Conceptualizing Pronunciation AsPart of Translingual/TransculturalCompetence: New Impulses forSLA Research and the L2ClassroomMareike MüllerUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Abstract: This article aims to reconceptualize pronunciation teaching and learningaccording to the tenets of the 2007 MLA Report and its call for translingual/transculturalcompetence. The critical discussion of current teaching and research practices showsthat the realm of pronunciation has benefitted little from debates on interculturallanguage learning. In order to link the teaching of pronunciation with learner needs inintercultural encounters, this article develops the concept of pronunciation‐as‐language.The theoretical exploration of this concept is supported by a narrative analysis of study‐abroad learners’ accounts, contrasting learners’ perceptions of teaching practices with thecomplex role pronunciation plays in second language‐mediated interactions. The resultsunderline the importance of pedagogical approaches that encourage the critical reflectionon and creative use of pronunciation beyond structural elements and native‐speakernorms.

Key words: critical language awareness, native‐speaker ideal, pronunciation, studyabroad, translingual and transcultural competence

IntroductionIn 2007, the Modern Language Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on ForeignLanguages published a widely discussed report that offered thought‐provokingsuggestions for the reformation of language programs and language teachingphilosophies at North American colleges and universities. One of the cornerstones ofthe report was the redefinition of teaching and learning goals: “The language majorshould be structured to produce a specific outcome: educated speakers who have

Mareike Müller (PhD, University of Waterloo) is a Clinical Assistant Professor ofGerman and Director of the German Basic Language Program at the University ofIllinois at Chicago.Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 46, Iss. 2, pp. 213–229. © 2013 by American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages.DOI: 10.1111/flan.12024

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 213

deep translingual and transcultural compe-tence” (MLA, 2007, p. 3; emphasis added).The formulation of this learning goal echoesa critical discussion in recent research onsecond language acquisition (SLA): theattempt to overcome the focus on structuralaspects of language learning, which drawson and promotes the native‐speaker ideal foradult language learners and, due to itsnarrow focus, divorces the study of languagefrom the study of culture and its artefacts(e.g.,Canagarajah, 1999;Cook, 1999;Davies,1989; Doerr, 2009; Kramsch, 1998, 2009,2010).

Although the MLA Report has attractedmuch attention and created ample discus-sion among researchers, program adminis-trators, and instructors (e.g., Barnes‐Karol& Broner, 2010; and several articles in TheGerman Quarterly, winter 2008, and DieUnterrichtspraxis/TeachingGerman, fall 2009),there are areas of language teaching thathave remained rather unaffected by itsideas and suggestions. One of these areas ispronunciation, which still appears to beconceptualized, taught, and learned as aseparate phenomenon of speech, with littleinterconnection to the more global compe-tencies needed to interact successfully inintercultural encounters (Müller, 2011).The goal of this article is to explore waysof conceptualizing pronunciation as anessential element of the translingually/trans-culturally competent foreign language (L2)speaker, using the MLA Report as a pointof departure for the critical discussion ofcurrent research and teaching approaches.

Review of LiteratureDirections in Teaching and Researchon L2 PronunciationBoth researchers and instructors have takenmany approaches to the teaching of pro-nunciation. An important focus of instruc-tion in the direct and audio‐lingual methods,explicit teaching of pronunciation receivedlittle emphasis in the early days of commu-nicative language teaching (Jones, 2005). Inparticular, Krashen’s (1982) argument that

pronunciation is acquired rather thanlearned led to the assumption that focusedinstruction designed to promote accuratepronunciation was at best useless and atworst detrimental. However, in recent years,there has been renewed interest in pronun-ciation (Breitkreutz, Derwing, & Rossiter,2001), due in part to the belief that form‐

focused instruction may support the devel-opment of overall communicative skills.

In particular, increased interest inpronunciation has generated a number ofteaching‐related questions, most of whichhave sought to determine effective strategiesfor teaching pronunciation in the commu-nicative classroom. As a result, researchhas emphasized the communicative impor-tance of training in both segmental andsuprasegmental features, allowing languagelearners to practice isolated sounds as wellas combinations of sounds and supra-segmental features in meaningful and con-tinuous speech (e.g., Brazil, Coulthard, &Johns, 1980; Brown & Yule, 1983; Chun,2002; Derwing & Munro, 1997; Munro &Derwing, 1995; Pennington & Richards,1986). Current didactic approaches thuspromote exercise typologies beyond “listenand repeat” pattern drills, focusing on bothlistening and speaking exercises, with thefinal target being the integration of intelligi-ble pronunciation in more global speakingactivities (e.g., Celce‐Murcia, Brinton, &Goodwin, 2010; Chun, 2002; Hirschfeld,2003; Kelz, 1999; Morley, 1991).

However, the growing interest in peda-gogical research on pronunciation hasinfluenced curricula, teaching materials,and classroom practice only by varyingdegrees. Leading teaching guidelines, in-cluding the ACTFL Standards for ForeignLanguage Learning in the 21st Century(ACTFL, 2006) and the Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for Languages(CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001), haveplaced strong emphasis on oral skills, pluri‐and multilingualism, and (inter‐) culturalcompetence. Both guidelines, however,hardly connected discussions of multilin-gualism and intercultural competence with

214 SUMMER 2013

the teaching of pronunciation. In addition,while the CEFR integrated pronunciationexplicitly in its communicative learningobjectives, the ACTFL guidelines offeredonly brief and vague commentaries onphonological learning goals (cf. Chun,1988; O’Brien, 2004).

Research on the manner in whichpronunciation is taught (Breitkreutz et al.,2001; Jones, 2005; Müller, 2008) foundthat commercially produced course booksand other teaching materials often havenot addressed pronunciation in sufficientdepth, at best presenting activities basedon “listen and repeat” drills and decon-textualized words and sentences. Conse-quently, the teaching of pronunciation inL2 classes appears to be rather limited andis characterized by a strong focus onsegmental elements rather than a balanceof segments and suprasegmentals, a lackof focus on pronunciation in commu-nicative contexts, and insufficient materi-als for different learner needs and interests(Breitkreutz et al., 2001; Hirschfeld, 2003;S. Macdonald, 2002).

Thus, research and teaching practiceappear to bemisaligned,with research resultsbeing applied only intermittently to class-room practice. In addition, pronunciationresearch has been dominated by a stronginterest in quantitative investigations ofthe development of learners’ proficiency asa result of, for example, different learningenvironments (e.g., Díaz‐Campos, 2004;O’Brien, 2003, 2004; Simões, 1996; Stevens,2000) and teaching strategies (e.g., D.Macdonald, Yule, & Powers, 1994). Withinthis research, the unquestioned isolation ofspecific phonetic elements to be measuredaccording to native‐speaker norms has pro-moted a narrow conceptualization of pro-nunciation in teaching practice and hasobstructed language educators’ understand-ing of the learner and the highly individual-ized nature of the learning process. Fewstudies (e.g., Marx, 2002; Moyer, 2004;Müller, 2011) have thus far investigatedthe teaching and learning of pronunciationin their complexity, individuality, and inter-

dependence with other learning factors.These mostly qualitative studies have under-lined that the teaching and learning ofpronunciation cannot be understood as themere acquisition of specific segmental andsuprasegmental features of speech, as used bya monolingual native speaker. Rather, theysuggested that pronunciation needs to beconceptualized as strongly connected withindividual dispositions, such as learneridentities and motivational and contextualfactors. Research therefore needs to focusmore strongly on the learner perspective inorder to align teaching practices and learningobjectives with learner needs.

In light of such findings, it is importantto (1) reconceptualize pronunciation forboth SLA research and classroom teaching assomething that addresses more than simplephonetic and phonological issues, and (2)ask how pronunciation can be integratedinto the wider learning objective of achiev-ing communicatively competent speakerswho can interact successfully in intercultur-al encounters, while handling pronuncia-tion as a tool to negotiate both conventionalmeanings and subjective realities (cf.Kramsch, 2009).

Integrating Pronunciation Into theWider Competence SpectrumBased on the intention to promote thereformation of modern language programs,their structures, and curricula, the MLAReport of 2007 expanded the concept ofcommunicative competence (Canale, 1983;Canale & Swain, 1980; Savignon, 1998) inits definition of learning goals. Beyond theskills required to converse fluently andappropriately in intellectual exchangeswith speakers of the L2, the report suggestedthat students should be

trained to reflect on the world andthemselves through the lens of anotherlanguage and culture. They learn tocomprehend speakers of the targetlanguage asmembers of foreign societiesand to grasp themselves as Americans—

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 215

that is, as members of a society that isforeign to others. (2007, p. 4)

In order to achieve this objective, peda-gogical research needs to acknowledgelearners as multilingual speakers and in-clude questions about how learners can beguided to “draw profit from shuttling fromone to the other of their languages”(Kramsch, 2010, p. 17) in interculturalencounters. The concept of translingual/transcultural competence can thus be un-derstood as a supplement to similar con-cepts, such as Byram’s (1997, 2008)“intercultural communicative competence”and “intercultural speaker” (Byram, 2008;Byram & Zarate, 1997), which, however,the MLA Ad Hoc Committee thought“seemed to lack a discourse dimension”(Kramsch, 2010, p. 17).

Despite their impact on research andpedagogy, discussions of translingual/trans-cultural competence have thus far notinfluenced the realm of pronunciation.Respective learning objectives are mostlybased on discussions of structural aspects,resulting in a general adherence to native‐speaker norms. Although learners’ aspira-tions to acquire native‐like pronunciationhave been acknowledged as problematic byseveral researchers (e.g., Jenkins, 2000,2002, 2007; Levis, 2005; Munro, 2008;Munro & Derwing, 1999), the alternativegoal of “intelligibility” (Levis, 2005) alsorevolves around discussions about whichstructural elements to include in thepronunciation curriculum (cf. the LinguaFranca Core [Jenkins, 2000, 2007]; theFunctional Load Principle [Brown, 1991;Catford, 1987; King, 1967; Meyerstein,1970; Munro & Derwing, 2006]). Suchnarrow conceptualizations conflict stronglywith research results, indicating that pro-nunciation is intricately linked to speakers’identity negotiations in L2‐mediated inter-actions and their relative willingness toadjust to different speech communities(Gatbonton, Trofimovich, & Magid, 2005;Guiora et al., 1975; Lybeck, 2002; Marx,2002; Müller, 2011). In order to allow

learners to use pronunciation as a tool to“operate between languages” (MLA, 2007,p. 3f) and language communities, languageeducators’ understanding and teaching ofpronunciation need to be integrated morestrongly into the wider goal of developinginterculturally competent L2 speakers.

According to the definition of trans-lingual and transcultural competence givenabove, pronunciation may not only beunderstood as the intelligible realization ofisolatable segments and suprasegmentals,but also more widely as a social practicethat helps speakers act at the boundaryof different languages and cultures (cf. “thirdplace” [Bhabha, 1994; Kramsch, 1993]). AsKramsch (2009) explained, language actsnot only as a symbolic system, transportinggrammatical, social, and cultural informa-tion, but also as an instrument speakers useto express their subjectivities, desires, per-ceptions, and identity facets. As such,language “expresses both conventional, so-cialized ways of thinking, and creative,subjective beliefs and idealized realities”(Kramsch, 2009, p. 12). Being an essentialpart of language, pronunciation carries thesefunctions as well. In learning to reflect on thefunctions of pronunciation in L2‐mediatedencounters, speakers may feel encouraged touse pronunciation to position themselves, toreact to situational demands, and to mediatebetween their own and their interlocutors’conveyance of conventional and subjectivemeaning through speech. This seeminglyoverlooked insight requires that both re-search and pedagogy shift their focus from anarrow understanding of pronunciation‐in‐isolation to a holistic conceptualization ofpronunciation‐as‐language. In this way, pro-nunciation may be framed as an integral partof the kaleidoscope of languages to which anindividual has access in order to transportsubjective and conventional social andcultural values, meanings, and behaviors.

MethodsIn order to gain a deeper understanding ofthe needs and constraints learners feel in

216 SUMMER 2013

employing L2 pronunciation beyond struc-tural features and native‐speaker norms, it isimportant to gain insight into how learnersframe pronunciation based on their experi-ence with learning and using their L2 withinand beyond the classroom. The follow-ing study thus aims at exemplifying andcontextualizing the theoretical discussion ofthe proposed concepts pronunciation‐in‐isolation and pronunciation‐as‐language byanalyzing learner beliefs and perspectivesregarding pronunciation and pronunciationlearning.

ParticipantsThe study was conducted with 10 Canadianuniversity students of German who partici-pated in a one‐term or one‐year study abroadprogram with German universities in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 academic years. For thefollowing analysis, five students were select-edwhose narratives represented awide rangeof language learning backgrounds, experi-ences, and beliefs. At the time of the firstinterview, the participants (two male andthree female) were between 20 and 24 yearsold and had intermediate to advanced levelsof proficiency. Four were enrolled in thethird or fourth year of their undergraduateprograms, and one was a second‐yeargraduate student. Three participants grewup monolingually with English as their firstlanguage (Rona, Lisa, Alex).1 One (Kris)learned both English and Latvian as a child.Another participant (Zora) was brought upin the former Yugoslavia with Bosnian as herfirst language (L1) before migrating toGermany and subsequently to Canada.

Data Collection and AnalysisThe results presented below were garneredfrom a larger qualitative multiple‐case study(Duff, 2008). Semi‐structured interviewswere conducted pre‐, mid‐, and post‐sojourn. The pre‐and post‐sojourn face‐to‐face interviews were audio‐recorded; differ-ent software applications were used tointerview students while they were inGermany. Data were also obtained from

biweekly e‐journals, which the participantswrote throughout the duration of the studyabroad term. The e‐journal prompts andresponses were exchanged via e‐mail. Thedata collection was conducted mainly inEnglish.

The data were analyzed and interpretedwithin the framework of narrative analysis(Lieblich, Tuval‐Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998;Polkinghorne, 1995; Riessman, 1993, 2003,2008), allowing for an in‐depth investiga-tion of each participant’s beliefs and per-ceptions in their complexity and contextdependence. The transcription of the inter-views aimed at a precise representation ofspeech. Relevant passages in interviewtranscripts were thematically coded andcommented on. Both coding and commentswere inspired by the guiding researchquestions as well as by learners’ narrativesthemselves.

ResultsPronunciation‐in‐IsolationThis analysis investigates the occurrenceand effects of pronunciation‐in‐isolation inlearners’ narratives. The first aspect thenarratives addressed is the quantity andquality of in‐class pronunciation training.Two participants of this study, Kris andZora, reported not to have experienced anypronunciation training in their Germanclasses either abroad or at home. Thefollowing excerpt by Kris, a bachelor’sstudent of German in his third year,exemplified the lack of pronunciation train-ing in the language course he attended at theGerman sojourn university:

INT: did it [the language course] trainyour pronunciation actually?Kris: uh not specifically … we didn’treally work on pronunciation specifical-ly, um the focus was much more on umgrammatical structures, how to form thepassive, how to form the subjunctive …INT: ya … how do you feel about thelevel of pronunciation training that youhave received in this class in Germany?

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 217

Kris: um again, we didn’t receive anypronunciation training. (excerpt Kris 1)

In contrast to Kris and Zora, the otherthree participants of the study experiencedelements of pronunciation training. Theirrecollections, however, revealed a noticeablefocus on pronunciation as a collection ofisolatable features of speech, which can belearned through imitation and repetition.The following excerpt was taken from a pre‐sojourn interview with Alex, a third‐yearbachelor’s student of German and computerscience who had only very limited oppor-tunities to learn and use German outside ofthe classroom before his sojourn. Hedescribed his experience with in‐classpronunciation training as follows:

Alex: well um in German 204, when wewere reading this novel, um every classwe took 10 minutes and read it out loudas a class … and that helped withpronunciation as well.INT: ya, did you receive feedback or didyou just read it out?Alex: uh we received feedback, theprofessor … would stop us and be like“no, say it like this” and make sureeverything was being said properly andmake sure everything was good in thepronunciation. (excerpt Alex 1)

The in‐class pronunciation training Alexremembered was a regular activity thattrained pronunciation in a merely reproduc-tive fashion, according to a teacher‐presented standard. Interestingly enough,Alex’s recollection of classroom experienceresembled closely the narrative of Rona, asecond‐year master’s student of German,whowas the only subject in this study able toparticipate in a pronunciation course, offeredby the German host university:

INT: um and this instructor, what kindof like techniques did she use… to teachyou?Rona: I think she would introduce somesounds and and I remember we had

these, we had these worksheets and so itmight have a rule on it… and I think shewould show them, she would writethings on the board … I rememberpracticing the /r/, like [

R] … for me this

is very difficult…well I used to do a [r] alot at the front … but then she was likeyou know, you really should do it at theback … ya I remember ya my my likepronunciation teacher in Germany shehad us read, she brought a story or founda story about a Granitblock [graniteblock] and we had to … so it had the /r/and the /l/… and it was about theGranitblock [granite block] who goesto the uh, who goes to the Kino [themovies]. (excerpt Rona 1)

Rona’s excerpt suggested that evencourses dedicated to pronunciation trainingmay be restricted to reproductive practice,neither taking different intelligible, albeitnonstandard varieties into account (such asthe trilled [r] sound in Rona’s case), norencouraging learners to conceptualize pro-nunciation more holistically as a tool toportray themselves as proficient multilin-gual speakers, as opposed to deficientnonnative speakers.

In addition, the exposure to pronuncia-tion‐in‐isolation seemed partly connected torather narrow views the participants heldwith regard to the nature of German, itspronunciation, and the learning of foreignlanguages in general. Alex, for example,thought of German as a very “structured andlogical language,” with its pronunciationbeing “pretty straightforward,” which mayhave led him to consider the reproductivereading exercise as sufficient for pronuncia-tion training (see excerpt Alex 1). Lisa, afourth‐year bachelor’s student of German,exemplified the connection betweenexperiencing pronunciation‐in‐isolationand an appreciation of such reproductiveactivities even more explicitly:

Lisa: um last term I had one professorwho asked us to read from a book outloud and I thought that helped …

218 SUMMER 2013

because um he was listening and hecould say “yes, you’re saying that right”or “good job” or uh he’ll correct a wordas we go along… and I thought that wasreally helpful, I mean it wasn’t a speakingsituation and you didn’t have to think ofthe word yourself, but it was definitely agood pronunciation … type of exercise.(excerpt Lisa 1)

Although Lisa realized that this activitydivorced pronunciation from more complexspeaking activities, she nevertheless consid-ered it helpful without reflecting on thepotential to express one’s sense of selfthrough the flexible, personal, and creativehandling of pronunciation.

Furthermore, the teaching of pronunci-ation‐in‐isolation appeared to be related notonly to how students perceived pronuncia-tion and pronunciation training, but also, asa second consequence, to how they judgedtheir own and other speakers’ speech basedon pronunciation. While some learnersconcentrated on specific sounds that theybelieved they did not produce accurately(e.g., excerpt Rona 1), others also heldrather negative views of other speakers’accented and dialectal versions of German,as Alex exemplified:

Alex: I find um within the studentpopulation, most students don’t reallyspeak dialect, it’s more people onthe street, maybe I don’t know, I guessthe less educated people would speakmore dialect. (excerpt Alex 2)

As can be seen fromAlex’s association ofdialectal speech with low education, suchstructural deviations negatively shapedsome students’ perception of speakers.While this association mainly influencedthe perception of other speakers in Alex’scase, Lisa in particular felt strongly inhibitedin her willingness to speak German becauseshe considered accuracy of pronunciation tobe an essential feature not only of the imagesother speakers created, but also of the imageshe created of herself:

Lisa: um my roommate from SanFrancisco, her German I would say isnot on the same level as mine … andwhen I hear her talk, all I can, all I do islike cringe when I hear her makemistakes, it’s like “oh no, oh really, didyou just say that, oh” so I think … Ireally judge how other people speakwhen they speak German.INT: ya and what exactly is it that youjudge?Lisa: um well the first thing I noticeabout this girl in particular is that shesounds so American and she doesn’t tryto to make the right sounds at all andthat’s what bugs me the most … andthat’s how I feel I sound. (excerpt Lisa 2)

Lisa’s description of her feelings whenlistening to her American roommate speak-ing accented German showed that pronun-ciation was for her a deciding factor in theperception and evaluation of speakers.Consequently, she was afraid that inter-locutorsmight judge her just as negatively asshe judged her roommate when she spokeGerman herself. Lisa reported that she thusoften refrained from speaking Germanbecause her seemingly “American” accentinterfered with her attempt to portrayherself as an educated speaker of German:

Lisa: Pronunciation is very important tome, and mine is terrible. I think this isone of the main reasons why I’membarrassed to speak German. I don’tsound German—I sound foreign. WhenI speak German, I often hear peoplearound me say, “Oh look, anotherAmerican.” I’m not American! At first Ithought it would be interesting to soundexotic, but now I think I come across asunintelligent. (excerpt Lisa 3)

Lisa’s self‐perception, as mediatedthrough her beliefs about pronunciation,presented a major obstacle to interacting inGerman while studying the language both inclass and abroad. However, her devaluationof nonstandard German concerned not only

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 219

accented varieties, but also certain regionalvarieties, and again led to negative con-nections between speech and speaker fromLisa’s point of view:

Lisa: I find it [German] an ugly languagenow, especially when I hear like SwissGerman and Swäbisch [Swabian] uh likeespecially, they’re they’re kind of un-pleasant, I mean they sound funny, butit’s not what I want to hear all the time…I’m a lot more comfortable with the HighGerman … just ’cause it sounds, I don’tknow like more classy or something …

like more educated, I don’t know, likewhen I hear Swäbisch I think of likehillbillies and uneducated people, I Idon’t know why but ya. (excerpt Lisa 4)

Her case in particular suggested that theconceptualization of pronunciation‐in‐isolation draws on the impression of aunidirectional relationship between pro-nunciation, identity constructions, and ac-ceptance into desirable networks, which inturn relates to a strong focus on nativestandard pronunciation.

Taken together, these excerpts showed,first of all, that the concept of pronuncia-tion‐in‐isolation was imparted in particularby reproductive classroom practice, present-ing pronunciation as a system of isolatablefeatures, with only the standard realizationbeing accurate and desirable. Second, theconcept of pronunciation‐in‐isolation ap-peared to be adopted by learners who thenalso viewed pronunciation narrowly as anaccumulation of isolatable elements andhence evaluated reproductive practice, aim-ing at the correct realization of the native‐speaker standard, as appropriate. Third, as aconsequence of the exposure to and adop-tion of pronunciation‐in‐isolation, learnersdevalued nonstandard varieties of the L2pronunciation, partly causing both intoler-ance toward their own and other speakers’nonstandard speech and a narrow under-standing of the effects pronunciation mayhave in intercultural encounters. Learnerswho concentrate on pronunciation‐in‐

isolation may hence not allow themselvesto creatively use their language skills toportray different aspects of their identities,to negotiate meaning, and to express theirsubjective worldviews through speech.

Pronunciation‐as‐LanguageIn contrast to pronunciation‐in‐isolation,which appeared to be connected with theportrayal of pronunciation in class, theconcept of pronunciation‐as‐language wasmore prevalent in the narrations of learningexperience in informal L2‐mediated learn-ing contexts.

The first finding supported by the datawas that learners partly abandoned the strictadherence to standard speech and purpose-fully employed nonstandard forms of pro-nunciation. As an important feature ofpronunciation‐as‐language, Rona and Krisnarrated that they manipulated their speechin order to cover identity facets related totheir native language and culture. Kris, forexample, explained that he emulated thelocal dialect he heard in his study abroadenvironment in order to be perceived as anordinary citizen and thus overcome theascription of an “outsider” status:

Kris: I came back [to Canada]… and myGerman teacher commented that I had aHamburgish1 accent … but ya actuallyone thing I really tried to do actually wasemulate the German that I heard aroundme and so.INT: hmm, why did you do that?Kris: to fit in … um you know you walkinto a store or something and you, allyou want is something simple, right, andyou spit it out in horrible German, right,with a really English accent on it, umpeople immediately know you’re atourist and they treat you differently.(excerpt Kris 2)

By adopting the local dialect, Krisbelieved he was able to legitimately con-struct himself as a local resident, helping toconstruct identity facets that would suit the

220 SUMMER 2013

surrounding communities to which hesought access. Rona also reported that sheplayed with her L2 pronunciation to coverher North American origin while on ex-change in Germany. To achieve this goal,she apparently began to overemphasize thestandard norm, in particular the German /r/sound:

Rona: um well I guess I guess like forexample when I was talking about usingthe [

R] and and doing that too much …

you know ’cause that I’m trying tooveremphasize that I’m not an [ r] youknow… so I guess that you know to tryto kind of get away from the, ya ’causewhen I guess, when when I’m sayingAmerican you know I probably meanCanada too, you know ’cause it’s justwith the the typical North Americanaccent … speaking a foreign language.(excerpt Rona 2)

After she learned in class that the uvularfricative [

R] qualifies as a standard German

sound (see excerpt Rona 1), Rona incorpo-rated this feature into her speech in what shedeemed an exaggerated amount in order toavoid being identified as North American.In using pronunciation as a tool to exertagency over the construction of specificidentity facets, Rona attempted to realize herwish for acceptance by German‐speakingcommunities.

Although these excerpts suggested thatlearners may use individually different,nonstandard forms of pronunciation toexpress and create specific images ofthemselves in interaction with others,Rona in particular appeared to be stronglyinfluenced by classroom practice based onadherence to native‐speaker norms (seeexcerpt Rona 1). Thus, after her sojourn,Rona was rather judgmental of her “over-emphasis” of the standard /r/, self‐limitingher freedom to employ pronunciation‐as‐language according to her needs:

Rona: I’m not perfect … and, I’mdefinitely not perfect um, I think I’m

pretty good, I think my pronunciation ispretty good, you know there are defi-nitely things, I think that you can reallytell … that I have difficulties with, andsome of that is /l/ and /r/ in German …

and I think that’s where my accent reallycomes out … ’cause ’cause I think withthe /r/ you know it just sounds like I’mtrying too hard. (excerpt Rona 3)

Despite Rona’s positive evaluation ofher “pretty good” pronunciation, sheseemed unable to fully abandon the restric-tions of native‐speaker norms and deemedher attempt to position herself as non‐American through pronunciation as anindicator for her imperfect skills. Both Kris’sand Rona’s cases hence illustrated that theemployment of nonstandard forms may notnecessarily lead to an abandonment of thenative‐speaker ideal. Instead of embracingtheir position as multilingual speakers, theyused these nonstandard forms in order toposition themselves closer to L2 communi-ties by adjusting to ostensible native‐speakerexpectations, such as standard /r/ pronunci-ation or dialectal speech.

As a second finding, the data suggestedthat learners not only adjusted pronuncia-tion unidirectionally to fit in with L2communities, but also used pronunciationin order to mediate (cf. “interculturalspeaker,” Byram, 2008) between differentspeech communities and subject positions.This finding became visible in Zora’s narra-tive. When returning to her former asylumGermany as a study abroad student, Yugo-slavia‐born Zora felt confronted with herpast, causing complex identity conflicts thatshe attempted to reconcile in part throughusing pronunciation as a tool to shiftbetween various cultural and social identityfacets. In particular, the pronunciation ofher name played a prominent role in herattempt to shuttle between different sensesof self:

Zora: and uh in German it was always uhit was uh, because the z‐ uh the zee in myfirst name umnobodywould ever call me

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 221

[tso:Ra] … they would kind of um like

soften it … and make it [s]‐ uh [so:Ra].

INT: ya that’s probably what I would sayor what I did say.Zora: hmm ya it would be [so:

Ra]… so I

would introduce myself as [so:Ra]… uh

or if the other person I knew they werespeaking English I would say uh “meinName [my name] is um [ ].” (excerptZora 1)

This excerpt showed how Zora usedpronunciation to mediate between per-ceived expectations, establish affiliationwith the respective communities, and thusresolve tensions in the negotiation ofmultiple identity facets. In spite of theseelements of pronunciation‐as‐language,Zora nevertheless appeared driven by thevarious norms that different speech com-munities ostensibly impose on their mem-bers. She not only adjusted thepronunciation of her name accordingly,but also reflected on the conflicts resultingfrom the need to adjust to native‐speakernorms vs. the negotiation of identity facetsthrough pronunciation:

INT: is your pronunciation actuallyimportant for you, is this somethingyou care about or just something you‐?Zora: um ya I do, I do care about it … Iwouldn’t say that I care uh so much thatif I didn’t have this sort of pronunciationor I didn’t try to make it um I guess st‐standard you wanna say.INT: hmm do you try to make itstandard?Zora: um I think um I think that’s kind ofwhat I’m, what I direct myself to … Idon’t think that um I have a problemwith um people knowing that it’s not myfirst language… or my mother language… I don’t think it would affect me uhthat you know German people wouldn’tlike me because um it’s not my motherlanguage. (excerpt Zora 2)

These reflections revealed a ratherambivalent stance: Zora oscillated between

her preference for standard pronunciationand the belief that it would not affect her ifnative speakers did not accept her if she wasidentified as a nonnative speaker because ofher nonstandard pronunciation. Yet the factthat she took the possibility of such arejection into account connected to herbelief in the importance of native‐speakernorms. Zora’s reflections thus suggested thatshuttling between different linguistic andcultural positions as part of being trans-lingually/transculturally competent may bedifficult to realize independent of native‐speaker norms. Learners who mediatebetween these positions may therefore feeljust as limited in their ability to fullyembrace the expression of their multilingualselves through speech as learners who adjustto L2 communities based on nonstandardspeech.

While both the first and second findingwith regard to pronunciation‐as‐languagesuggested certain restraints caused by na-tive‐speaker norms, the third finding indi-cated that learners appreciated, underspecific circumstances, individually differ-ent pronunciations as part of multilingualspeakers’ linguistic, cultural, and socialrepertoire. The first reference was made byKris, who had been part of differentCanadian and Latvian linguistic and culturalcommunities from a young age.When askedhow he felt about accented speech ingeneral, Kris reflected on multiple first‐hand experiences and conceptualized “ac-cented” pronunciation as an inherent part ofmultilingual speakers’ speech:

Kris: and so with mild accents orwhatever, I have to deal with that everyday at the airport … and I always had todeal with, you know, my grandparentsspeaking English at the store orwhateverum, you know, when I went along for ashopping trip … their accents havealways been there … and so you knowit’s, I don’t, I notice them, is the onlything and I can’t say that it’s for better orfor worse, it’s just part of, it’s part of thebig picture I guess. (excerpt Kris 3)

222 SUMMER 2013

Kris’ tolerant beliefs about accentedspeech may have also influenced his stancetoward dialectal speech that he incorporatedinto his repertoire during his sojourn inGermany (see excerpt Kris 2). Although Kriswas motivated to fit in with native‐speakercommunities, his conceptualization of pro-nunciation‐as‐language may have helpedhim play with speech to position himselfin the intercultural space without judginghimself for it retrospectively, as Rona did(see excerpt Rona 2).

The second instance of conceptualizingpronunciation‐as‐language was part of Zo-ra’s reflections, which underlined the vitalrole of pronunciation as multilingual speak-ers’ means to position themselves in theintercultural space:

Zora: I think … if you, they [Germans]see that you’re trying to make an effort… they’ll be a little more tolerant. Now ifyou go in there and you’re speakingEnglish, obviously they’re gonna havesomething to say against that because…even like the Turkish people who speakGerman, but you know infuse theirTurkish … words and I guess theyhave their own uh accent now too, umyou know they’re kind of, they’re umestablishing an identity for themselveswithin a country … that also you knowhas a history of very, you know, verylarge nationalism. (excerpt Zora 3)

By referring to the situation of Turkishimmigrants in Germany, Zora pointed to theneed of multilingual speakers to portraytheir kaleidoscope of identity facets throughspeech. Concomitantly, she also reflected onthe consequences possibly caused by a lackof mediation between different communitiesof practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Zorathus appeared to employ a mediating stancenot only through her pronunciation (seeexcerpt Zora 1), but also in her reflections ofother speakers’ speech, which may havebeen facilitated by her own position in the“third place” (Bhabha, 1994; Kramsch,1993). Hence, her overall belief seemed to

be that pronunciation‐as‐language may bebest realized if multilingual speakers com-bine their wish to convey subjective mean-ing (cf. Kramsch, 2009) through speechwith efforts to adjust at least partially to theconventions of L2 communities.

In sum, the analysis of the opportunitiesand constraints learners experienced withpronunciation‐as‐language showed the fol-lowing results. First, the conceptualizationand employment of pronunciation‐as‐lan-guage appeared to be based on learners’authentic experiences with language useoutside of the classroom. Second, in thesecontexts some learners felt the need to(1) employ nonstandard forms of pronunci-ation and (2) shift between different pro-nunciations in order to portray variousfacets of their identities, related to them asactors at the boundary of different languagesand cultures. Third, despite their employ-ment of pronunciation‐as‐language in suchsituations, learners nevertheless appeared tobe directed to native‐speaker standards andpartly judged themselves for reacting tosituational demands through “deviant” pro-nunciation. Fourth, when reflecting on theirexperiences with other speakers’ accentedspeech, however, learners partially liberatedthemselves from beliefs about accuracy andevaluated individually different pronuncia-tion as (1) an inherent feature of multilin-gual speakers’ speech and (2) a necessarytool to balance the conveyance of conven-tional and subjective meaning throughspeech.

DiscussionThe analysis of learner perceptions ofpronunciation and the teaching and learningof pronunciation suggests the presence ofboth concepts, pronunciation‐in‐isolationand pronunciation‐as‐language. The firstone appears to draw on classroom‐baseddiscourse, which often promotes a narrowfocus on pronunciation as an isolatableelement of speech and, in turn, guidesstudents to emphasize features of difficulty,difference, and negative associations.

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 223

Learners who conceptualize pronunciationin such a way may feel inhibited by theirfocus on achieving native‐speaker‐like ac-curacy and fluency, assuming that only theadherence to these norms will allow for asuccessful negotiation of conventionalmeaning, without considering the possibili-ty of expressing subjective views andinterests through speech. As a result,learners may be unable to embrace theirposition as multilingual speakers and to“capitalize on the surplus of meaning thatmultilingualism can bring about” (Kramsch,2010, p. 18).

In contrast, and as shown by the secondset of key findings, this study suggests thatlearners’ conceptualization of not onlypronunciation‐in‐isolation, but also pro-nunciation‐as‐language, is related to na-tive‐speaker norms with regard topronunciation. Despite their at least partialorientation to this ideal, some learnersnevertheless managed to extend their viewsto include more holistic and less identity‐threatening conceptualizations of pronunci-ation‐as‐language. Their accounts revealedmoments in which they either reported howthey employed pronunciation as a tool toportray desirable identity facets in relationto specific communities of practice, or inwhich they holistically reflected on theirperceptions of other multilingual speakers’pronunciation. From these learners’ ac-counts, one can observe that the conceptu-alization of pronunciation‐as‐language is(1) possible despite learners’ exposure tonative‐speaker discourse, (2) apparentlydependent on first‐hand experience withthe negotiation of meaning and identities inintercultural encounters, and (3) con-strained by the prevalence of isolatingclassroom practice and strict adherence tonative‐speaker standards in learners’ minds.

As a result of these observations, thepressing question is how pronunciation‐as‐language can be fostered in classroomcontexts despite their potential remotenessfrom target language regions and learners’apparent exposure to native‐speaker dis-course. How can language instructors en-

courage learners to liberate themselves fromtheir self‐perceptions as “nonnative speak-ers with an accent” and to discover themultitude of meanings and subject positionsthat one’s pronunciation can help convey?These questions do not suggest a turningaway from teaching structural components,including segmental and suprasegmentalfeatures of the L2, but rather they aim at(1) a classroom discourse that promotes acritical reflection on beliefs about pronunci-ation and its role in L2‐mediated interac-tions, and (2) a space for learners toexperience pronunciation as a non‐isolat-able, fluid, and socially contextualizedelement of language and language use,helping them to embrace their pronuncia-tion(s) as accepted parts of their senses ofself. Valuable suggestions for the realizationof both objectives can be found in Kramsch’s(2009) recent work, The Multilingual Sub-ject. By promoting the “teaching [of]language as a living form, experienced andremembered bodily, with a relation to anOther that is mediated by symbolic forms”(p. 191), Kramsch encouraged learners toexpress identity facets through languageinstead of submitting oneself uncritically toexternal norms. Her “ecologically orientedpedagogy” entailed two equally importantapproaches: the critical/reflexive and thenarrative/creative. Although she discussedthese approaches mainly with regard to theoverall endeavor of L2 teaching, they may beapplied to the specific realm of pronuncia-tion teaching according to the tenetsestablished above.

As part of the critical/reflexive ap-proach, classroom teaching needs to enablelearners to critically examine individualperceptions and societal discourse on lin-guistic and cultural diversity and to investi-gate the role of pronunciation in creatingmeanings and shaping subject positions inL2‐mediated encounters. More specifically,in order to achieve “critical languageawareness” (Fairclough, 1992), languageinstructors should in particular foster learn-ers’ exposure to native and nonnativelinguistic varieties, their critical reflection

224 SUMMER 2013

on the social and cultural meanings oflanguage variation, and an awareness oftheir perceptions, attitudes, and prejudicestoward their own and others’ pronunciationin interactions (cf. Müller, in press; Train,2003). These suggestions apply to alllanguages, as regional, national, and nonna-tive varieties are a natural part of linguisticreality. For example, learners can be asked(1) to examine how both L1 dialects and L2accents are portrayed in different media(e.g., television, radio, Internet, textbooks);(2) to question their own and others’reactions in critical pronunciation‐relatedincidents they have experienced in theirdaily lives (e.g., related to the acceptance ofnonstandard speech in their native environ-ments); (3) to reflect on their perceptions ofpronunciation in discussion forums andautobiographical texts about their learningexperience; and (4) to experience alternativestances by interviewing classmates, ad-vanced learners, sojourners, or native speak-ers of the L2 (e.g., by using online tools suchas chat rooms and video chat programs) ontheir beliefs about pronunciation in multi-cultural societies. Such critical/reflexiveteaching practice necessarily involves (1) ex-tensive listening training, allowing learnersto experience and develop reflective stancestoward sociolinguistic variation in the formof dialects, accents, registers, and styles, and(2) a thorough in‐class debriefing facilitatedby the instructor, encouraging learners toexperience a multitude of viewpoints and tocritically reflect on the consequences ofcertain perspectives on their willingness toengage in L2‐mediated encounters. As aresult, learners may be able to liberatethemselves from narrow conceptualizationsof the roles pronunciation may play, todevelop alternative ways of interpretingindividually different pronunciations,and to make informed choices as towhich pronunciation they deem desirableand achievable within their learningobjectives.

As part of the narrative/creative ap-proach, Kramsch (2009) suggested thatinstructors supplement reflection by actual

experience, “making space for language playand for the emotional identification with theworlds of fiction created by multilingualwriters” (p. 195). While deeply intertwinedwith reflexive practices, the narrative/crea-tive approach opens a space for learners thatallows them to use the insights gained fromreflections as a basis for reimagining them-selves in L2‐mediated encounters. By recit-ing texts of various types and genres, such aspoems, narratives, or advertisements, indifferent moods, as different characters orin different situations, or perhaps by actingout various versions of what may happen inintercultural encounters (e.g., in role‐playsand skits they created in groups), or perhapsby exploring pronunciation‐based incidentsin literature and film, learners can experi-ence the discursive and social effects ofindividually different pronunciations anddiscover how they can give voice to theirkaleidoscope of identity facets throughpronunciation. The employment of narra-tive/creative teaching activities can in turnbe preceded and followed by reflectivepractice. For example, after reflecting ontheir stances toward different realizations ofone specific phoneme, such as the /r/, aspresented in listening texts, students can beasked to play with various allophones anddifferent degrees of accentedness in words,sentences, and continuous speech throughpoem recital or role‐plays, which may inturn lead to further reflections and instruc-tor‐initiated discussions. It is above all aboutgiving learners the opportunity to reimaginethemselves as L2 speakers, to experience thepossibilities that individually different pro-nunciations may add to L2‐mediated inter-actions, and, therefore, to appreciatethemselves as multilingual/multiculturalspeakers. In this context, it is important toexpose learners to both critical/reflexive andnarrative/creative teaching approaches fromearly on so that learners may reflect on theirstances and play with language independentof their proficiency levels. A consistentincorporation of these approaches intolanguage teaching may help prevent theformation of speaking inhibitions and

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 225

negative self‐images based on pronunciationdifficulties.

These suggestions for reframing pro-nunciation teaching also bear consequencesfor language instructors, who need to makelearner perceptions of language, and espe-cially pronunciation, an integral part oftheir teaching. As part of facilitating criticalreflection, it is necessary for beginning andseasoned instructors to explore their ownroles and subjectivities in language teachingand language use. Instructors need toexamine their own activities, challenge theirbeliefs and prejudices, and evaluate theircurriculum and lesson planning with regardto explicit and implicit goals (Reagan &Osborn, 2002). In order to achieve whatTrain (2003) called “critical languageteaching awareness,” he suggested, on ageneral level, that “an applied linguisticand/or sociolinguistic component [be inte-grated] into TA [teaching assistant] trainingand teacher education programs” (p. 20),which may also include the training ofinstructor certification candidates as well asin‐service instructors. On a more specificlevel, Reagan and Osborn (2002) valued theemployment of teaching portfolios andnarratives as vehicles that allow instructorsto express their reflections and becomeaware of potential misalignments betweentheir goals and practices. With regard topronunciation in particular, such criticalreflections should become integral parts ofthe way pronunciation is discussed ininstructor training. As a result, L2 instruc-tors, who often are multilingual speakersthemselves, may be enabled to questiontheir beliefs, reflect on their experiences,and prepare for the teaching of pronuncia-tion as a multifaceted construct and impor-tant part of learners’ translingual/transcultural competence.

ConclusionsBy redefining the role of pronunciation inthe L2 learning process according to thetenets of the MLA Report (2007) and its callfor translingual and transcultural compe-

tence, this article suggests a strongerconsideration and incorporation of learnerperceptions and subjectivities in pedagogi-cal practices. The proposed teaching ofpronunciation‐as‐language does not replace,but rather moves beyond the focus onstructural elements of learner pronuncia-tion, acknowledging learners’ need to ex-press and negotiate their senses of self inintercultural encounters through speech.The analysis of learner accounts, however,suggests that teaching approaches based onthe philosophy of pronunciation‐in‐isola-tion are still present in classroom environ-ments, potentially inhibiting learners fromembracing and capitalizing on their posi-tions as multilingual speakers due to feelinginferior and unintelligent because of theirnonnative accents. In order to break awayfrom restrictive, native‐speaker‐based fram-ings, a dual approach of both critical/reflexive and narrative/creative elements(based on Kramsch, 2009) may aid theteaching of pronunciation‐as‐language in L2classrooms. This way, learners may beencouraged to critically reflect on theirown and others’ beliefs about pronunciationand recognize stances that may potentiallyinhibit their learning progress. By providinglearners with a space to transform theircritical thoughts into concrete experiencesand their concrete experiences into criticalthoughts, language classes can supportlearners in reimagining themselves as equal,tolerant, and open‐minded speakers in L2‐mediated interactions who employ theirpronunciation according to conventional,situational, and subjective needs.

To further support the implementationof pronunciation‐as‐language into teachingpractice, future research may investigatehow pronunciation‐as‐language can be in-corporated into learning materials andteaching guidelines. This step also neces-sitates a reorientation of research interests,balancing quantitative, experimental inves-tigations with deeper insights into the highlyindividual and complex socio‐psychologicalfactors of the pronunciation learning andteaching process.

226 SUMMER 2013

AcknowledgmentsI am grateful to the anonymous reviewersand the Interim Editor of Foreign LanguageAnnals for their insights and comments onearlier drafts of this article.

Note1. To preserve the anonymity of the

participants, their names and studyabroad locations have been changed.

ReferencesACTFL. (2006). Standards for foreign languagelearning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS:Allen Press.

Barnes‐Karol, G., & Broner, M. A. (2010).Using images as springboards to teach culturalperspectives in light of the ideals of the MLAReport. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 422–445.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture.London: Routledge.

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

Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter,M. J. (2001). Pronunciation teaching practicesin Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 51–61.

Brown, A. (1991). Functional load and theteaching of pronunciation. In A. Brown (Ed.),Teaching English pronunciation: A book ofreadings (pp. 221–224). London: Routledge.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching thespoken language. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessingintercultural communicative competence. Cle-vedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2008). From foreign languageeducation to education for intercultural citizen-ship. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G. (1997). Definitions,objectives and assessment of socioculturalcompetence. In Council of Europe, Sociocul-tural competence in language learning andteaching (pp. 7–43). Strasbourg: Council ofEurope.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguisticimperialism in English teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicativecompetence to communicative language peda-gogy. In J. C. Richards&R.W. Schmidt (Eds.),Language and communication (pp. 2–27). NewYork: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoreticalbases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing. Applied Linguis-tics, 1, 1–47.

Catford, J. C. (1987). Phonetics and theteaching of pronunciation: A systemic descrip-tion of English phonology. In J. Morley (Ed.),Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practicesanchored in theory (pp. 87–100). Washington,DC: TESOL.

Celce‐Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin,J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A coursebook and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chun, D. M. (1988). The neglected role ofintonation in communicative competence andproficiency. Modern Language Journal, 72,295–303.

Chun, D.M. (2002).Discourse intonation in L2:From theory and research to practice. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the nativespeaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarter-ly, 33, 185–209.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common Europeanframework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Davies, A. (1989). Is International English aninterlanguage? TESOL Quarterly, 23, 447–467.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997).Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility:Evidence from four L1s. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 19, 1–16.

Díaz‐Campos, M. (2004). Context of learningin the acquisition of Spanish second languagephonology. Studies in Second Language Acqui-sition, 26, 249–273.

Doerr, N. M. (Ed.). (2009). The native speakerconcept: Ethnographic investigations of nativespeaker effects. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research inapplied linguistics. New York: LawrenceErlbaum.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical languageawareness. London: Longman.

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 227

Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M.(2005). Learners’ ethnic group affiliation andL2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguisticinvestigation. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 489–511.

Guiora, A. Z., Paluszny, M., Beit‐Hallahmi, B.,Catford, J. C., Cooley, R. E., & Dull, C. Y.(1975). Language and person: Studies inlanguage behavior. Language Learning, 25,43–61.

Hirschfeld, U. (2003). Phonologie und Pho-netik in Deutsch als Fremdsprache. [Phonolo-gy and phonetics in German as a ForeignLanguage]. In C. Altmayer& R. Forster (Eds.),Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Wissenschaftsan-spruch–Teilbereich –Bezugsdisziplinen (pp.189–223). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English asan international language. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based,empirically researched pronunciation syllabusfor English as an international language.Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca:Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Jones, R. H. (2005). Beyond “listen andrepeat”: Pronunciation teaching materialsand theories of second language acquisition.In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),Methodology in language teaching: An anthologyof current practice (pp. 178–187). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Kelz, H. P. (1999). Phonetische Übung undsprachliche Kreativität: Übungsformen imAussprachetraining [Phonetic practice andlinguistic creativity: Exercise types for pro-nunciation training]. Deutsch als Fremdspr-ache, 3, 131–134.

King, R. D. (1967). Functional load and soundchange. Language, 43, 831–852.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture inlanguage teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of theintercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M.Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercul-tural perspective: Approaches through dramaand ethnography (pp. 16–31). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2010). Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. In G. S. Levine & A.Phipps (Eds.), AAUSC 2010: Critical andintercultural theory and language pedagogy(pp. 15–31). Boston: Heinle, CengageLearning.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice insecond language acquisition. Fairview Park, NY:Pergamon.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situatedlearning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts andshifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching.TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369–377.

Lieblich, A., Tuval‐Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T.(1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis,and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification andsecond language pronunciation of Americans inNorway.Modern Language Journal, 86, 174–191.

Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994).Attempts to improve English L2 pronuncia-tion: The variable effects of different types ofinstruction. Language Learning, 44, 75–100.

Macdonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation—viewsand practices of reluctant teachers. Prospect,17, 3–18.

Marx, N. (2002). Never quite a “nativespeaker”: Accent and identity in the L2—andthe L1. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59,264–281.

Meyerstein, R. S. (1970). Functional load:Descriptive limitations, alternatives of assess-ment and extensions of application. The Hague:Mouton.

MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Lan-guages. (2007). Foreign languages and highereducation: New structures for a changed world.Modern Language Association of America.Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.mla.org/pdf/forlang_news_pdf.pdf

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation compo-nent in Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 481–520.

Moyer, A. (2004).Age, accent, and experience insecond language acquisition. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Müller, M. (2008). Challenges and opportu-nities for methodologically principled L2pronunciation training in German textbooksand class. Forum Deutsch, 16, 30–37.

228 SUMMER 2013

Müller, M. (2011). Learners’ identity negotia-tions and beliefs about pronunciation in studyabroad contexts (Unpublished doctoral disser-tation). University of Waterloo, Canada.

Müller, M. (in press). Pronunciation trainingwithout the native speaker? Reframing teach-ing and learning objectives in German as aForeign Language curricula. In J. L. Plews& B.Schmenk (Eds.), Traditions and transitions:Curricula for German studies. Waterloo: Wil-frid Laurier University Press.

Munro, M. J. (2008). Foreign accent andspeech intelligibility. In J. G. Hansen Edwards& M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 193–218). Amster-dam: John Benjamins.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995).Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelli-gibility in the speech of second languagelearners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999).Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelli-gibility in the speech of second languagelearners. In J. Leather (Ed.), Phonological issuesin language learning (pp. 285–310). Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). Thefunctional load principle in ESL pronunciationinstruction: An exploratory study. System, 34,520–531.

O’Brien, M. G. (2003). Longitudinal develop-ment of second language German vowels(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-sity of Wisconsin–Madison. Retrieved fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No.3089612).

O’Brien, M. G. (2004). Pronunciation matters.Unterrichtspraxis, 37, 1–9.

Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986).Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 20,207–225.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative config-uration in qualitative analysis. InternationalJournal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.

Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). Theforeign language educator in society: Toward acritical pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Riessman, C. K. (2003). Analysis of personalnarratives. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium(Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, newconcerns (pp. 331–346). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods forthe human sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

Savignon, S. J. (1998). Communicative compe-tence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.).New York: McGraw‐Hill.

Simões, A. R. M. (1996). Phonetics in secondlanguage acquisition: An acoustic study offluency in adult learners of Spanish. Hispania,79, 87–95.

Stevens, J. J. (2000). The acquisition of L2Spanish pronunciation in a study abroad context(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-sity of Southern California. Retrieved fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No.3018129).

Train, R. W. (2003). The (non)native standardlanguage in foreign language education: Acritical perspective. In C. Blyth (Ed.), Thesociolinguistics of foreign‐language classrooms:Contributions of the native, near‐native, and thenon‐native speaker (pp. 3–39). Boston: Heinle.

Submitted December 8, 2011

Accepted February 26, 2013

Foreign Language Annals � VOL. 46, NO. 2 229