress is also regarded as teachable and learnable; research shows improvement in word stress acquisition through teaching simplified rule-based strategies (Sardegna & Dickerson, 2023).

The current study explores the acquisition of English word stress by Macedonian EFL learners through the use of predictive stress-placement rules and learning strategies as described in the Covert Rehearsal Model (CRM) (Dickerson, 2013; Hahn & Dickerson, 1999). Such instruction assumes important roles for both teachers and learners; teachers are expected to select appropriate strategies and design suitable materials (Oxford, 1990), while learners are expected to use the strategies to guide them to more autonomous learning and to encourage further practice outside the classroom (Sardegna, 2011).

# 2 Previous research

Strategy instruction presupposes the identification of appropriate pronunciation learning strategies (PLSs), which have been defined as “steps taken by students to enhance their own pronunciation learning” (Peterson, 2000, p. 7). Although different studies employ diverse taxonomies that yield different results, strategy instruction with PLSs has proved to be effective in promoting learner autonomy and depends on various factors such as target feature, duration of teaching intervention, type of assessment, and strategy classification (Pawlak & Szyszka, 2018). Research evidence suggests that the success of strategy use in improving a particular pronunciation feature can be conditioned by the task type and learner's pronunciation knowledge. For instance, Szyszka (2021) had 58 first-year English majors (identified as high- or low-achievers) fill in a questionnaire that elicited PLSs they used while completing six tasks on vowels and diphthongs. She found that while some strategies were employed across all six tasks, there were differences in use between the high- and low-achievers, with the former group using a greater number and wider range of PLSs than the latter.

Strategy instruction has led to favourable results with various phonological phenomena. For instance, Haslam (2010) found that certain PLSs accounted for accuracy and improved comprehensibility, but not global foreign accent and fluency among EFL and ESL learners after a 10-week instruction on strategy use. Another instance is Ingels (2011) who investigated whether a self-monitoring program over a 16-week period improved participants' suprasegmental features. The results revealed that the self-monitoring strategies (critical listening, transcription, annotation, and rehearsal of corrections) led to improvement mainly in identifying message unit boundaries, linking, and vowel reduction in function words. Furthermore, Sardegna and MacGregor's results (2013) showed that scaffolded teaching with
PLSs led to the improvement of read-aloud accuracy of vowel reduction, linking, primary stress, and intonation during a 15-week intervention.

Research also shows that use of PLSs enhances learners' autonomous learning. Dickerson (2013, p. 5), for instance, suggests using the Covert Rehearsal Model (CRM), which aims to equip learners with a set of rules and learning strategies that guide them during their private practice of target structures. The CRM is a self-practising learning sequence consisting of six steps that centres around the concept of strategy instruction, where learners practice aloud in privacy out of class (steps 1 and 2), then they self-monitor and compare their performance with other models (steps 3 and 4), and finally they self-correct their performance and practice until satisfied and fluent (steps 5 and 6). The effectiveness of the CRM regarding different pronunciation features, including word stress, has been documented by a series of studies carried out by Sardegna (2011, 2012) and Sardegna and Dickerson (2023). In Sardegna (2011), the results indicate that a four-month intensive instruction with PLSs led to short- and long-term improvement in linking among learners with different L1s. In another study, Sardegna (2012) investigates the effect of individual learner differences when mastering linking and English word stress and found that these differences can predict individual progress over time. Sardegna and Dickerson (2023) tested the effect of three stress rules on the improvement of English word stress use by focusing on the extent to which ESL learners with different L1s practised in covert rehearsal and used PLSs after the instruction period. The findings reveal that the instruction led to improvement in the intervention group for all three stress rules. With regard to PLS use, the results showed a preference for perception strategies over prediction and production strategies.

Despite these promising results, there is insufficient research into strategy instruction focusing on word-stress rules with learners of a shared L1 and for a short instructional period. The current study aims to fill this gap by investigating a short strategy instruction in covert rehearsal for English word stress by Macedonian L1 learners. Given that Macedonian word stress is fixed and falls on the first syllable in disyllabic words or on the antepenultimate syllable in three or more syllable words (Koneski, 2004), Macedonian learners might regard English word stress placement as arbitrary and irregular. Hence, they could benefit from a specific instruction that equips them with a set of rules and learning strategies for practising English word stress placement.

# 3 Research methodology

## 3.1 Research questions

Considering the importance of word stress for intelligibility and the potential of the CRM for promoting learner autonomy, the present study aims to answer the following research questions:

**RQ1:** Does a four-week teaching intervention with the CRM approach lead to improvement of learners' word-stress placement in polysyllabic words? Which stress rule pattern (KSR, VSR, LSR, PSR) is the most effectively learnt?

**RQ2:** What learning strategies are used by learners in covert rehearsal?

## 3.2 Participants

Forty Macedonian EFL learners participated in the study. They were divided into a treatment group (n = 20; M = 3, F = 17; M<sub>age</sub> = 20, age range 19–28) and a control group (n = 20; M = 3, F = 17; M<sub>age</sub> = 19.45, age range 19–21). The participants were first-year English majors at Ss.
Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, enrolled in the course Modern English 2 which targets language skills at B2 level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). They had no prior formal knowledge or instruction in English pronunciation.

To determine whether the groups were similar or different in their performance at pre-test (T1), a *t*-test for independent groups was conducted. The results show that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at T1 with regard to their initial combined read-aloud accuracy scores (*t*(38) = -0.18, *p* > 0.05; *M*<sub>TG</sub> = 11.45 vs. *M*<sub>CG</sub> = 11.6). This indicated that the two groups were similar enough to be compared in further analyses (see §3.4).

## 3.3 Treatment procedure

Only the treatment group received formal instruction on four orthographic word-stress rules for polysyllabic words (Hahn & Dickerson, 1999): Key Stress Rule (KSR), Left Stress Rule (LSR), V/VC Stress Rule (VSR), and Prefix Stress Rule (PSR). In order to apply these rules, participants learnt how to identify parts of speech, affixes, syllable structure, and stressed/unstressed syllables. They focused on identifying the Key Syllable (positioned at the end of a word or left of an ending) and the Left Syllable (positioned to the left of the Key Syllable), either of which is always the main stress-carrier in the rule patterns presented in Table 1.

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

*Characteristics of KSR, LSR, VSR, and PSR Stress-Rule Patterns*

<table><thead><tr><th>Pattern</th><th>Word endings</th><th>Rule</th><th>Examples <sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5"><strong>Key Stress Rule (KSR)</strong></td><td>Key Rule Endings:</td><td rowspan="5">Stress Key Syllable.</td><td><strong>remed</strong>(ial)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-ia</strong> (+V/C)</td><td><strong>fall</strong><u><strong>ac</strong></u>(ious)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-io</strong> (+V/C)</td><td><strong>cons</strong><u><strong>ort</strong></u>(ium)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-iu</strong> (+V/C)</td><td><strong>conven</strong>(ienc(e)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-ienC</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other endings that follow</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Key Rule Endings:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>-er</strong>, <strong>-ive</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>exec</strong><u><strong>ut</strong></u>(ioner)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>-al</strong>, <strong>-able</strong>, <strong>-ate</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>devi</strong><u><strong>at</strong></u>(ional)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>-y</strong>, <strong>-ary</strong>, <strong>-ory</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>conci</strong><u><strong>il</strong></u>(iatory)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>-ize/ise</strong>, <strong>-ist</strong>, <strong>-ism</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>cre</strong><u><strong>at</strong></u>(ionism)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>-alise/alize</strong>, <strong>-alist</strong>, <strong>-alism</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>rat</strong>(ionalism)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><strong>Left Stress Rule (LSR)</strong></td><td><strong>-y</strong>, <strong>-ies</strong> (plural ending)</td><td rowspan="5">Stress Left Syllable.</td><td><strong>homogene</strong><u><strong>it</strong></u>(y)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-fy</strong>, <strong>-fies</strong>, <strong>-fied</strong>, <strong>-fier</strong>, <strong>-fying</strong><sup>b</sup></td><td><strong>commonal</strong><u><strong>it</strong></u>(ies)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-ate</strong>, <strong>-ated</strong>, <strong>-ating</strong></td><td><strong>fortif</strong>(ied)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-ator</strong></td><td><strong>inciner</strong>(ate)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>-acy</strong>, <strong>-acies</strong></td><td><strong>perpet</strong><u><strong>tr</strong></u>(ator)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Pattern</th><th>Word endings</th><th>Rule</th><th>Examples <sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">V/VC Stress Rule (VSR)</td><td>-al (adj. only)</td><td rowspan="5">1. Stress Left Syllable if Key Syllable is spelled with a V or VC.</td><td>inaugur(al)</td></tr><tr><td>-ous (adj.)</td><td>omin(ous)</td></tr><tr><td>-ant (adj. & n.)</td><td>compliment</td></tr><tr><td>-ance (n.)</td><td>competency</td></tr><tr><td>-ancy (n.)</td><td>photographic <sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td>-ent (adj. & n.)</td><td rowspan="4">2. Stress Key Syllable if spelled otherwise.</td><td>cuboid(al)</td></tr><tr><td>-ence (n.)</td><td>disastrous</td></tr><tr><td>-ency (n.)</td><td>adolescent</td></tr><tr><td>-ic <sup>c</sup> (adj. & n.)</td><td>account(ancy)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Prefix Stress Rule (PSR)</td><td>-ary</td><td rowspan="4">1. Stress Left Syllable if the prefix <sup>d</sup> is not part of the Left Syllable.</td><td>arbitr(ary)</td></tr><tr><td>-ery</td><td>inquisit(ive)</td></tr><tr><td>-ory</td><td>caricature</td></tr><tr><td>-ive</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-ative</td><td rowspan="4">2. Stress Key Syllable if otherwise.</td><td>infirm(ary)</td></tr><tr><td>-atory</td><td>object(ive)</td></tr><tr><td>-ature</td><td>conserv(atory)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The teaching intervention also included training in strategy use. As a reference point for the PLS classification, we used the Prediction, Perception, Production (3Ps) Model (Dickerson, 2013) which emphasises the connection between orthography and prediction, thus facilitating perception and production. Once learners were equipped with predictive stress rule patterns, they could rely on orthography in covert rehearsal to practise and monitor their performance. They also used learning strategies to guide them when completing homework assignments (see Table 2). The intervention was conducted as eight 45-minute sessions over a four-week period. Lesson 1 introduced participants to the CRM, the PLSs, how to keep a strategy diary, and how to use online tools as speech models. Lessons 2–8 focused on syllable structure, identifying the Key and Left Syllables, and the four word-stress rules. Throughout the intervention, all participants in the treatment group attended lessons regularly, practised in class and at home, and completed seven homework assignments. The instructor gave explicit instructions about word-stress rules, suggested additional resources for the practice of the rules, provided opportunities for practice in/out of class, and supervised students’ homework. They all kept a diary about their strategy use after each homework assignment. To facilitate their diary entry writing, they were given a list of questions as prompts and instructed to write either in their mother tongue or in English. They were required to send each diary entry to the course instructor who provided assistance when necessary.

<footnote>a The underlined syllable is the Key Syllable and the stressed syllable is in bold.</footnote>

<footnote>b The -f- in *certifies/certified* is not part of the left rule ending, but it helps identify the set of words to which the LSR applies.</footnote>

<footnote>c The VSR rule also applies to adjectives and nouns with a final -ic. Here, however, the final -ic is the Key Syllable not an ending, which is why there is no open parenthesis to mark the rule ending as in the examples *photographic* (adj.) and *economics* (n.). Note that -s in *economics* is considered a neutral ending.</footnote>

<footnote>d Neutral prefixes are ignored when analysing words: *counter-/contra-*, *inter-/intro-*, *extra-*, *over-*, *retro-*, *super-*. Regular prefixes are relevant in the Left Syllable: *de-*, *re-*, *pre-*, *pro-*, *per-*, *ad-*, *ab-*, *ob-*, *sub-*, *in-*, *com-*, *con-*, *ex-*, *dis-*.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2**</caption><caption>Pronunciation Learning Strategies</caption><thead><tr><th>Strategy type</th><th>Code</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Prediction strategies</td><td>PRE1</td><td>I analyse the spelling to identify the syllables in a word.</td></tr><tr><td>PRE2</td><td>I analyse word endings to identify the Key and Left Syllable in a word.</td></tr><tr><td>PRE3</td><td>I use word endings to decide which syllable to stress in a word.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Production strategies</td><td>PRO4</td><td>I record myself saying polysyllabic words and then compare my own production against that of the model.</td></tr><tr><td>PRO5</td><td>I listen to speech models and imitate their pronunciation of a word.</td></tr><tr><td>PRO6</td><td>I read aloud a word several times and pay attention to which syllable is the loudest.</td></tr><tr><td>PRO7</td><td>I read aloud sentences/passages with the target word.</td></tr><tr><td>PRO8</td><td>I use the target word in a sentence.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Perception strategies</td><td>PER9</td><td>I listen to speech models (online tools/recorded material/native speakers).</td></tr><tr><td>PER10</td><td>I listen to recorded material to identify the stressed syllables in words.</td></tr><tr><td>PER11</td><td>I highlight or underline the stressed syllable in a word.</td></tr></tbody></table>

**3.4 Data collection and analysis**

This study uses a mixed-method design. For the quantitative part of the data, the participants completed pre-, post- and delayed post-tests. The test consisted of 20 target words, 5 per each stress rule and 11 distractors (see Appendix). Using the same test words in a shuffled order for all three tests allowed for a more objective measure of participants' progress over time. They were recorded saying each word aloud using the audio recording software Audacity<fnref n="1" />. The pre-test (T1) was conducted before the intervention, with a post-test (T2) after the intervention in week five, and a delayed post-test (T3) three weeks after the post-test. A total of 2400 tokens were analysed for accurate stress placement (1200 words per group). The benchmark against which the participants' pronunciation of the target words were assessed was the Cambridge Online Dictionary<fnref n="2" />, i.e., the dictionary's audio recordings of the same stimuli words. Care was taken that the stimuli words had identical stress patterns in both British and American varieties. All tokens were marked by the instructor – value 1 was given for correct stress placement and value 0 for incorrect stress placement. The 0 category also included mispronounced words, e.g., *disorientantive for disorientate*, or truncation of syllables, e.g., *delination for delineation*.

A series of two-way mixed ANOVAs were performed to test the main effect of TIME (pre-test T1 vs. post-test T2 vs. delayed post-test T3) and GROUP (treatment vs. control), as well as their interaction effect (TIME x GROUP) on stress patterns (combined scores, as well as separate scores for KSR, VSR, LSR, and PSR). A follow-up one-way repeated measures ANOVA was applied to analyse differences in stress patterns as measured at T1, T2 and T3 among participants in the treatment and the control group separately. In all analyses, Mauchly's

<footnote n="1">¹ Audacity https://www.audacityteam.org/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Cambridge Dictionary [Online] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/</footnote>
test of sphericity was non-significant, implying that the assumption for using mixed ANOVA was met; therefore, mixed ANOVA and follow-up one-way repeated measures ANOVA could be applied. The Box's test of equality of covariance matrices was also not significant, indicating that the covariance matrices are equal. In addition, a t-test was used to analyse if there were differences in pre-test scores (baseline measures) on all stress patterns between the treatment and the control group; the results were not significant, indicating that the two groups did not differ at T1 (see §3.2).

As qualitative data, the participants' diaries were analysed to gain insight into their strategy use and to stimulate reflection on learning processes during assignment completion and private practice (Goh, 1997; Pawlak & Szyszka, 2018). Each participant from the treatment group completed seven diary entries, which were first analysed for the type of strategy used (identified using the strategy descriptions 1–11 in Table 2), and then the total number of responses for each reported strategy per participant was counted.

# 4 Results

## 4.1 Effects of instruction

To test whether the treatment, i.e., the teaching intervention, yielded improvement of word-stress rules instruction in the participants' production of test words, subject variation from T1-T2 and from T1-T3 was calculated using a series of two-way mixed ANOVAs. The scores from all test words for all four stress rule patterns were combined and analysed to check for the effectiveness of the instruction as a whole. The scores from test words were further grouped by stress rule pattern (KSR, LSR, VSR, PSR) and analysed separately to check which pattern demonstrated best results.

The results for the overall instruction with combined scores for all stress rule patterns indicated no significant main effect of GROUP (treatment vs. control), $F(1, 38) = 0.99, p = .325, \eta^2 = .02$. However, they did indicate a significant main effect of TIME (T1, T2, T3) $F(2, 37) = 21.71, p = .00, \eta^2 = .54$, as well as a statistically significant interaction of TIME and GROUP $F(2, 37) = 4.04, p = .026, \eta^2 = .18$. Hence, while the two groups did not differ significantly because improvement was evident in both groups over time, the treatment group demonstrated greater improvement consistently from T1 to T3 compared to the control group (Figure 1, Table 3).
<caption>Figure 1</caption>

*Treatment vs. Control Group: Overall Improvement*

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

Note. TG n = 20; CG n = 20.

<caption>Table 3</caption>

*Mean and Standard Deviation Values for the Treatment and Control Groups at T1, T2 and T3*

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Group</th><th colspan="2">T1_all</th><th colspan="2">T2_all</th><th colspan="2">T3_all</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Treatment</td><td>11.4500</td><td>2.28208</td><td>13.1000</td><td>3.00701</td><td>14.2500</td><td>2.86310</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>11.6000</td><td>3.15228</td><td>11.7000</td><td>3.98814</td><td>12.7500</td><td>3.16020</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* TG n = 20; CG n = 20; all = combined accuracy scores of read-aloud polysyllabic words (KSR, VSR, LSR, and PSR).

A follow-up one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in mean scores across testing times for the treatment group (F(2, 18) = 21.98, *p* = .000, η² = .71) indicating that these participants demonstrated differences regarding the time they were tested. Pairwise comparisons based on Bonferroni adjustment at three testing times revealed that participants' test scores at T2 were significantly higher than T1 scores (M<sub>T2</sub> = 13.1 vs. M<sub>T1</sub> = 11.45; *p* < 0.01). Moreover, T3 scores were significantly higher than both T1 scores (M<sub>T3</sub> = 14.25 vs. M<sub>T1</sub> = 11.45; *p* < 0.001) and T2 scores (M<sub>T3</sub> = 14.25 vs. M<sub>T2</sub> = 13.1; *p* < 0.05), suggesting that participants' improvement was steady over time and their knowledge of word-stress rules was retained.

Significant differences in mean scores across testing times were registered for the control group as well (F(2, 18) = 4.29, *p* = .030, η² = .32). Pairwise comparisons at three testing times showed that the difference in participants' test scores at T3 in comparison to their test scores at T1 was significant (M<sub>T3</sub> = 12.75 vs. M<sub>T1</sub> = 11.60; *p* < 0.05), while no statistically significant
differences in the test scores at T1 vs. T2 ($M_{T1}$ = 11.60 vs. $M_{T2}$ = 11.70), and T2 vs. T3 ($M_{T2}$ = 11.70 vs. $M_{T3}$ = 12.75) were found.

To see which rule pattern was most successfully applied after the teaching intervention, participants' score variation was calculated for each stress rule category separately. Table 4 shows that participants' initial proficiency performance in the treatment and the control group was similar for all four categories, i.e., for KSR ($t(38) = 0.78, p > 0.05$; $M_{TG}$ = 2.6 vs. $M_{CG}$ = 2.4), VSR ($t(38) = -0.74, p > 0.05$; $M_{TG}$ = 3.15 vs. $M_{CG}$ = 3.4), LSR ($t(38) = -0.19, p > 0.05$; $M_{TG}$ = 2.85 vs. $M_{CG}$ = 2.9), and PCR ($t(38) = -0.78, p > 0.05$; $M_{TG}$ = 2.8 vs. $M_{CG}$ = 2.9).

The analyses of KSR, LSR, and VSR scores revealed a similar trend for these three stress rules (Figure 2, Table 4). The results for the KSR pattern indicated no significant main effect of GROUP, $F(1, 38) = 2.42, p = .128, \eta^2 = .02$, a significant main effect of TIME, $F(2, 37) = 4.21, p = .023, \eta^2 = .18$, and no statistically significant interaction of TIME and GROUP, $F(2, 37) = 1.01, p = .376, \eta^2 = .05$. The results for the LSR pattern indicated no significant main effect of GROUP, $F(1, 38) = 0.89, p = .351, \eta^2 = .02$, a significant main effect of TIME, $F(2, 37) = 10.92, p = .000, \eta^2 = .37$, and no statistically significant interaction of TIME and GROUP, $F(2, 37) = 1.86, p = .171, \eta^2 = .09$. The results for the VSR pattern indicated no significant main effect of GROUP, $F(1, 38) = 1.03, p = .317, \eta^2 = .03$, a significant main effect of TIME, $F(2, 37) = 4.40, p = .019, \eta^2 = .19$, and no statistically significant interaction of TIME and GROUP, $F(2, 37) = .51, p = .606, \eta^2 = .03$. According to these results, both groups showed similar improvement from T1 to T3 (see Table 4); however, this improvement is not substantial enough to be attributed to the teaching intervention.

The results for the PSR pattern indicated no significant main effect (borderline) of GROUP, $F(1, 38) = 3.88, p = .056, \eta^2 = .02$, but a significant main effect of TIME, $F(2, 37) = 7.79, p = .002, \eta^2 = .30$, as well as a statistically significant interaction effect of TIME and GROUP, $F(2, 37) = 6.01, p = .005, \eta^2 = .25$. Such a trend for the PSR pattern can be observed in Figure 2. The results for the control group are similar at each testing time showing modest improvement, while the results for the treatment group demonstrate noticeable improvement from T1 to T3, indicating that the instruction was effective for this stress rule pattern.

Table 4

<table><caption>Mean and Standard Deviation Values for the Treatment and Control Groups at T1, T2, and T3 for KSR, LSR, VSR, and PSR</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Group</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">KSR</th><th colspan="2">LSR</th><th colspan="2">VSR</th><th colspan="2">PSR</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Treatment</td><td>T1</td><td>2.6500</td><td>1.03999</td><td>2.8500</td><td>0.81273</td><td>3.1500</td><td>0.87509</td><td>2.8000</td><td>0.95145</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>3.1500</td><td>0.98809</td><td>3.4000</td><td>0.94032</td><td>3.0500</td><td>1.23438</td><td>3.5000</td><td>1.14708</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>3.2500</td><td>1.20852</td><td>3.7000</td><td>1.03110</td><td>3.3000</td><td>0.97872</td><td>4.0000</td><td>0.91766</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Control</td><td>T1</td><td>2.4000</td><td>0.99472</td><td>2.9000</td><td>0.85224</td><td>3.4000</td><td>1.23117</td><td>2.9000</td><td>1.29371</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td>2.4500</td><td>1.39454</td><td>3.1000</td><td>0.96791</td><td>3.4000</td><td>1.66702</td><td>2.7500</td><td>1.25132</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>2.7500</td><td>1.06992</td><td>3.2500</td><td>0.85070</td><td>3.8000</td><td>1.39925</td><td>2.9500</td><td>0.99868</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. TG n = 20; CG n = 20.
<caption>Figure 2</caption>

Treatment vs. Control Group Progress for KSR, LSR, VSR, and PSR Stress-rule Patterns

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Note. TG n = 20; CG n = 20.

## 4.2 Use of pronunciation learning strategies

Data from participants' diary entries was coded and analysed to identify which strategies were used during completion of homework assignments 1–7. The results in Table 5 show that all suggested strategies were used, with different combinations of strategy categories. The participants most frequently used prediction strategies either to identify syllables (PRE1 = 18), to analyse word endings for Key/Left Syllable identification (PRE2 = 59), or to use word endings to decide which syllable to stress (PRE3 = 46). Three out of five production strategies were also frequently used: the participants were recording themselves saying polysyllabic words and comparing their production against a model (PRO4 = 49); just listening to speech
models and imitating their pronunciation of the word (PRO5 = 36); or reading aloud a word and paying attention to the loudest syllable (PRO6 = 21). The remaining two production strategies were hardly ever used, i.e., participants did not choose to practise reading aloud sentences/passages with the target word (PRO7 = 4), or using the target word in a sentence (PRO8 = 2). The perception strategies were sporadically used compared to prediction and production strategies; when used, they included listening to speech models such as recordings of native speakers (PER9 = 18), listening to recordings to identify the stressed syllable (PER10 = 4), or highlighting/underlining the stressed syllable in a word (PER11 = 8).

Comparing the number of strategies reported in a single assignment, fewer strategies were used for homework 1–2, which focused on identification of syllable structure and Key/Left Syllable. The number of strategies used increased for homework 3–7, which focused on the four stress-placement rules, indicating that participants chose to apply the rules practised in class, and that during covert practice they experimented with a combination of strategies from all three categories.

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

<table><caption>*Frequency Count of Reported Pronunciation Learning Strategies*</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">PLSs</th><th colspan="2">Hw1</th><th colspan="2">Hw2</th><th colspan="2">Hw3</th><th colspan="2">Hw4</th><th colspan="2">Hw5</th><th colspan="2">Hw6</th><th colspan="2">Hw7</th><th rowspan="2">Total per PLS</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>N</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PRE1</td><td>11</td><td>55</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>PRE2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>14</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>65</td><td>6</td><td>30</td><td>12</td><td>60</td><td>6</td><td>30</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>PRE3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>35</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>11</td><td>55</td><td>9</td><td>45</td><td>10</td><td>50</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>PRO4</td><td>7</td><td>35</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>10</td><td>50</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>8</td><td>40</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>PRO5</td><td>6</td><td>30</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>30</td><td>7</td><td>35</td><td>7</td><td>35</td><td>7</td><td>35</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>PRO6</td><td>5</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>PRO7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>PRO8</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>PER9</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>25</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>PER10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>PER11</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total per Hw</td><td>32</td><td>18</td><td>41</td><td>41</td><td>41</td><td>48</td><td>40</td><td>45</td><td>48</td><td>40</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>45</td></tr></tfoot></table>

*Note.* TG *n* = 20; PRE = prediction, PRO = production, PER = perception, Hw1–7 = homework 1–7.

## 5 Discussion

The first research question focused on whether instruction under the CRM for a short treatment period improved learners' word stress placement in polysyllabic words. It also addressed which stress rule pattern was most effectively learnt. Our findings revealed that although the treatment and the control group did not differ (the main effect of GROUP was statistically insignificant), the treatment group achieved better scores over time (the main effect of TIME was statistically significant as well as the interaction of TIME and GROUP). These results may indicate that the participants who received instruction tend to demonstrate enhanced ability to accurately
stress polysyllabic words compared to the participants who did not receive instruction. A
possible explanation about the improvement demonstrated by the participants in the control
group might be that during the treatment period they attended other English classes specialised
in linguistics and literature, hence, such regular language exposure may have affected their
progress from T1 to T3 positively. At the same time, the participants in the treatment group
also attended the same classes and were exposed to the same language input. This might mean
that for them the teaching intervention seems to make a difference on its own, because their
improvement in comparison to the participants in the control group was noticeable over time
(from T1 to T2 to T3). In addition, the separate analyses by stress rule pattern showed that the
effect of instruction was indicative for KSR, LSR, VSR, and particularly evident for PSR.
Learners appear to have benefited from orthographic rules for stress placement, which concurs
with Sardegna and Dickerson (2023). The improvement of the treatment group was moderate
but steady over testing times, so we may infer that the length of the intervention was too short.
Nonetheless, even a short explicit teaching intervention of a particular pronunciation feature,
such as word stress, might also prompt learners' awareness of that feature. As for the
learnability of stress rule patterns, our results indicated that some rules seem easier to grasp
(PSR) than others (KSR, LSR, VSR); although statistically insignificant, the results for KSR,
LSR, and VSR appeared to indicate improvement, implying that the teaching intervention for
these rules may have been helpful.

The second research question addressed the types of strategies used by learners during self-practice. The results indicated that learners, once trained how to employ strategies to their advantage, chose to combine them to complete assigned tasks. The two most commonly reported strategies were prediction strategies PRE2 and PRE3, i.e., the learners relied on analysing word endings to find the stressed syllable. This provides further support to the claim that, when orthographic stress-placement rules are practised, prediction facilitates learning. Strategy use seems to complement consolidation of knowledge acquired through explicit rule instruction and to help the learning process in general, which is consistent with results from research into strategy use (Ingels, 2011; Nakatani, 2005; Szyszka 2021).

The teaching intervention participants received was fully integrated in the course Modern English 2, which was mandatory in their curriculum. This aspect is relevant, as it shows that such integration is achievable and successful. Furthermore, time restrictions (often considered a major drawback for pronunciation instruction) can be overcome. It further supports the need for regular practice over time, for pronunciation rules to be internalised.

Effective application of rules and strategies has important implications for pronunciation pedagogy. The results of this study suggest that word-stress rules show great potential for integration into ESL/EFL teaching syllabi. Learners need explicit rules; hence, suggesting online resources for self-monitoring their performance, such as online dictionaries, speech models (e.g., Youglish, TED talks)<fnref n="3" /> and voice recorders (e.g., Vocaroo, Voice spice)<fnref n="4" /> might strengthen their motivation and willingness to improve. Given that learning strategies reinforce self-regulated practice (Pawlak & Oxford, 2018), teachers could select strategies to suit their learners' needs, provide training with those strategies, and monitor learners' progress with strategy diaries.

<footnote n="3">³ YouGlish https://youglish.com/
TED talks https://www.ted.com/talks</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Vocaroo https://vocaroo.com/
Voice spice https://voicespice.com/</footnote>