ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TEACHING MODELIN EFL AND EIL PEDAGOGY

Tatiana SkopintsevaNew Economic School

Moscow Russiatskopintseva@nes.ru

NUST MISiS, Moscow, November 26, 2015

EFL EDUCATIONAL MODEL

Ex-panding

64%

Inner18%

Outer18%

Kashru’s circles

British41%

US36%

Outer23%

Educational model

(Yoneoka, J. and Arimoto, J. 2008)

3

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN EFL COUNTRIES: ISSUES

EFL pedagogy: English language teaching model was aimed at approximating NES accent (BE or AE)

Now we cannot afford to ignore ‘its new global form’ (Graddol 2006:1).

This causes the decreasing relevance of English as a foreign language for NNESs (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Mauranen 2012; Jenkins 2015).

Whilst traditionally English was used by NNESs speakers to communicate with NESs, today English is increasingly used by NNES to communicate with NNESs, as particularly seen in international academic settings . (Jenkins 2014).

Many applied linguists (Widdowson 2003; Seidlehofer 2011) emphasize the connection between what is learnt in English language classrooms and what is happening in real life encounters using English as the chosen medium of communication.

4

INTEGRATING PRONUNCIATION TEACHING INTO ESP/EAP CURRICULUM: ISSUES

1. What variety of English to teach?2. Is pronunciation teachable at all?3. How long will it take my learners to acquire ‘proper’ English

pronunciation?4. Will their heavy Russian accent undermine their communication

competence?5. Should I teach English pronunciation as a separate course or just work on

the students’ mistakes?6. Will they understand the complex terms? 7. Do I have enough expertise in teaching English pronunciation? 8. Can my NN English pronunciation be a model?9. Is mispronouncing words a serious mistake after all?

5

ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TEACHING MODEL: EIL PERSPECTIVE

As a result of regional and social mobility, it is next to impossible nowadays to find a native speaker in possession of the ‘pure’ standard variety.

EIL/ELF focuses on pragmatic competences and international communication strategies, where, for successful communication, more importance is placed on discourse intelligibility than native-speaker-like fluency.

Both NESs and NNESs have to aspire to a mutually intelligible variety of English, which has a distinctive language, pragmatics features that NNESs are using as a means of expressing their sociocultural identities

(Seidlhofer & Berns 2009: 190).

The interlocutor’s accent is legitimate.

NN teachers can serve as realistic models for their students.

6

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

Presenting skills Business and academic presentations Lectures Debates, meetings and negotiations Self-presenting at job interviews

Rhetorical competence Well-structured, coherent, intelligible, and accurate texts Clear speech

Sociocultural competence Intelligibility of discourse is more important: participants from different linguistic and

sociocultural backgrounds build common ground by adjusting their verbal and non-verbal behaviour to the interlocutor’s

Retain the L1 national identity

7

ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TEACHING MODEL: GROUNDS

1. J. Jenkins proposed acquiring only the degree of native speaker accent sufficient to ensuring intelligibility. This compromising ELT method saves precious time and effort of EFL/ESL teachers and learners(Jenkins 2000).

2. Simon Andrewes (Andrewes 2011) has put forward the idea that NNESs should aim to acquire a pronunciation model approximating that of public speaking. NNESs need to develop their rhetorical competence in such areas as – clarity of enunciation– speed of delivery – appropriate pausing– nuclear stress patterns.

3. MSLU (T.I. Shevchenko’s school of sociolinguistics). Intensive sociolinguistic research of British and American standard pronunciation.

8

RUSSIAN- SPECIFIC KEY PROSODIC FEATURES ELICITED IN STANDARD RUSSIAN/STANDARD ENGLISH COMPARISON

Russian learners produce an impression of speaking too fast, too loudly, emphasizing to many sounds and disregarding the tonic stress which creates a ‘pushy’ effect

To a large extent intonational preferences stem from the syllable structure and vowel prominence typical of the Russian language, which in their turn depend on the less energetic articulatory effort in Russian as compared to English (Vassiliev; Lukina 2003)

Russian-specific intonation patterns are sometimes perceived as monotonous and incomplete in oral presentations (Savina, Skopintseva 2005)

Pitch range was found to be a sociocultural index differentiating two intonation patterns for speakers of English and Russian national standards of pronunciation (Shevchenko 2006, 2015)

9

ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION TEACHING MODEL: SEGMENTALS AND SUPRASEGMENTALS

• Aspiration after /p/, /t/, /k/

company , company policy, public, company, target , target market

• Cardinal vowels quality: /æ/ - /ʌ/ - /a:/ difference and /ɔ:/ - /ə:/ difference

bag – bug stuff – staff much – March cut – cart

walk – work short – shirt pork – perk course – curse

• Articulation of diphthongs

want – won’t sells – sales lawn – loan beer – bear

10

Keeping voiced consonants voiced in word endings, including ‘-s’ and ‘-ed’ endings

fate – fade place – plays life – live price – prize

Word stress, particularly in derivatives (transfer (n.) – transfer (v.))

Nuclear stress production and placement within tone units with pitch movement on the nuclear syllable

Flexibility in adoption of the rhotic variant /r/ e.g. ‘card’ pronounced as /ka:rd/ or /ka:d/

Stress-timed rhythm

• Register (Step-ups to emphasize the discourse structure and as a feature of a cultured voice)

Slower pace

Voice resonance

11

TEACHING IMPLICATIONS ON THE METHOD AND MATERIAL OF AN

EAP/ESP/EMI PRONUNCIATION SYLLABUS Rely on techniques and features of ’double value’ that help to achieve several goals:

rhetorical, sociocultural and pronunciation

Repeat the core techniques at every class gradually building on complexity

In exercises, focus on key terms vocabulary, capital letter vocabulary (geographical and company names, job titles, indexes, car marques, Latinate vocabulary)

Let the body help in learning and memorizing the key techniques

Concentrate on words in which the students commonly make mistakes

Find emotionally provocative mantras and images

12

REFERENCES• Andrewes, S. (2011). Slow English. English Teaching Professional, 77, 5-8.• Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. British Council.• Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. London and New York: Routledge.• Lukina, N.D. (2003). Prakticheskiy kurs fonetiki angliyskogo jazyka. Moskva: OOO AST. • Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Skopintseva, T. (2015). Integrating pronunciation into teaching writing skills through text analysis in Speak

Out! 53 (IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group Newsletter; issue 53: 15-24).• Skopintseva, T. (2015). Looking for an EIL Standard: Academic Discourse. Journal of Language and Education;

issue 1 (forthcoming).• Skopintseva, T. (2014). Teaching connected speech: Why? In Коммуникация в современном

поликультурном мире: диалог культур. Ed. Т. А. Baranovskaya. (397-405). М.: Pearson. • Skopintseva, T. (2013). Teaching pronunciation to Russian learners. IATEFL 2013 Liverpool Conference

Selections. Liverpool: IATEFL, 108-110.• Savina, I., Skopintseva T. (2005). Teaching Oral Presentation Skills to Russian Learners of English IATEFL 2005

Cardiff Conference Selections. Cardiff: IATEFL, 74-76.• Shevchenko, T.I. (2006). Teoreticheskaya fonetika angliyskogo jazyka. Moskva: Visshaya shkola. • Shevchenko, T.I. (2015). Sotsiofonetika. Moskva: LENAND.• Shevchenko, T. I. and Skopintseva, T. S. (2004). Prosody Variation in English: Geographical, social, situational

in The Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference: Speech Prosody 2004. Nara: SP 2004, 278-281. • Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS