Integrating Pronunciation in ESL-EFL Classrooms

13VOL. 12 NO. 2 TESOL JOURNAL

Integrating PronunciationInto ESL/EFL ClassroomsJohn M. Levis and Linda Grant

Hiroko often says led when she should say red.Jasmine sounds like shes speaking too quickly because of anunfamiliar speech rhythm.Pierre seems to emphasize the wrong word in a sentence,making it hard to follow his ideas.

Most language teachers are familiar with studentssuch as these and agree that intelligible pronun-ciation is vital to successful communication.Similarly, most students see pronunciation as an importantpart of learning to speak, and therefore ask that more classtime be devoted to pronunciation. Despite the recognizedimportance of pronunciation, teachers often remainuncertain about how to incorporate it into the curriculum.Given that most courses emphasize general oral communi-cation over pronunciation (Murphy, 1991), teachers mustseek creative ways to integrate pronunciation into speaking-oriented classes in a manner clearly related to the oralcommunication goals of the course.

We assume that it is desirable to address pronunciationteaching in the context of speaking (Firth, 1993), and thata speaking-oriented approach serves the communicationneeds of students more effectively than approaches focusingon either fluency or articulatory goals alone (Morley,1991). Murphy (1991) echoes this belief by saying thatpronunciation instruction needs to be integrated withbroader level communicative activities in which speakersand listeners engage in . . . meaningful communication(p. 60). Although we believe it is best to achieve thisintegration without shifting the focus of the class topronunciation, we acknowledge that implementationremains a work in progress. Approaches favoring theintegration of pronunciation into oral communication havebeen espoused for more than 10 years, but teachers havereceived little clear direction about how to accomplish thisintegration.

In this article, we address the practical challengesrelated to integrating pronunciation into oral communica-tion. First, we describe the central difficulty in integratingpronunciation into the speaking classroom. Next, wesuggest all-skills principles to guide the incorporation ofpronunciation into oral communication courses. Finally, inthe context of four typical classroom activities, we explorepossible implementation strategies that can be applied to awide variety of instructional settings. For the most part, theactivities focus on suprasegmental features such as stress,rhythm, and intonation, not because segmentals (i.e.,

consonants and vowels) are unimportant in communica-tion, but because suprasegmentals are more clearlyconnected to functions of spoken English.

Approaches favoring the integration ofpronunciation into oral communication

have been espoused for more than10 years, but teachers have received

little clear direction about how toaccomplish this integration.

Teaching Pronunciation and OralCommunication: The ChallengesCelce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) provide afive-stage model for teaching pronunciation communica-tively. Their model generally moves from raising awarenessof an aspect of pronunciation, to perception or focusedlistening, to oral practice. For segmental andsuprasegmental features, oral practice progresses fromcontrolled practice in oral reading, to semistructuredpractice in information gap activities and dialogues, to lessstructured communicative practice. In other words, the oralpractice moves from a focus on phonological form to adual focus on form and meaning.

Teachers can apply this framework in various ways, butin our classroom and teacher-training experience, it isusually applied in two ways, depending on what skill iscentral to a course. In classes devoted to pronunciation, forexample, teachers apply the framework usually by movingfrom controlled pronunciation practice to less structured,communicative speaking practice. In this case, however,teachers often spend the majority of time on controlled orguided practice, and give short shrift to the more commu-nicative end of the pronunciation spectrum. Actual speak-ing practice is usually unrelated to pronunciation orignored altogether.

In courses devoted to speaking or oral communication,teachers apply the framework by moving in the oppositedirection, starting with less structured speaking practiceand perhaps moving into pronunciation. In this case,however, teachers often address pronunciationunsystematically, applying it primarily as a correctivemeasure when errors are too prominent to be ignored.

14 TESOL JOURNAL VOL. 12 NO. 2

Either way, students often fail to get the full range ofpractice activities they need for improving speaking andpronunciation. Consequently, even when teachers want toteach pronunciation communicatively, they have little senseof how to weave it effectively into a listening and speakingor all-skills course so that it consists of more than ad hoccorrections, but does not take up so much time that thecommunicative goals of the course are neglected.

Similarly, existing textbooks offer two primary avenuesfor integrating pronunciation and speaking instruction. Onthe one hand, although current pronunciation-based textsinclude communicative activities, most are organizedaround pronunciation features and are not suitable asprimary texts in oral communication courses. On theother hand, a striking feature of many speaking-based orintegrated-skills texts is the absence of explicit, sustainedfocus on pronunciation. When pronunciation is included,it usually addresses listening comprehension or consists ofcarefully controlled oral reading or repetition. Speaking-oriented pronunciation instruction, when it appears at all,consists of carefully controlled oral reading or repetition.The current situation closely resembles that described adecade ago, where one researcher found that, in oralcommunication texts, activities centered around speakingand listening are vastly more common . . . than arepronunciation activities (Murphy, 1991, p. 64).

Guiding PrinciplesOur attempts to incorporate pronunciation into speakingclasses are based on several principles gleaned from practiceand theory. These principles promote the integration ofpronunciation in ways that link features of speech withtheir communicative functions rather than ways thatpromote noncontextualized or irrelevant work on thesound system.

Principle 1: Aim for a Primary ThoughNot Exclusive Focus on SuprasegmentalsThe first principle, that instruction should focus primarilyon suprasegmentals (e.g., stress, rhythm, intonation),comes from the belief that mastery of suprasegmentals is

likely to make a greater contribution to intelligibility thanmastery of segmentals (McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1993).However, intelligibility is not our justification for theirimportance in the speaking classroom. Rather,suprasegmentals, by virtue of their connection to discoursemeaning and connected speech, are more likely thansegmentals to be directly relevant to speaking skills. Becausefeatures such as stress, rhythm, and intonation affect notjust words but whole utterances, they contribute moredirectly to skill in using the spoken language.

Principle 2: Maintain a Central Focuson Speaking in the ClassThe second principle is based on an assumption that apronunciation syllabus should begin with the widestpossible focus [general speaking] and move gradually in onspecific problems (Firth, 1993, p. 173). It also assumesthat pronunciation is a subset of the principal skill areas ofspeaking and listening (Murphy, 1991) and, as such, shouldalways be taught with reference to those skills. As experi-enced pronunciation teachers know, students who are ableto produce new sounds when they focus only on pronun-ciation face a significant gap in using their new pronuncia-tions in meaningful communication (Celce-Murcia,Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). We therefore assume thatincorporating pronunciation into a speaking curriculum isessential in helping bridge this gap. Teaching pronunciationin the context of speaking also means that features that aretargeted should be those that arise naturally from thespeaking activity and contribute to the success of theinteraction. This is in contrast to most approaches toaddressing pronunciation, which only incidentally relatepronunciation features to success in speaking tasks.

Principle 3: Pronunciation InstructionShould Fit the Constraints of theSpeaking TaskThe third principle relates to the varieties of tasks thatmake up speaking. Speakers can sometimes take advantageof the opportunity to plan, as in many formal speakingtasks, such as giving presentations and teaching. At othertimes, speech is spontaneous, with the discourse beingcoconstructed in the course of speaking. Traditional pro-nunciation instruction, which most frequently assumescareful preparation and planning, is better suited to formalspeaking tasks that allow for planning. However, studentsalso need to be able to use pronunciation as a tool inrelatively unplanned conversation, and instruction mustmeet those needs as well (Levis, 2001). Integrating pronun-ciation into the speaking classroom should address plannedand unplanned speaking.

Even when teachers want to teachpronunciation communicatively, they have

little sense of how to weave it effectivelyinto a listening and speaking or all-skills

course so that it consists of more than adhoc corrections, but does not take up somuch time that the communicative goals

of the course are neglected.


Teaching Pronunciation and OralCommunication: A SolutionThe following activities are examples of ways in which keypronunciation features can be incorporated into speakingtasks intended to help students develop oral communica-tion skills: (a) word clarity in public speaking, (b) thoughtgroups in storytelling, (c) intonation in conversation, and(d) focus in comparisons. Consistent with our threeprinciples, each activity gives priority to suprasegmentalfeatures, includes a specific focus on pronunciation whilemaintaining a broad focus on speaking and communica-tion, and fits the parameters of the speaking task.

Activity 1: Word Clarity in Oral PresentationsOral presentations, a common assignment in a wide varietyof ESL/EFL classes, offer opportunities to target manypronunciation skills with minimal class instruction. Issuessuch as phrasing, rhythm, and sentence focus are especiallyvaluable in this planned context. One other area that isespecially affected by planning is word clarity.

Word clarity encompasses whatever difficulties studentshave in saying words so that listeners can understand them.This can include consonant and vowel sounds, the length-ening of stressed vowels, stress patterns in multisyllabicwords, and the pronunciation of lexical units, such as onthe other hand or to sum up.

The following sentence, reconstructed from a Thaistudents oral presentation, illustrates several of these issues.The underlined r letters were all pronounced in a way thatwas perceptually similar to /l/, the italicized ch spellingswere pronounced like sh, and the main stress in characteris-tics was on the second syllable rather than the fourth.

Names are related to charcteristics of the children.

This example illustrates that suprasegmentals, thoughusually more applicable to speaking tasks, are not alwayseasy to separate from segmentals. Both kinds of errors mayhave a cumulative effect on intelligibility. First, the wordcharacteristics did not match the stress pattern (asuprasegmental issue) expected by the listeners, whichaffected the intelligibility of the utterance. This change instress also affected the pronunciation of vowels (usually asegmental issue), which is a crucial clue to stress for native-speaker listeners (Cutler, Dahan, & van Donselaar, 1997).In addition, recent evidence suggests that the inaccuratepronunciation of consonant sounds (a segmental issue) canaffect a listeners ability to successfully decode speech,especially when the listener and speaker are nonnativespeakers and do not share the same native language(Jenkins, 2000).

The potential for incorporating pronunciation instruc-tion into oral presentation assignments is based on stu-dents opportunity to plan. Presentations are a controlledsituation that places demands on speaking and pronuncia-tion skills. A suggested sequence is shown in Figure 1.

Incorporating work on word clarity has two mainelements, the students choices and the teachers feedback.As students prepare their oral presentations, they are askedto identify five key words they want to pronounce clearly.Depending on their awareness of their pronunciation,students can identify these key words with or without theteachers assistance. They should then prepare their presen-tations; practice them orally, paying careful attention totheir pronunciation of the key words; record their presenta-tions; and write a self-evaluation to submit along with theirrecordings. The teacher then listens to the tapes, giving oral(recorded) or written feedback, or both, on general speak-ing, organization, and the pronunciation of the key words.The teacher can suggest up to five more words that weredifficult to understand for the students to practice. Thestudents then revise and practice their presentations beforegiving them in class. The final evaluation includes pronun-ciation of all the key words identified by the teacher andstudents.

One teacher who wanted to incorporate pronunciationpractice into an already full course load expressed thefollowing after she tried this activity.

[I found that] it wasnt a huge time commitment . . . andthe students seemed thrilled with the individual attention inthe form of a tape that they could play at home. However,more than the practice it gave the students, I found that Ibecame more aware of areas that we need to work on . . . .Something about removing the faces and body languagehelped me really hear the students voices. (Jessica MercerZerr, personal communication, March 2002)

Working on Word Clarity in Presentations1. Have students prepare an oral presentation.2. Ask students to identify five key words to pronounce

correctly.3. Ask students to practice and record their presenta-

tions on audiotapes.4. Have students listen to their audiotape recordings

and evaluate their presentations and pronunciationof key words.

5. Ask students to hand in their tape recordings, alongwith a written copy of their presentations with thekey words identified and a written self-evaluation.

6. Record general feedback on the students audio-tapes, including comments on their pronunciationof the five key words they selected and theidentification of up to five additional key words forthem to practice.

7. Ask students to revise and practice their presenta-tions after receiving your feedback.

8. Have students give their presentations in class.9. Evaluate their class presentations and pronuncia-

tion of all key words.

Figure 1. An instructional sequence to help students workon word clarity in oral presentations.


Working on pronunciation in the context of presenta-tions offers several advantages. First, teachers can focus onindividual strengths and weaknesses so that students skillscan be better assessed and instruction targeted moreeffectively. Listening to students one at a time helpsteachers identify common issues more easily so that theycan address these issues later in class. Furthermore, becausestudents can plan their presentations and deliver themrelatively free from interruption, they have the opportunity,with teacher input, to identify words and phrases that aredifficult to pronounce. Students can, for example, recordtheir practice sessions on audiotapes (or as digital files onthe computer) so that the teacher can listen and providefeedback before the actual presentation. Free conversationoffers little such opportunity. Depending on the studentscomfort level with presentations, this activity can rangefrom a task resembling oral reading to one that is lesscontrolled, centering around key words, as in the tasksdescribed by Yule and Macdonald (1994). Either way, theopportunity to plan, a key feature of the speaking task,allows students to target their pronunciation of keyvocabulary.

Activity 2: Phrasing and StorytellingStudents in all types of ESL classes share personal stories inwriting and in speaking. Personal stories are just one typeof narrative in a category that includes fables, fairy tales,and newspaper stories. Narratives offer a rich context forenhancing language skills, especially at the intermediatelevels of proficiency, where students are most comfortablediscussing topics related primarily to self and their immedi-ate environments (Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, &Swender, 2000). Because narratives involve strings ofsentences or paragraph-level discourse, they provide a goodmedium for practicing another high-prioritysuprasegmental featurethought grouping, also known aschunking or phrasing.

Speakers of English organize long stretches of speechinto short, meaningful, grammatical units called thoughtgroups. If speakers do not divide the stream of speech intomeaningful phrases, listeners have difficulty processing thespeech, no matter how clearly each word is pronounced.Gilbert (1994) offers this example of a long sentencedivided into relatively short groupings (slash marks denotepauses): The sign says that construction/ will be finishedby April,/ but that was obviously optimistic (p. 46). Manypractitioners believe that slowing the rate of speech andcombining words into meaningful chunks can improvefluency as well as overall intelligibility (Gilbert, 1994;Morley, 1994).

In this activity, thought groups are integrated into oralnarratives. Figure 2 outlines a suggested sequence for theactivity.

This activity is applicable to any story, report, shortpresentation, or journal entry that students prepare orrehearse in advance to give orally. Students should listen to

one or more paragraph-length reports, myths, fables, tales,or personal narratives as models. The teacher can thenintroduce the notion of chunking by having studentsdecide how they would divide the narrative. Figure 3presents an extract of a model narrative, and shows howthe text could be chunked to work on phrasing.

Other ways of phrasing the narrative in Figure 3 arealso possible, depending on how speakers interpret thesituation. With practice, most students develop the abilityto phrase at appropriate points in the discourse. Teacherscan remind students that if they think about where aspeaker can logically pause in a stream of speech, . . .[they] can separate an utterance into thought groups(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996, p. 174). As

Improving Storytelling by Paying Attention to Phrasing1. Choose a paragraph-length narrative (or write

one) to read aloud to the class.2. Rewrite or type the story, dividing it into thought

groups.3. To visualize the thought groups, imagine the text is

a poem and arrange it into short lines.4. Read the text in chunks, pausing briefly at the

end of each line.

Learning to DriveWhen I came here, I could not drive. I knew nothing,not even simple things, such as which pedal is for thegas and which one is for the brakes, and how to usethe rearview mirror to see the cars behind me. After sixlessons, I took the driving test and passed. It was simple.I was asked to drive a few blocks and just do basicthings, such as pull over and back up. Luckily, it didntinclude parking because I couldnt park then, and Icant park now.

Narrative chunks

When I came here,I could not drive.I knew nothing,not even simple things,such as which pedalis for the gasand which oneis for the brakes,and how to use the rearview mirrorto see the carsbehind me.After six lessons,I took the driving testand passed . . . .

Figure 2. An instructional sequence to help studentswork on phrasing in storytelling.

Figure 3. Hypothetical narrative extract illustrating howtext can be divided into chunks, or thought groups.


students move into more spontaneous speaking formats,they often come to realize that conveying information inchunks is helpful not only as a means for listeners toprocess information but also as a strategy for speakers toorganize their thoughts.

Activity 3: Intonation and ConversationAn important goal of most speaking classes is to developstudents conversational abilities. By conversation, we meanthe coconstructed discourse of normal talk, where two ormore interlocutors initiate and respond to a changingvariety of topics. Dialogues are commonly used to model,among other things, conversational style, appropriategrammar and vocabulary, and functional uses of spokenlanguage. Dialogues are also ideal for controlled practicewith conversational discourse in which speech rhythm,focus, and intonation work together with body language.

The vignette below demonstrates how the intonationof discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1988) and backchannelingcues (common vocalizations in English, such as OK, ummhmm, well, oh, and yeah, that communicate to an interlocu-tor that we are listening to and following what is beingsaid) can be integrated into discourse practice usingdialogues. Many spoken discourse markers are hard todefine and have various meanings that are closely tied tointonation (the use of voice pitch) and other pronunciationcues. They also are important in regulating conversationalspeech, but do not occur in written speech and are rarelyexplicitly taught (Schiffrin, 1988). Specifically, this activityfocuses on the intonation of the backchanneling cues ummhmm and hmm umm to signal listener attention, agree-ment, and negation or disagreement. These cues areassociated with fixed intonation patterns so that they havealmost become intonational idioms. Their use and typicalintonation patterns are illustrated in the constructeddialogue below, with the accented syllable in boldface. Theattention or agreement marker usually has rising intonation(B1, A3), with the accent on the second syllable, whereasthe negation or disagreement marker falls in pitch and isaccented on the first syllable (B2).

A1: And so, it was a really difficult test.B1: Umm hmm [meaning: Im listening or I agree].A2: Have you ever taken physics?B2: Hmm umm [meaning: No]. I heard its

really hard.A3: Umm hmm [meaning: I agree]. Its way harder

than I imagined.

These two discourse markers are verbal gestures withconventionalized forms and intonations. They are alsousually accompanied by physical gestures (body language).Umm hmm is associated with a small up-and-down nod ofthe head, whereas Hmm umm, like other negative markersin English, is accompanied by a small side-to-side headshake. Although the body language is not always availableas a cue (as in telephone conversations), learning to make

use of these and other discourse markers means also usingintonation and body language appropriately. Such masterywill help promote overall communicative competence. Webelieve that when students practice the simple form andlimited discourse uses of many discourse markers inplanned dialogues (where creativity is at a minimum), theywill be more likely to use them in unplanned speech.Figure 4 suggests a sequence of conversational activities

Practice Using Discourse Markers and Intonationin ConversationPrepare and read a written dialogue withdiscourse markers.

1. Elicit from students the functions and meanings ofthe discourse markers (awareness).

2. Use controlled practice with pronunciation ofdiscourse markers using sentences such as I wasreally scared, answered by Umm Hmm (withrising intonation to indicate the listener is payingattention or is in agreement), or Have you everbeen to Japan?, answered by Umm Hmm(with rising intonation to mean yes) or Hmm Umm(with falling intonation to mean no).

3. Use controlled practice with body languageassociated with discourse markers, if applicable,such as shaking the head from side to side tomean no for Hmm Umm (with falling intonation).

4. Pair students to practice dialogues, asking them tofocus on language, intonation, and bodylanguage.

5. Ask students to perform dialogues.

that can help students learn discourse markers and theirintonations.

Teaching discourse markers may require the teacher toadapt textbook dialogues because textbook dialoguesfrequently do not include these markers of coherence. Theno meaning in the dialogue above is often written as No, Ihavent, whereas the agreement meaning would likely bewritten as Yes, it is. The Im listening meaning is noteasily paraphrased. Adapting textbook dialogues so thatstudents can identify and comprehend these discoursemarkers can be done by replacing short answers withdiscourse markers or by asking advanced or native Englishspeakers to read the dialogue, then role play it withoutusing the text, using discourse markers that come to themnaturally in speech.

Activity 4: Focus andComparison-Contrast WritingIn English for academic purposes classes, students demon-strate mastery of course content through writing. In the

Figure 4. An instructional sequence to help students learndiscourse markers and practice intonation.


process of creating written products, students are expectedto discover relationships and synthesize information fromreadings and lectures. A common format for exploringrelationships between ideas is comparison and contrast.Students might compare two or more readings, points ofview, characters, or places. For example, Figure 5 presents

Automobile B. As a class, the students discussed ways inwhich they might join clauses to create sentences in theirparagraphs. Then, working in pairs, students shared andcompared the information in their charts.

If students are learning about focus for the first time,they will probably not use it correctly. Instead, tasks suchas these can serve to draw students attention to the formand how it functions in communication, an essential firststep in language learning. In this class, however, becausestudents were working with the same content for severaldays, the use of focus to highlight contrasts was recycled innatural classroom interactions. On one day, for example,students brought their drafts to class and identified the use

Figure 5: Venn diagram used to compare and contrasttwo cities (based on Blanton, 1995, p. 215).

an example of a Venn diagram, a graphic organizer used tohelp organize an essay comparing and contrasting two cities.

Even in courses dedicated to reading and writing,students spend time listening and speaking. Once studentshave read, taken lecture notes, and begun to organize theirideas, they often discuss content, a step that provides anopportunity to practice pronunciation points in realisticconversational exchanges. In discussing contrasts, forinstance, students face an immediate pronunciation needusing focus, that is, the element in the sentence with thegreatest emphasis, to signal contrasting elements. Forexample, a student verbalizing the contrast in weatherdepicted in Figure 5 might say the following (capitalizationindicates focus).

It OFten snows in ChiCAgo, but San FranCISco almostNEVer has snow.

This ability to emphasize what is key or important inspoken discourse is crucial to intelligibility, especially ininternational contexts (Jenkins, 2000).

In Figure 6, the use of focus to highlight contrasts wasintegrated into an oral prewriting activity in an ESLwriting class. The students assignment was to draft aparagraph comparing the features of two cars. (The task isadaptable to a variety of comparisons, such as apartmentsand places to shop.) The use of focus to highlight contrast-ing elements was incorporated into the instructionalsequence.

First, to help the students organize their ideas, theteacher provided a chart with points of comparison, shownin Figure 7. Using material from their texts, the studentsfilled in the chart with the features of Automobile A and

Comparing Two Things Using Contrastive Focus1. Underline the contrasting elements in the chart.2. Create a sentence for each main difference.3. Take turns saying your sentences.4. Emphasize the contrasting elements in each

sentence to help your partner understand yourmeaning (e.g., the American-made car has poorgas mileage, but the gas mileage on theGerman-made car is much better).

of effective and ineffective comparisons in their paragraphs.Students wrote sample sentences on the board, and theclass worked through the grammar points with the teacher,which provided additional opportunities for them to hearand produce focus in structures used to express contrast.

When integrating pronunciation into the writingprocess, the process moves from a wider emphasis on thetask to a narrower emphasis on the pronunciation pointneeded to complete the task. The advantage is that studentsare already familiar with the content and have moreresources to attend to the form.

Because discussion of similarities and differences is socommon in language classrooms, opportunities to integratefocus naturally into speaking activities extend far beyond

Comparing Two AutomobilesFeature Automobile A Automobile BAge 3 years old 6 years oldCost $8,500 $6,500Size 4 passengers 5 passengers

large trunk small trunkMake American-made German-madeGas mileage 25 miles per 35 miles per

gallon/highway gallon/highwayReliability very reliable not very reliable

Chicago

in Midwest

spread out

flat

snows often

San Francisco

in West

compact

hilly

rarely snows

Chicago &San Francisco

many tourists

distinctiveskylines

have harbors

Figure 6. Instructional sequence to help students practiceusing focus to compare or contrast.

Figure 7. Chart using focus (indicated in boldfaced italics)to compare the features of two automobiles.


the writing course. For example, teachers can incorporatefocus in pre- and postlistening and reading questions tohighlight contrasts, or in grammar practice to highlightcomparative structures.

ConclusionAlthough pronunciation instruction can be sensiblyintegrated into many types of ESL/EFL classes, it isparticularly relevant to classes where speaking is central. Anold truism about spoken language is that the way some-thing is said is frequently more important than what issaid. The way something is said obviously includes suchthings as vocabulary connotations, pragmatics of speechacts, and effective use of coherence. But it also mustinclude pronunciation, which, when inadequate, has beenimplicated as a major factor in comprehensibility problems.

We have shown ways in which effective use of pronun-ciation features is crucial for effective spoken communica-tion. Words must be recognized if listeners are to processspeech. Speech is processed more easily if speakers chunkinformation in expected ways. Intonation is essential tomanagement of conversational goals. Important cues aboutgiven and new information and about categories beingcontrasted with a topic are signaled by sentence focus.Other areas could easily be added to this list, such as theimportance of shorter and longer syllables in creatingspoken English rhythm. Awareness of how these and otherpronunciation issues impact speaking can be enhancedthrough awareness building and explicit instruction. Suchinstruction is more likely to be productive when studentscan see how pronunciation improvement helps themcommunicate in English more effectively.

References

Blanton, L. (1995). The multicultural workshop, Book 2. Boston:Heinle & Heinle.

Breiner-Sanders, K., Lowe, P., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (2000).ACTFL proficiency guidelinesSpeaking. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 33(1), 1318.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teachingpronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody inthe comprehension of spoken language: A literature review.Language and Speech, 40(2), 141201.

Firth, S. (1993). Pronunciation syllabus design: A question offocus. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching AmericanEnglish pronunciation (pp. 173183). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gilbert, J. (1994). Intonation: A navigation guide for the listener.In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory (pp.3848). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an internationallanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levis, J. (2001). Teaching focus for conversational use. ELTJournal, 55(1), 4754.

McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1993). Suprasegmentals inthe pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P. Avery & S.Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation, (pp.185196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teachingEnglish to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25,481520.

Morley, J. (1994). A multidimensional curriculum design forspeech-pronunciation instruction. In J. Morley (Ed.),Pronunciation pedagogy and theory (pp. 6691). Alexandria,VA: TESOL.

Murphy, J. (1991). Oral communication in TESOL: Integratinglistening, speaking, and pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly,25, 5174.

Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1994). The effects of pronunciationteaching. In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy andtheory (pp. 109119). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Authors

John M. Levis is assistant professor of TESL and applied linguisticsin the Department of English at Iowa State University, in theUnited States, where he teaches ESL/EFL teaching methods andlinguistics. His research interests include the intelligibility of spokenlanguage and the integration of pronunciation into oralcommunication curricula.

Linda Grant teaches applied linguistics at Georgia State University,and has taught ESL at Georgia Tech and Emory University, in theUnited States. She is the author of Well Said: Pronunciation forClear Communication (Heinle & Heinle, 2001), and writes,presents, and consults in her area of special interestintegratingpronunciation with speaking and listening.

Documents

Integrating Pronunciation in ESL-EFL Classrooms