Recherches anglaises et nord-américaines

55 | 2022
Pronunciation Matters
Current Perspectives on Teaching and Learning L2 Phonology

Monika Pukli (dir.)

Electronic version
URL: https://journals.openedition.org/ranam/359
DOI: 10.4000/ranam.359
ISSN: 3000-4411

Publisher
Presses universitaires de Strasbourg

Printed version
Date of publication: July 20, 2022
ISBN: 9791034401161
ISSN: 0557-6989

Electronic reference
Monika Pukli (dir.), Recherches anglaises et nord-américaines, 55 | 2022, “Pronunciation Matters”
[Online], Online since 01 February 2024, connection on 07 February 2024. URL: https://
journals.openedition.org/ranam/359; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ranam.359

Cover caption
Illustrations de la couverture / Cover illustrations
American Graphophone's 1888 wax cylinder graphophone, in Scientific American, vol. 59, n° 2, July
1888.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_Graphophone_Graphophone.jpg?uselang=fr
and
Gerd Altmann, Sant titre, in Informatique/Communication, Freiburg,Deutschland, 25/09/2017.
https://pixabay.com/fr/illustrations/des-m%c3%a9dias-sociaux-num%c3%a9risation-2786261/

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported
files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.
ranamrecherches anglaises et nord-américaines

Pronunciation Matters
Current Perspectives on Teaching and Learning L2 Phonology

PRESSES UNIVERSITAIRES DE STRASBOURG

Direction / Editor
Jean-Jacques CHARDIN (Strasbourg)
Comité scientifique / Advisory board
Anne BANDRY-SCUBBI (Strasbourg), Maryvonne BOISSEAU (Strasbourg), Anna Maria
CIMITILE (Naples), Christian CIVARDI (Strasbourg), Jean-Louis DUCHET (Poitiers),
Bernard GENTON (Strasbourg), Albert HAMM (Strasbourg), Christopher HARVIE (Tübingen),
Lyndon HIGGS (Strasbourg), Monika FLUDERNIK (Freiburg), Hélène LE DANTEC-LOWRY
(Paris 3), Miriam LOCHER (Basel).
Comité de lecture / Editorial board
Andrew EASTMAN (Strasbourg), Laurence GROVE (Glasgow), Hélène IBATA (Strasbourg),
Felicity JAMES (Leicester), Yvon KEROMNES (Metz), Paul KERSWILL (York), Marie-
Pierre MAECHLING-MOUNIÉ (Strasbourg), Sophie MANTRANT (Strasbourg),
Catherine PAULIN (Strasbourg), Anne STÉFANI (Toulouse), Yann THOLONIAT (Metz).
Responsable de ce numéro / Editor for this issue
Monika PUKLI (Strasbourg)

Directeur de publication
Michel DENEKEN, président de l’Université de Strasbourg

Composition / Typesetting
Ersie LERIA

Éditeur
Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
4 rue Blaise Pascal – CS 90032
67081 Strasbourg Cedex
Tél. : 03 68 85 62 65
info.pus@unistra.fr
site web : pus.unistra.fr

Vente au numéro
En librairie ou en ligne sur le site des Presses universitaires de Strasbourg : pus.unistra.fr
Abonnements
Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
4 rue Blaise Pascal – CS 90032
67081 Strasbourg Cedex
Tél. : 03 68 85 62 65
info.pus@unistra.fr
site web : pus.unistra.fr

© ranam, Strasbourg – ISSN 0557-6989

ISBN 979-10-344-0116-1
 Université de Strasbourg

ranam
recherches anglaises et nord-américaines

Pronunciation Matters
Current Perspectives on Teaching and Learning L2 Phonology

Numéro dirigé par

Monika Pukli

N°55/2022
 Preface

MONIKA PUKLI♦

T o start the third decade of the 21st century—massively marked by the

coronavirus pandemic—with renewed motivation and in order to reinforce
the efforts to recognize the importance of pronunciation in the acquisition and
teaching of proficient speaking skills, our intention in this volume has been to
focus on innovative and revised pedagogical approaches to the pronunciation of
English as a second language. Ranam 55, entitled Pronunciation matters: Current
perspectives on teaching and learning L2 phonology, thus addresses an array of
contemporary issues and work in-progress on learning and teaching different
aspects of English phonetics and phonology.
A series of pilot studies opens the volume in the fields of articulatory
phonetics, prosody, sociophonetics, and modern media-based pedagogy, namely
serious games and Twitter. Following these examples of innovative approaches,
the volume promotes the diversity of methods not just along the qualitative-
quantitative dimensions but also on the less trodden paths of prolonged
pedagogical projects and the validation of previously established conclusions.
Two papers present a longitudinal investigation of the interphonological system
of young learners (aged 7 to 10) and a replication of an oral comprehension study
of regional variation in university language instruction, respectively. Finally,
the last three articles offer insights on a more global plane by focusing, in turn,
on listener-centred approaches pertinent in an array of teaching and training
situations, on the evolving teaching practices of US-based pre-service teachers,
and on the phonology section of the English teacher recruitment examination
in France. The collection, as a result, constitutes a commendable pool of ideas
and tested practices in the learning and teaching of phonology bringing together
authors from different parts of France, Sweden and the United States.
The first contribution “Teaching pronunciation with direct visual articulatory
feedback: Pedagogical considerations for the use of ultrasound in the classroom”
by Barbara Kühnert and Claire Pillot-Loiseau provides insight from an exploratory
pilot study aiming at the evaluation of direct visual articulatory feedback utilised
in a regular university classroom setting where learners are accompanied by

♦ Monika Pukli, Université de Strasbourg, UR 1339, LiLPa, Thème Langage, parole et

variation.

ranam n°55 /2022

6 Monika Pukli

a series of short-time training periods only. Focusing on two pairs of English

monophthongs, findings show learner progress in the differentiation between
the two high front vowels for some participants, but only a slight effect for an
improved distinction between the two open non-back vowels.
Dan Frost’s paper “Doing pronunciation online: An embodied and cognitive
approach, which puts prosody first” sets out to test the efficacy of online
pronunciation learning in the framework of the author’s university course. In
an articulatory approach to learning pronunciation, the training incorporates
short videos and interactive activities with a special focus on prosody. The paper
examines the extent to which students make progress using an online learning
path specifically targeting pronunciation and listening skills.
The article “Teaching English sociophonetics through a tutored project” by
Thomas Jauriberry also involves the assessment of a learning experience, but this
time in a face-to-face teaching context, that builds heavily on student autonomy
for the successful fulfilment of the learning objectives. The author highlights
the advantages of approaching sociophonetics differently than in a regular
university lecture setting and cogently argues for the teaching of diverse, real-life
pronunciation models (similarly to many other authors in the collection).
The fourth paper in the series of pilot studies by Mahdi Amazouz and Franck
Zumstein, entitled “Using learner corpora in serious game design for English
phonology and pronunciation teaching”, explores the possibilities of game-
based learning in the teaching of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).
Their analysis of phonemic transcriptions highlights the significance of prosody
teaching (echoing Frost’s approach in the present volume) as the most recurrent
mistakes in their study involve the reduced sound /ə/. Very similarly to the
context of Jauriberry’s tutored project (present volume), students are seen as
actors of their learning as authors discuss the importance of student engagement,
autonomy and efficiency in the acquisition of L2 phonology.
Amanda Dalola examines the relevance of using Twitter in L2 phonology in
her paper entitled “Une image vaut mille prononciations: Using Twitter to support
the acquisition of hard-to-pronounce words in L2 French”. Her results reveal
that learners improve their pronunciation of words presented with pictures in
Twitter feeds much more than when the words are accompanied by a video link,
and highlight the different behaviour of words with silent non-final consonants.
This contribution stands out from the rest of the volume as it focuses on the
acquisition of French L2 phonology but the discussion is extremely useful since
not only does it address one of the current popular media and its potential in
pronunciation teaching in general, but it also points out that the specific choice of
the teaching prop has an impact on the global effectiveness of the method.
The topical paper “Assessing spoken English performance and self-efficacy
beliefs in the classroom: Some considerations on the value of an interdisciplinary
embodied methodology for French learners of English” by Julie Rouaud, Nathalie
 Preface 7

Huet and Anne Przewozny-Desriaux, investigates how learner performance

and commitment are influenced by their self-efficacy beliefs and the perceived
usefulness of the tasks. According to their findings from a longitudinal educational
project, the main benefit of the embodied phonological method is that it
maintains the initial self-efficacy beliefs for both general English competences
and English pronunciation. The authors’ analysis provides a detailed description
of the interphonological system of the learner groups as well as the educational
modules of the project.
Kizzi Edensor-Costille, in her article entitled “The impact of day-to-day
use of multimedia by L2 learners of English on the comprehension of regional
varieties”, questions the potential impact of the Internet and the easily accessible
multimedia on the comprehension of regional accents of English by non-natives
via the replication of her previous study carried out in 2009. Her results suggest
that, among the varieties under study, the Cardiff accent is the most intelligible
in 2019 while some accents remain difficult to understand.
The thought-provoking paper “English phonology in a globalized world:
Challenging native speakerism through listener training in universities in Sweden
and the US” by Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann and Julia Forsberg
deals with the effective replacement of the standard language ideology of more
traditional English teaching in the two different teaching contexts of Sweden and
the Unites States. Following the description of a phonetically oriented study in
Sweden and the insights gained from learner difficulties and listener training in
the US, the paper reflects on how the focus may efficiently be shifted from the
speaker to the listener in the teaching of L2 phonology.
Kochem and Levis’s “Evolving teaching practices of pre-service language
teachers in L2 pronunciation: A case study” constitutes a remarkable contribution
to our understanding of how novice teachers in the United States provide
pronunciation instruction after receiving training. The authors affirm the
need for more specialized training in L2 pronunciation pedagogy in teacher
preparation curricula based on the insights from a thorough analysis of diagnostic
assessments, oral reports, written reflections, and tutoring observations building
on a graduate course on L2 phonology. As a welcome addendum to their multiple
case study, the authors also briefly present the evolution of pronunciation
teaching in general.
The volume ends with “English pronunciation and the spelling-sound code:
What priorities for teachers of EFL?” by Susan Moore Mauroux. She reflects on
the extent to which the phonology papers in the secondary teacher recruitment
examination in France cover the effective needs of pupils in the practical context
of the classroom. Her analysis provides an overview over a span of twenty years
of the exam questions and their brief analysis in the official report each year,
and focuses especially on the spelling-sound relationship in English. Through
her comparison against a hierarchy of learner difficulties, the author argues that
8 Monika Pukli

effective teaching of how the English spelling-sound code works leads to progress
in both production and comprehension.
Response rate
Absolutely Somewhat Slightly Not at all Total
(126 participants)
Learning good communication skills
41 49 8 2 100 71
in English has been a priority for you.
- in primary school 20 17 30 33 100 48
- in collège (lower secondary school) 16 34 35 15 100 68
- in lycée (higher secondary school) 24 48 20 8 100 67
- at university 45 36 13 5 100 61
Learning good pronunciation skills in
54 38 6 2 100 84
English has been a priority for you.
- in primary school 15 13 35 37 100 46
- in collège (lower secondary school) 10 36 40 13 100 77
- in lycée (higher secondary school) 25 45 21 8 100 99
- at university 52 31 15 1 100 67

Table 1: Answers to the survey questions Teaching good communication skills has been a priority
for your English teachers and Teaching good pronunciation skills has been a priority for your
English teachers (expressed in percentage throughout the table).

A brief survey1 conducted among English majors at the University of

Strasbourg enrolled in their second year shows that despite the majority of
students considering good communication and pronunciation skills in English
essential, this priority had been quite variably matched by an equal primacy
accorded by their schoolteachers, at least in their opinion. As summed up in
Table 1 above, there seems to be a gradual shift (perceived by the students) from
primary school towards higher education: as learners make progress in general
linguistic competences, more and more priority is given to speaking skills and
pronunciation. Fitting this context, the various contributions to the present issue
of Ranam are all excellently positioned in the present-day landscape of phonology
teaching and provide welcome succour to the continuing necessity of exchange
between actual practices and theoretical principles in phonological research.

Monika Pukli
February 2022
Many thanks go to Antoine Consigny and Stéphane Kostantzer for their support and
precious help with this volume.

1 I would like to thank again the 126 participants who took part in the survey last year;
I read passionate and detailed responses and was happy to see students’ clear-sighted
common sense and their ability to compare their experiences in learning different
languages at different levels.
 Teaching Pronunciation with
Direct Visual Articulatory
Feedback: Pedagogical
Considerations for the Use of
Ultrasound in the Classroom

BARBARA KÜHNERT♦
CLAIRE PILLOT-LOISEAU♦♦

P ronunciation is an essential component of communicative competence and

hence an important aspect of foreign language (L2) learning and teaching.
Several studies have shown that effective communication is difficult when non-
native speakers’ pronunciation falls below a certain threshold level, even when
the vocabulary and grammar are mastered sufficiently (e.g. Derwing and Munro,
2015). Various training methods have been proposed with the aim to improve
the pronunciation of suprasegmental units (stress, tone, rhythm, intonation,
cf. Gluhareva and Prieto, 2017; Estebas-Vilaplana, 2017) and segmental units
(vowels and consonants, cf. Hazan et al., 2005) of an L2. In the present paper we
will concentrate on the latter.
Broadly speaking, methods of pronunciation teaching can be categorized
as being either more comprehension- / perception-based or articulation- /
production-based. An extensive overview about the ongoing debate as to
whether perception- or production-based methods are more appropriate and
efficient in L2 instruction can be found in Lee et al. (2019). Importantly, different
methods of pronunciation teaching provide different forms of supportive and/
or corrective feedback. Feedback is information provided by an agent regarding

♦ Barbara Kühnert, CNRS et Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, UMR 7018, Laboratoire de

phonétique et phonologie.
♦♦ Claire Pillot-Loiseau, CNRS et Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, UMR 7018, Laboratoire
de phonétique et phonologie.

ranam n°55 /2022

10 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

aspects of a person’s performance or comprehension. This agent can be a teacher

or parent who can provide corrective information, a peer who can provide an
alternative strategy, a book that can provide information for clarification, or a
device that can provide information about the teacher’s performance (Hattie and
Timperley, 2007). Thus, it is an aid provided to improve control or performance
of a procedure, as part of the learning process. Effective feedback must first of all
be meaningful. It should not rely solely on the learner’s perception; it should also
allow verification of the accuracy of the response, highlight specific errors, and
possibly suggest a remedy (Neri et al., 2002).
Corrective feedback may initially be verbal from the teacher, in the form
of implicit corrections (rephrasing, repetition, and request for clarification) or
explicit corrections (including explicit correction with or without metalinguistic
explanation, metalinguistic cueing, elicitation, or paralinguistic cueing to elicit
self-correction from the learner, see Lyster et al., 2013). Corrective feedback can
also be auditory by having the learner use the audio-phonatory loop to verify
whether the current production of speech is in accordance with his/her intention,
either in real time or based on a previously made recording. Moreover, it can be
kinesthetic and proprioceptive, such as feeling the position of the articulators—
for instance, the rounding of the lips or the exhaled breath on the hand produced
by the production of aspirated stop consonants.
Finally, corrective feedback in L2 learning and teaching can also be visual:
on the segmental level, it can include direct feedback that provides visual models
of articulation, and indirect feedback that uses visualized acoustic information
as a means of informing the learner about different articulatory positions. This
indirect feedback then provides visual information about the articulation of L2
sounds derived from the acoustic analyses (Bliss et al., 2018). However, phonetic
correction through such acoustic information has not always been shown to
be effective with a population of learners, as spectrographic information is not
always easily interpretable by the student (Ruellot, 2011).
Devices that enable direct visual corrective feedback with respect to learners’
articulatory performance include electropalatography (e.g. Bernhardt et al.,
2003) which measures lingual contact with a custom-made artificial palate,
electromagnetic articulography (e.g. Levitt and Katz, 2010) where small sensors
are glued to the speaker’s articulators, and lingual ultrasound, which allows
for the imaging of the shape and the movements of the tongue during speech
in real time (e.g. Stone, 2005; Wilson and Gick, 2006). One of the advantages
of the use of ultrasound technology as a direct visual biofeedback is that is less
costly and less invasive than other articulatory imaging devices. There are also no
known harmful effects associated with the use of standard diagnostic ultrasound
instruments (Wilson, 2014).
The purpose of the present contribution is to explore whether diagnostic
ultrasound imaging can be used as a valuable tool to improve L2 pronunciation
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 11

in a regular adults’ classroom setting. Does the provision of visual feedback

about correct and incorrect tongue movements and configurations help the
learners’ understanding and production of critical L2 speech sounds when
exposed to a series of short-time training sessions? The study is largely
explorative, and hence qualitative, in nature. The primary aim is not to come
up with systematic measures as evidence for or against improvement but rather
to gain an overall understanding about the feasibility of ultrasound in regular
pronunciation teaching, the possible experimental setup or the most appropriate
speech material, and to develop guidelines and hypotheses for potential further
qualitative research.
In the following, we will first present the basic principles of the ultrasound
imaging technique, as well as the advantages and limitations of the device. Then,
a short review of previous research on the contribution of lingual ultrasound to
the teaching of L2 sounds will be given. In the main part, a pilot study on the
learning of two English vowel contrasts by French-speaking learners using lingual
ultrasound will be presented. The final section will discuss the results and some of
their pedagogical implications.

Principle, Advantages and Limitations of

Ultrasound
Ultrasound is a medical imaging technique that uses high frequency sound
waves and their echoes. It works in the following way: first, the ultrasound
scanner transmits high frequency (1 to 15 MHz) sound pulses into the body,
using a probe. Then, waves propagate and touch a boundary between tissues (e.g.
soft tissues and bones): some waves are reflected back to the probe, while others
continue to propagate. Then, the reflected waves are picked up by the probe and
relayed to the machine or computer. The machine calculates the distance of the
probe from the boundary using the speed of sound in the tissues and the time
of return of each echo. Finally, the ultrasound scanner displays the distance and
intensity of the echoes on the computer screen (Wilson, 2014).
Ultrasound is a safe and non-invasive visualization technique which can
provide continuous images of the tongue movement during speech production
or rest positions. In this way, ultrasound is a biofeedback method which allows
for both direct visual feedback on the execution of the articulatory movement
and direct visual feedback on the result of the targeted sound production, i.e.
whether a certain articulatory configuration has been reached correctly (or not).
It allows to visualize in real time the contour, shape, position and the direction
of movements of the tongue, an essential articulator of most of the sounds
of the world’s languages, and yet an invisible organ during this articulation
(Kocjančič Antolík, 2020): this device provides a unique perspective on the
12 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

complex deformations of the moving tongue, in the sagittal and coronal planes.
It requires minimal training and its startup is fast. Moreover, the images are
relatively easy to explain to participants. During teaching, the lingual illustration
is provided in addition to tongue proprioception, i.e. vision of the tongue in the
articulatory space and morphology of the learner, and not only that of a reference
subject (teacher). Besides, it does not necessarily require bulky equipment. Some
researchers have used systems with head stabilization techniques which allow for
articulatory recordings with subsequent analysis. Other devices, like the one used
in our study and most studies in speech therapy (e.g. Preston et al., 2014) consist
of a simple program to be installed on a computer and an ultrasound probe which
can be inserted into the computer’s USB connection. It is hence easily portable
and can be used with any laptop but only allows for visualization and the video
recording of the tongue movements, without recording the associated sound
production. The setup of the system, together with an illustration of the resulting
tongue image are given in figure 1.

Fig. 1: SeeMore probe (https://seemore.ca/portable-ultrasound-products/pi-7-5-mhz-speech-

language-pathology-99-5544-can/) with illustration of portable ultrasound system (left), and display
of tongue contour (sagittal plane) during the production of /æ/ in “cat” by speaker FR3 (right) (photo
by Barbara Kühnert and Claire Pillot-Loiseau).

There are, however, several well-known limitations to the use of lingual

ultrasound. One primary shortcoming is that only the tongue is imaged. Thus,
the relationship and interaction of the tongue with other structures (palate,
pharyngeal walls, or lips) is not obvious as there is no reference structure.
Furthermore, the quality of the obtained tongue images depends on several
factors: the probe must be of good quality with a sufficient frequency and depth
of field (in the present study we used 7,5 MHz microconvex probe with 10 cm
depth), and be positioned in a stable way under the oral floor of the subject
without deviating from the medio-sagittal plane. The morphology and the size
of the speaker can alter the image if the subject is too tall and/or with a notable
cervical corpulence. The quality of the image also varies with age and sex of the
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 13

subject. Furthermore, ultrasound does not always provide information on the

tongue tip due to the possible presence of the mandible and hyoid bones. All
these factors can render the comparison between speakers and between sessions
a delicate matter.

Use of Ultrasound in Pronunciation Teaching

The use of ultrasound visual feedback is by now a common practice in

speech therapy for assessment and remediation of speech errors (Preston et
al., 2013). However, thus far few studies have examined the benefits of using
visual ultrasound feedback in the acquisition of second language learning. Tsui
(2012), for example, trained the lingual configurations of English /l/ and /ɹ/ of
six Japanese native speakers, a contrast which is absent in Japanese phonology.
After each participant had four 45-minute ultrasound training sessions over a
two-week period, all participants were rated by expert listeners as having more
accurate productions of both sounds. In Tateishi and Winter’s study (2013)
who were examining the same contrast with ten native Japanese learners in five
separate training sessions of 30 minutes each, only the production of English
onset /l/ seemed to improve. Kocjančič Antolík et al. (2019) provided three
individual 45-minutes lessons to four Japanese leaners and report some evidence
of an enhanced differentiation between French /y/ and /u/, even two months
after the end of the training. Roon and colleagues (2020) investigated nine naïve
English learners of palatalized Russian consonants and report improvements
in both production and discrimination when the subjects were presented with
ultrasound videos of the respective sounds.
A comprehensive review of the studies available to date can be found in Bliss
et al. (2018). However, the results of all studies at present seem to suggest that
ultrasound feedback might be an effective tool for L2 learning. For the time being
though, it seems to lend itself best to the training of small groups with learners
receiving individual coaching sessions.

Pilot Study
In most regular classes of modern language teaching, individual training
sessions—as the ones used in the studies outlined above—are rather unrealistic
and would be difficult to implement for reasons of time and resources. The
aim of the present pilot study was therefore to explore whether the use of
visual ultrasound feedback might also be beneficial and facilitate speech sound
acquisition when applied in a series of short-time training sessions with a
number of people simultaneously, i.e. in a regular classroom setting. To this end,
we conducted a longitudinal study over one semester at the Sorbonne Nouvelle
14 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

University in which the use of the portable ultrasound was integrated into regular
oral language teaching classes.

Subjects
The participants were monolingual French first year students at the English
Department of the Sorbonne Nouvelle University. According to the European
Framework of Reference for Languages their level corresponded to either B1
or B2. All subjects had at least eight years of previous experience with English
in secondary education. None of them reported any hearing and speech
impairments. While we initially recorded 15 French participants, only seven of
them attended every single classroom session during the semester (average age:
21 yrs.) and we will therefore concentrate on their results here (5 female, 2 male
speakers). A native British subject (male, 23 yrs.) was recorded as a control speaker.

Materials and Recordings

Several studies suggested that ultrasound might be particularly effective for
improving learners’ vowel articulations, which provide little proprioceptive
feedback (e.g. Cleland et al., 2015). The present pilot study therefore focused
on the pronunciation training of two vowel contrasts in English known to be
problematic for French learners (Huart, 2010): the contrast between tense /iː/ and
lax /ɪ/, and the contrast between the front and central open vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/.
Contrary to French, English uses both length and tenseness to distinguish two
high front vowels with the close front vowel /iː/ often slightly diphthongized and
with prominent spread lips whereas for /ɪ/ the tongue is nearer to the centre and
the lips only loosely spread (see figure 2). The French vowel system only contains
a single monophthong /i/, and learners have been shown to frequently assimilate
the two non-native phones equally
well or poorly to their single native
category /i/ (Best and Tyler, 2007).
The opposition between /æ/ and /ʌ/
is slightly more complex. During
the articulation of /æ/ the mouth
and lips are slightly more open than
for the production of French /ɛ/
and the front tongue body is raised
midway between open an open-mid.
Moreover, the contrast between the
two vowels is prone to a potential Fig. 2: The IPA vowel diagram for Standard
interference with the spelling system Southern British English (in black) and the four
French vowels (in red) used for comparison. The
of both languages. In fact, in the target vowels are indicated by the ellipses.
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 15

standard variety of English taught in the French system (commonly referred to

as Standard Southern British English), the articulation of /ʌ/ as in “cup” is quite
similar—even though more centralized—to the articulation of French /a/ as in
“cape” (Huart, 2010). But while in French /a/ is always associated with the letter
<a>, this is never the case in English. Rather the sound /ʌ/ is commonly associated
with the letters <u> or <o>. Hence, French learners might have a tendency to add
some lip rounding to the production of /ʌ/.
The English target vowels /iː, ɪ, e, æ, ʌ/ together with the French control
vowels /i ɛ a œ/ were selected in words with a C1VC2 structure with C1 being the
voiced plosive /b/ in all contexts. The English test items were “beat, bit, bet, bat,
butt”, the French test items were “bide, bettes, batte, boeuf”. All test items were
embedded in short carrier sentences. The speech material can be found in table 1.
Each speaker produced 10 repetitions of each sentence in randomized order and
the experiment was split into two parts, with recordings of the English corpus
first, followed by the French one.

Speech Material
English Test Sentences French Test Sentences
Target Vowel Target Vowe1
We danced to the beat to Le film a fait un bide en
/ i: / /i/
the music salles.
Elle prépare les bettes au
/I/ She ate a bit of cake. /ε/
four.
Il joue avec sa batte en
/e/ He had a bet on the game. /a/
bois.
There is a bat in the Il a mangé du boeuf hier
/æ/ /œ/
garden. soir.
He dropped the butt of his
/ʌ/
cigarette.
Table 1: English (left) and French (right) test sentences used for each target vowel.

The participants were recorded in a soundproof studio twice, once before the
beginning of the semester (pre-recording), once four weeks after the end of the
semester (post-recording). For two of the speakers, additional recording sessions
were included immediately before and immediately after the fourth ultrasound
training session.
All acoustic recordings were semi-automatically aligned with the Munich
MAUS system (Kisler et al., 2012) and then manually corrected with Praat
(Boersma and Weenink, 2014). In order to evaluate the participants’ vowel
productions, first (F1) and second (F2) formant measurements were automatically
extracted at 25%, 50% and 75% into the duration of the vowel segment using a
PRAAT script, and then averaged to provide a single value.
16 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

Ultrasound Training

During regular language laboratory classes each participant received an

individual 10-minute-long ultrasound training using the SeeMore portable
ultrasound system with a PI 7,5 MHz probe by Interson (see figure 1) on a
fortnightly basis, which means that every student had five sessions in total. Each
training included an explanatory discussion to incorporate explicit awareness of
the tongue movements associated with the target sounds as well as the production
of all English vowels to increase the understanding of the personal vocal tract
dimensions. Finally, the participants repeatedly practiced the English target
vowels, both in isolation and in CVC syllables in different phonetic contexts.
During the training period the students were working in pairs together with the
teacher in order to encourage cooperation and confidence.

Results
In the following, the speakers’ productions will be presented in form of
acoustic vowel spaces. While this evidently constitutes a simplified mapping
there is nevertheless a well-known correspondence between the articulatory and
acoustic vowel space in which F1 is indicated on the vertical axis corresponding
to tongue height (higher values for lower, more open vowels) and F2 is indicated
on the horizontal axis corresponding to tongue advancement (lower values for
back vowels). All the data are represented in form of Fisher confidence ellipses
(90%) in order to also assess the variability of the speakers’ productions.

Fig. 3: F1/F2 ellipse plot of English target vowels as produced by the British control speaker.
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 17

Figure 3 shows the native speaker’s vowel productions. As can be seen,

the realizations of all four target vowels are clearly distinct from each other
without there being any overlap between the formant values of the different
vowel articulations. The vowel /iː/ is articulated further forward and with a
higher tongue configuration than its centralized lax counterpart /ɪ/. During
the articulation of the vowel /æ/ the main tongue constriction is lower and
situated further in the front cavity than the more centralised and higher tongue
constriction of the vowel sound /ʌ/. As such, the data closely resemble the data
reported in the literature on the formant values of Standard Southern British
English monophthongs (e.g. Wells, 1962; Deterding, 1997).
Turning to the French learners’ distinctions between the tense and lax high
front vowel, two different patterns can be observed. First and foremost—and
somewhat surprisingly in light of the subjects’ previous experience of English—
none of the French learners showed a clear difference between the two vowels
in the pre-recording, with both vowel productions being very similar to the
realizations of the French counterpart /i/, as illustrated in figure 4 by the data
of Speaker FR1 (top) and FR4 (bottom). In other words, the words beat and
bit were virtually indistinguishable. A similar overlap in terms of vowel quality
between the two categories by French learners of English has been reported in the
literature before (cf. Krzonowski et al., 2018).

Fig. 4: F1/F2 ellipse plot of /iː/ and /ɪ/ as produced by speaker FR1 (top) and FR4 (bottom) in the
pre-training (left) and post-training (middle) condition, together with the control productions of
French /i/ (right).

However, after the ultrasound training sessions three of the seven subjects
showed an increased tendency to distinguish between tense /iː/ and lax /ɪ/ in
the post-recording as illustrated by the data of speaker FR1. While a certain
18 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

overlap between the two vowels still can be observed, there is notwithstanding
an apparent trend for an improved differentiation between the two vowel
articulations, with /ɪ/ being now produced slightly more centralized and more
open than /iː/. For the remaining four speakers, though, no clear difference
between the two vowel sounds emerged, neither prior- nor post-training as can
be seen in the productions of speaker FR4.
The French learners’ productions of the vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/ display a similar
twofold pattern. Three of the seven speakers positively distinguished the two
vowels from the outset, with little change between their productions prior or post
ultrasound training as shown in figure 5 (speaker FR3). The main effect is some
reduced variability in the productions at the end of the semester. It should also be
noticed that—even though the distinction between the two sounds is maintained—
the vowel /æ/ is considerably more centralised than commonly produced by
native speakers. The difference seems to be primarily accomplished by a difference
in tongue height rather than by a difference in tongue height and tongue
fronting, with a similar acoustic representation of English /ʌ/ and French /a/.

Fig. 5: F1/F2 ellipse plot of /æ/ and /ʌ/ as produced by speaker FR3 in the pre-training (left) and
post-training (middle) condition, together with the control productions of French /ɛ, a, œ/ (right).

The remaining four speakers realised /æ/ with an even more distinct posterior
position than /ʌ/. As a comparison with the French control data suggest (see
figure 6, speaker FR1), tongue advancement for the vowels was reversed and
there seems to be a noticeable confusion between English /æ/ and French /a/,
and English /ʌ/ and the French rounded vowel /œ/. While the F1/F2 plots do not
provide us with any concrete information about lip rounding, the close similarity
of the acoustic values—and hence presumed underlying tongue configurations—
between the French vowel productions /œ/ and the English vowel productions /ʌ/
seem to suggest that some lip rounding for /ʌ/ might have occurred. Lip rounding
lengthens the vocal tract and as a consequence the main constriction location of
the tongue moves further forward as a compensatory contribution (Lee et al.,
2019). When listening to the recordings, the two vowels in the English word butt
and French word boeuf sound indeed were much alike. Again, this observation
matches the data reported elsewhere. For instance, a similar distinction and
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 19

confusion between the production of English /ʌ/ and French /œ/ have been found
in the acoustic study of 48 French L2 learners of English by Krzonowski et al., 2018.

Fig. 6: F1/F2 ellipse plot of /æ/ and /ʌ/ as produced by speaker FR1 in the pre-training (left) and
post-training (middle) condition, together with the control productions of French /ɛ, a, œ/ (right).
Finally, an example of the immediate impact of an ultrasound training session
is provided in F3’s data in figure 7. To recall, here the speaker has been recorded
at the beginning of the semester, immediately after the training session in week
4 and one month after the end of the semester. As can be observed, subject F3
displays a more accurate distinction between the two front closed vowels when
recording the target vowels directly after the ultrasound practice. However, as
the data in the post-recording reveal, there was no lasting effect of an increased
differentiation between the two vowels. Two months after the training sessions
ended the subject’s articulations of /i:/ and /ɪ/ were once more almost identical.

Fig. 7: F1/F2 ellipse plot of /iː/ and /ɪ/ as produced by speaker FR3 in the pre-training condition
(left), immediately after the ultrasound training (middle), and in the post-training condition (right).

Discussion and Pedagogical Implications

This exploratory study investigated the effects of ultrasound visual feedback

for improving the pronunciation of language learners in a regular classroom
setting. Each participant received five training sessions on a fortnightly basis,
addressing each of the four target sounds produced in isolation and in context.
To sum up, the results of the study showed that the effects of the short-time
20 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

ultrasound training were speaker- and/or sound-dependent. In the recordings

one months after the training, three speakers showed a lasting effect towards an
increased differentiation between the vowels /i:/ and /ɪ/ in terms of F1/F2 values
while for the remaining speakers no change in their production patterns could be
observed. The distinction between /æ/ and /ʌ/—even though some speakers’ data
revealed a certain trend in the right direction and a decrease in variability—did
not show any prominent enhancement between the initial and the post-training
sessions.
There are several observations and considerations to be taken into account
which could partially explain the performance of the learners. The present study
differs in a number of ways from prior research on the use of ultrasound in
second language learning. First, previous studies used between 30 to 45 minutes
training time for the sounds under consideration, delivering individual coaching
sessions (e.g. Tsui, 2012; Kocjančič Antolík et al., 2019). The length of the training
time therefore may not have been enough for all subjects to demonstrate an
effect and the duration of the coaching session might be a factor that should be
re-considered and, if possible, extended. Nevertheless, that three participants
responded to the very short 10 minutes interventions in the present study with
an enhanced distinction between the tense and lax high front vowel still after
two months suggests that in some cases even short visual biofeedback might be
helpful to successfully establish improved pronunciation accuracy.
Likewise, studies in speech therapy suggest (e.g. Allen, 2013) that increasing
the frequency of training intervention and having multiple training sessions in a
short time period might lead to a better outcome than having the same number of
sessions over a longer time period, even though the exact frequency and intensity
of the sessions is still subject to debate (Preston et al., 2014). We were partially
restricted by our class structure but ultimately fortnightly sessions should be
replaced by weekly or even twice a week interventions.
Another consideration from the study concerns the speech material. Previous
studies targeted either selected consonants with a clear anchor point in the vocal
tract (for example, /l/ versus /r/, Tateishi and Winter, 2013) or vowel contrasts
with rather distinct tongue configurations in the vocal tract, as for example the
contrast between the two rounded vowels /y/ (front) and /u/ (back) in French
(Kocjančič Antolík et al., 2019). In particular the articulatory differences in the
tongue configurations between the vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/ might be too subtle to be
captured and interpreted by the participants in the visual ultrasound display and
hence could not be incorporated into their own productions. Further studies may
consider first starting with vowel articulations that are more distinct in terms of
lingual articulations, before tackling finer differences.
The performance related to the production of the vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/ draws
the attention to a further aspect of the study. As noted previously, four of the
subjects realized the sound /ʌ/ with almost identical acoustic values to the French
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 21

counterpart /œ/, and with a clear auditory perceptible degree of lip rounding.
This is a well-known production strategy of French learners of English, in
particular in the early phases of L2 acquisition. All our participants had at least
8 years of previous experience with English at secondary education and as a
consequence already well-established pronunciation patterns in their L2. Some of
those patterns may in fact have turned into fossilized pronunciation errors over
time as a result of the incorrect acquisition of pronunciation of the L2, usually
affected by the L1 (Wei, 2008). While researchers disagree whether and how
those fossilized pronunciations are ‘undoable’ (for an overview, see Demirezen
and Topal, 2015), it is evident that chronic articulation mistakes cannot easily
be solved. In the case of French learners with a strong preceding exposure to
English, as most likely some of our participants, we find ourselves therefore not
only in a situation of acquisition and learning but sometimes rather in a situation
of remediation, in which mature production patterns have to be unlearned first.
Thus, short-time ultrasound interventions might have a stronger impact on less
advanced language learners.
A good example to this effect can be seen in data of speaker FR3 for whom
we compared the sound productions immediately after the ultrasound training
and four weeks after the end of the study. While the speaker did not show any
differentiation between the vowels /i:/ and /ɪ/ in the initial baseline recording,
there was some evidence of refined acquisition directly after the visual imaging
session with an increase in the distinctiveness between the two vowels. However,
there was no evidence of retention and learning in the long term. One month
after the training the speaker had fallen back to the initial pronunciation habits.
How to move from acquisition to retention and learning is a crucial but still
largely unresolved issue, not only for visual ultrasound instruction but any
pronunciation teaching method.
Leaving aside the direct and / or long-term impact, the use of visual ultrasound
biofeedback in the classroom clearly contributed the students’ awareness and
understanding of their proper articulatory behaviour. While the students had
been exposed to articulatory diagrams or animations during lessons in the past,
the visual experience of seeing the movements of their own tongue and hearing
the consequences in the corresponding sound productions far exceeded their
previous descriptive knowledge. The work in pairs with another student which
allowed them to comment on and correct possible deviant pronunciations
contributed to this understanding. Hence, in general the sessions were much
appreciated by the students and, if nothing else, prominently increased their
interest in the subject matter.
22 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

Conclusion
In conclusion, the present pilot study aimed at evaluating the feasibility and
potential benefits of using ultrasound in a regular classroom setting. Due to the
small number of subjects and the absence of a control group of speakers, any
results drawn from the study must, of course, be considered very tentative, and
more work is necessary to prove the validity of our interpretations. Nevertheless,
our pilot study suggests that the use of the new portable ultrasound devices could
be an enriching experience for pronunciation learning, in particular for students
at the earlier stages in the acquisition process of a new language, with more
frequent training sessions than used in our pilot study, and with speech material
that allows for clear articulatory distinctions.
Ultrasound imaging is part of an explicit and analytical method of foreign
language teaching but, of course, this approach does not prevent or replace
the practice of other more global teaching methods oriented towards auditory
perception. Any method that increases the positive attitude of the students
towards pronunciation teaching classes and their interest in willing to improve
their own pronunciation can only be helpful.

References

• ALLEN, M. (2013): “Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech
sound disorder”, Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 56, p. 865-
877.
• BERNHARDT, B., GICK, B., BACSFALVI, P., & ASHDOWN, J. (2003):
“Speech habilitation of hard of hearing adolescents using electropalatography and
ultrasound as evaluated by trained listeners”, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics
17.3, p. 199-216, https://doi.org/10.1080/0269920031000071451.
• BEST, C. & TYLER, M. (2007): “Nonnative and second-language speech
perception: commonalities and complementarities”, in Munro M. & Bohn, O.-S.
(eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James
Emil, John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 13-34.
BLISS, H., ABEL, J. & GICK, B. (2018): “Computer-assisted visual articulation
feedback in L2 pronunciation instruction: A review”, Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation 4.1, p. 129-153, https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.00006.bli.
• BOERSMA, P. & WEENINK, D. (2014): Praat: doing phonetics by computer
[Computer program]. Version 6.0.37. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
• CLELAND, J., SCOBBIE, J. M. & WRENCH, A. (2015). “Using ultrasound
visual biofeedback to treat persistent primary speech sound disorders”, Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics 29.8-10, p. 575-597.
 Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback 23

• DEMIREZEN, M. & TOPAL, H. (2015): “Fossilized pronunciation errors from

the perspectives of Turkish teachers of English and their implications”, Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 199, p. 793-800.
• DERWING, T. & MUNRO, M. (2015): Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-
based perspectives for L2 teaching and research, John Benjamin Publishing
Company, 208 p.
• DETERDING, D. (1997): “The formants of monophthong vowels in Standard
British English Pronunciation”, Journal of the International Phonetic Association
27.1-2, p. 47-55.
• ESTEBAS-VILAPLANA, E. (2017): “The teaching and learning of L2 English
intonation in a distance education environment: TL_ToBI vs. the traditional
models”, Linguistica 57.1, p. 73-91.
• GLUHAREVA, D. & PRIETO, P. (2017): “Training with rhythmic beat
gestures benefits L2 pronunciation in discourse-demanding situations”, Language
Teaching Research 21.5, p. 609-631.
• HATTIE, J. & TIMPERLEY, H. (2007): “The power of feedback”, Review of
educational research 77.1, p. 81-112, https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
• HAZAN, V., SENNEMA, A., IBA, M. & FAULKNER, A. (2005): “Effect of
audiovisual perceptual training on the perception and production of consonants
by Japanese learners of English”, Speech Communication 47.3, p. 360-378.
• HUART, R. (2010): Nouvelle Grammaire de l’Anglais oral, Paris, Ophrys, 258 p.
• KISLER, T., SCHIEL, F. & SLOETJES, H. (2012): “Signal processing via web
services: the use case webmaus”, Proceedings Digital Humanities 2012, Hamburg,
p. 30-34.
• KOCJANČIČ ANTOLÍK, T., PILLOT-LOISEAU, C. & KAMIYAMA, T. (2019):
“The effectiveness of real-time ultrasound visual feedback on tongue movements
in L2 pronunciation training: Japanese learners improving the French vowel
contrast /y/-/u/”, Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 5.1, p. 72-97, https://
doi.org/10.1075/jslp.16022.
• KOCJANČIČ ANTOLÍK, T. (2020): “Ultrasound Tongue Imaging in Second
Language Learning”, Studie z aplikované lingvistiky 11.1, p. 109-119.
• KRZONOWSKI, J., PELLEGRINO, F. & FERRAGNE, E. (2018): “Étude
acoustique de la production de voyelles de l’anglais par des apprenants
francophones”, in Actes des XXXIIe Journées d’Études sur la Parole, 4-8 June 2018,
Aix-en-Provence, France, p. 525-531.
• LEE, B., PLONSKY, L. & SAITO, K. (2019): “The effects of perception- vs.
production-based pronunciation instruction”, System 88, p. 1-13.
• LEVITT, J. S. & KATZ, W. F. (2010): “The effects of EMA-based augmented
visual feedback on the English speakers’ acquisition of the Japanese flap: A
perceptual study”, in Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Speech
Communication Association Interspeech 2010, Makuhari, p. 1862-1865, https://
doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2010-538.
24 Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau

• LYSTER, R., SAITO, K. & SATO, M. (2013): “Oral corrective feedback in second
language classrooms”, Language Teaching 1, p. 1-40, https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444812000365.
• NERI, A., CUCCHIARINI, C. & STRIK, H. (2002): “Feedback in computer
assisted pronunciation training: Technology push or demand pull?”, ICSLP-2002,
Denver, USA, p. 1209-1212.
• PRESTON, J. L., BRICK, N. & LANDI, N. (2013): “Ultrasound biofeedback
treatment for persisting childhood apraxia of speech”, American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology 22, p. 627-643, https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-
0360(2013/12-0139).
• PRESTON, J.L., MCCABE, B., RIVERA-CAMPOS, A., WHITTLE, J., LANDRY,
E. & MAAS, E. (2014): “Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice
variability for residual speech sound errors”, Journal of Speech Language and
Hearing Research 57.6, p. 2102-2115.
• ROON, K.D., KANG, J. & WHALEN, D.H. (2020): “Effects of ultrasound
familiarization on production and perception of nonnative contrasts”, Phonetica
77.5, p. 350-393.
• RUELLOT, V. (2011): “Computer-assisted pronunciation learning of French /u/
and /y/ at the intermediate level”, in J. LEVIS & K. LEVELLE (eds.). Proceedings
of the 2nd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference,
Sept. 2010, Ames, IA, Iowa State University, p. 199-213.
• STONE, M. (2005): “A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound
images”, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19.6-7, p. 455-501, https://doi.
org/10.1080/02699200500113558.
• TATEISHI, M. & WINTER, S. (2013): “Does ultrasound training lead to
improved perception of a nonnative sound contrast? Evidence from Japanese
learners of English”, in LUO, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference
of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Victoria, BC, p. 1-15.
• TSUI, H. M. (2012): “Ultrasound speech training for Japanese adults learning
English as a second language”, Unpublished MSc thesis, University of British
Columbia. Retrieved from https://enunciate.arts.ubc.ca/research-and-case-
studies/other-research/.
• WELLS (1962): “A study of the formants of the pure vowels of British English”,
Unpublished MA thesis, University of London. Retrieved from https://www.phon.
ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/formants/index.htm.
• WILSON, I. (2014): “Using ultrasound for teaching and researching articulation”,
Acoustical Science and Technology 35.6, p. 285-289, https://doi.org/10.1250/
ast.35.285.
• WILSON, I. & GICK, B. (2006): “Ultrasound technology and second language
acquisition research”, Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition Conference, p. 148-152.
• WEI, X. (2008): “Implication of IL fossilization in second language acquisition”,
English Language Teaching 1.1, p. 127-131.
 Doing Pronunciation Online:
An Embodied and Cognitive
Approach Which Puts
Prosody First

DAN FROST♦

T he study of a foreign language, usually English, is compulsory for all

university students in France, as in many other countries in Europe and
throughout the world. In Grenoble-Alpes University therefore, where the project
presented in this paper is being carried out, these non-specialists make up the
majority of students of English, and teaching conditions and learner motivation
vary greatly (Taillefer, 2002). In addition, there are also English classes for
undergraduate and graduate specialists of English, members of the university
staff and also members of the general public. The French Ministry of Education
and Research has specified the levels which it expects learners to achieve in their
foreign languages at various stages of their education, and for LSP/LAP1 learners,
this means B2 according to the CEFRL2 on arrival at university (Goullier, 2005:
38). In fact, most students arrive after eight–ten years of secondary schooling
with a level that is closer to A2 (Taillefer, 2007; Macré, 2015), and this includes
students who arrive in the first year of an applied foreign language course
(LEA), at least for oral production and oral interaction (Frost & O’Donnell,
2015). English specialists receive some training in phonetics and phonology,
but teaching pronunciation in many contexts in France, as in other European
countries, is often neglected, due mainly to a lack of teacher training in what
is a very varied set of learning situations (Frost & Henderson, 2013). Although

♦ Dan Frost, Université Grenoble Alpes, Lidilem (Linguistique et didactique des langues
étrangères et maternelles).
Thanks to Marie Delacroix, who was responsible for obtaining the grant for the HELD
project, to Robin Pruchon for recording, editing and subtitling the videos, to Chara
Kornilaki for making the learning path what it is, and to all the other teachers and
researchers on the HELD and HELD+ teams who have worked so hard to give our students
all the tools they need to learn in their own homes and at their own pace.
1 Languages for Specific Purposes / Languages for Academic Purposes.
2 Common European Framework for Reference in Languages (COE, 2001).

ranam n°55 /2022

26 Dan Frost

pronunciation has often been the poor relation in language teaching, this is less
true today, and the last few years, there has been a renewed interest in teaching
pronunciation and researching the teaching and acquisition of phonology.
Furthermore, the content of pronunciation teaching is increasingly based on
solid research (Munro & Derwing, 2015) and attainable goals; the aim for many
teachers today is no longer to modify their students’ accents to achieve perfect
RP or GA, but the more pragmatic goal of accent addition, where the endpoint
is “intelligibility” and “comprehensibility” (Derwing, 2010; Munro & Derwing,
2011). In the context of French universities, teachers and researchers are also
focusing increasingly on pronunciation in classes, and putting intelligibility at
the centre of their teaching (Nocaudie et al., 2019). For learners whose native
language is a romance language such as French or Spanish, the prosody of
English, with its different levels of stress, reduced syllables, numerous deletions,
and complex rhythmic patterns, causes many difficulties (Frost, 2011), both to
intelligibility and to comprehension.
Even before the Covid-19 pandemic and the rush towards distance learning
which it provoked, French universities had already been turning more and
more to online learning platforms as a way of supplementing, and sometimes
replacing, classroom learning (Biros & Matthys, 2020). The resources and the
study presented in this paper are an attempt to respond to the many problems
which learners of English in French universities encounter: more specifically, how
to move teaching and learning pronunciation online. In part two of the paper will
outline some of the challenges we faced, and in part three, we will describe some
of the solutions we are bringing to bear, and how this pilot study is helping us to
assess the merits or otherwise of our approach.

Background
Context
The context for this study is a public university in France, and the resources
developed and which this project is using are intended for four different sets of
learners:
1. Applied foreign language students (Langues étrangères appliquées / LEA);
2. Language students (Langues littératures civilisations étrangères et régionales /
LLCER);
3. Lifelong learning students: either teachers or researchers from the
university, or who are enrolled on short English for Specific Purposes
(ESP / EAP) courses;
4. Non-specialist students: either ESP / EAP or general language courses.
For the purposes of the pilot study presented in this article, the participants are
all first-year students in applied foreign languages (LEA), and we will discuss
 Doing Pronunciation Online 27

these students in the second part of this article. Lifelong learning students vary
enormously, in terms of both their level, but also their needs. As for the last
category, this is the most varied group, and potentially the largest. The LLCER
students will also be given access to the learning path, but as they have dedicated
pronunciation lectures and classes, we do not expect a high uptake.

Transfer
Language transfer is a well-documented and researched phenomenon (Major
2008), and although transfer may be a positive factor when the target language
and learners’ language(s) are closely related, it often causes problems for learners
when there are important differences. In the case of French and English, although
their shared history means that up to two-thirds of the vocabulary have common
ancestry in Latin, the phonologies of the two languages are very different, as we
shall see below.
Following on from Polivanov and Trubetzkoy’s positing of the existence of
“phonological deafness” (Trubetzkoy, 1939), may authors have written of the
difficulties some learners experience in actually perceiving certain features in
a target language. It also seems that prosodic features are particularly prone to
transfer (Mennen & De Leeuw, 2014) and indeed some learners of English may
even experience “stress Deafness” (Dupoux et al., 2001). These difficulties are
understandable given the differences between French and English, especially
regarding the prosody of these respective languages (Frost, 2011). The problem
of negative phonological transfer for French learners of English is further
compounded by their shared orthography: while sharing an alphabet undoubtedly
presents many advantages, as Stenton points out: “[u]sing the same Latin alphabet
for the radically different sound/symbol associations of two different languages
is akin to shooting yourself in the linguistic foot. Paradoxically, the ones who
suffer most are those language pairs which are the most similar such as French
and English” (2009: 297). These grapheme to phoneme conversion (GMP) rules
(Colombo & Tabossi, 1992) have been confirmed in several studies involving
French learners (Bürki et al., 2019), and indeed even experienced learners evince
orthographic effects on their pronunciation (Bassetti & Atkinson, 2015), although
proficiency generally lessens the effects (Bassetti et al., 2020).

What Model(s) Do We Teach and Why

In any language teaching situation, perhaps more so in an online distance
learning context, the question of models is unavoidable. In a classroom, teachers
may themselves be the only model, in which case we have the accent we have.
However, when choosing resources, we must select the model or models we
use, especially for work on accent. For over twenty years now, the number of
28 Dan Frost

exchanges in English between non-native speakers (NNS) has outnumbered

the number of exchanges between native speakers (NS) (Jenkins, 2000), and for
this reason, many of us choose to provide a variety of Englishes from around
the world, both NS and NNS models (Murphy, 2014). However, in the French
context, only two models are taught to future English teachers in universities
and only two models are accepted in the context of the phonology part of the
Agrégation externe, the competitive exams which are still considered the gold
standard for teachers in both the secondary and universities in France, and
those varieties are General American (GA) and Standard British English (SBE)
(Gillesen, 2021). It is important to note however that despite the many varieties
of English which co-exist, there are some features they all share, even English as
a Lingua Franca (ELF), which remain unchanged, and those include the weak/
strong syllable alternation (Jenkins, 2000: 147). As we have seen, this stress and
the other prosodic and segmental features that are linked to stress, are at the heart
of our approach.

Our Pedagogical Approach

Firstly, as we have seen above, the context for this study involves several
different sets of learners, all with different needs, and all of course with their
individual profiles, styles and strategies. Some English specialists who will be
completing our learning path will be aiming for a career in English teaching,
or international business, interpreting, etc., and it may well be that a near-
native accent will be their aim, as credibility judgements often depend on
accent (De Meo, 2012; Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010). However, for many of our
non-specialist students, and even for the specialists in their first year, we focus
on intelligibility and comprehensibility. So, for what we may term “high stakes
learners”, their aim is generally accent modification, but for most learners, the
more realistic goal of accent addition is sufficient. In both cases, most authors
recommend working on both production and comprehension in tandem (Reed
et al., 2010), and this is what we encourage our learners to do. It is worth pointing
out, however, that a small amount of research has shown that speech production
may be bad for learning speech sounds, especially in the initial stages of language
learning (Baese-Berk & Samuel, 2016).
In any teaching situation, especially in a short course (and the learning path
discussed here is 24 units, representing 12-24 hours of work), we must choose
what to prioritise. We have seen above that the prosody of English and French
are very different, but there is also a large body of work which shows that prosody
not only has a high impact on perception of accentedness (Anderson-Hsieh et al.,
1992; Trofimovich & Baker, 2006), but also on intelligibility (Munro & Derwing,
1997). In our approach, we choose to foreground prosody (Frost & Guy, 2016),
in particular stress, and features which result from stress, such as reduced vowels,
 Doing Pronunciation Online 29

and connected speech phenomena, such as deletions, liaisons, assimilations,

etc. because they have a high impact on intelligibility. Indeed, Levis and Levis
refer to lexical stress as one of the “high value pronunciation features”, i.e. those
which have a large impact on “other listeners’ ability to understand”. (Levis &
Levis, 2018: 139). There is also an increasing amount of encouraging work on the
learnability of prosodic features in many contexts (Akita, 2005; Jung et al., 2017),
including with French learners (Schwab & Llisterri, 2013).
Finally, as speech is not only a cognitive process, but also a motor skill, we
believe that it is essential to work on the body as well as developing cognitive
and metacognitive strategies. For a full review of research on body language,
embodiment, and the incorporation of proprioception, physical movement,
gestures and touch into second language education, particularly with regard
to the pronunciation of English, see Marsha Chan’s review of the field (Chan,
2018). As she states (2018: 47), “careful attention to breathing, vocalization,
articulatory positions, pulmonic and tactile pressures, pitch and duration, scope
and synchrony of body movements, in addition to the systematic use of gestures,
enables more effective pronunciation.” In our learning path, we therefore
encourage learners to become aware of their articulators with a variety of physical
activities, to be aware of the physical differences between French and English,
and to “warm up” before undertaking pronunciation activities, as we would in a
physical classroom.

Using Digital Technology: Moving the Classroom Online

Digital technology, especially using e-learning platforms, opens up some
very interesting possibilities for learning pronunciation, as long as careful
consideration is given to the solutions chosen (Yoshida, 2018). Many students,
especially in France, are reluctant to speak in classroom settings (Crosnier &
Décuré, 2018). Working in the privacy of one’s own home can be a solution
to these and other problems which learners may face in the classroom. Other
teachers and researchers in France have used technology to teach pronunciation
to French learners of English at university level. Some colleagues have favoured
a segmental approach, for example, Kinephones3, an online interface based on
Gattegno’s Silent Way, but integrating colour and certain target phonemes (Le
Page Pitullo, 2020). On the suprasegmental level, various attempts have been
made to help French learners with English prosody, such as Prosodia, which
used software to visualise intonation and stress and proposed a series of activities
(Herry-Bénit et al., 2003), and SWANS, a karaoke style synchronised subtitling
program, which annotated text for lexical stress, reduces syllables, etc. (Stenton,
2009).

3 http://dlm.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/kinephone/#/en_gb/1/table.
30 Dan Frost

Technical and practical considerations aside, the real challenge is how to

recreate a classroom learning experience using online tools: teaching pronunciation
inevitably involves some imitation. Our approach, which, as we have seen above,
is both cognitive and physical, provides a particular set of challenges when
designing online self-study programmes. Starting a pronunciation session
with relaxation techniques, breathing, work on raising learner awareness to
articulatory settings, etc. is much easier in person than in a self-study distance-
learning context. For this reason, we chose to base our approach on the extensive
use of videos, which enable us more easily to demonstrate these techniques, as
well as provide informational content, encourage the development of strategies,
etc. Perhaps more importantly, videos are where many of us, and this is especially
true of generations Y and Z, go to find information, rather than read a book
(Weiler, 2005). The three main pillars of our online approach are therefore:
1. Short video capsules4 (mostly 4 or 5 minutes), many of which demand some
activity on the part of the learners, including standing up, warming up,
repeating words and phrases, etc.
2. Activities to discover and/or reinforce skills (drag and drop, multiple
choice, etc.)
3. Listen, repeat and record activities to encourage the development strategies
such as critical listening, noticing, monitoring, etc.
Screenshots of the learning path may be found in the appendices.

The present study

Background: The HELD & HELD + Projects
This research project follows on from the funded teaching project “HELD”
(Hybridation des Enseignements en Langues Débutées5). The original project
had a budget of 200,000 euros to pay teachers and technicians to develop online
learning paths for students at Grenoble-Alpes University who needed a little
extra help as they were starting a new language, such as Russian or Japanese. In
addition, as those students were unable to follow English classes, it was decided
to develop learning paths in English too, which led to the involvement of English
teachers. It was therefore decided that English language specialists could also
benefit from a little extra help, as could students enrolled on lifelong learning
courses, so English and German learning paths were also developed. The learning
platform chosen was Moodle, and a recording studio was made available, along
with audio-visual technicians to help record, edit and subtitle the videos, and an
engineer to help design the online learning paths. The current article concerns

4 All 30 videos can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJCHx0de-

TsBfit783Db_cw
5 “Blended learning for new language learners.”
 Doing Pronunciation Online 31

only the English pronunciation path, which is composed of 24 units, which

correspond to two 12-week semesters, but may be realised at any time, each unit
taking 30–60 minutes to complete. A list of the units in the learning path may be
found in the appendices.
HELD+ is therefore a follow-on research project, whereby those members of
the initial teaching project who wish to carry out research based on their learners’
completion of the learning paths can do so.
The content for learning paths for the initial HELD teaching project was
developed and finished during the COVID-19 lockdown period, and therefore
the roll-out was delayed. For this reason, we chose to pilot the learning paths
during the second semester of the academic year 2020–2021. The complete
project so far includes the following learning paths:
– English6 (3 paths, A2-B2: pronunciation, grammar, vocab)
– German (A1-A2)
– Russian (A1-A2)
– Chinese (A1-A2)
– Japanese (A1-A2)
The Japanese learning path is not part of the HELD+ project, and learning paths
in Italian and Spanish are currently under development.

Methodology
Participants
There are several groups of learners who will be using the learning paths,
although the pilot study presented here concerns only first year applied foreign
language students (Langues étrangères appliquées/LEA). There are over 600
students in the first year, and they all had access to the HELD+ pronunciation
learning path.

Data Collection
The data collection methods vary according to the learning path and/or the
language concerned, but the principle is the same, i.e. a pre-test & a post-test, a
questionnaire before and after the learning path and semi-structured interviews
with selected participants. Participation in the research project is voluntary,
but completion of the actual learning paths is either voluntary or compulsory,
depending on the context: for the pilot study presented in this paper, participation
was voluntary, but for other learning paths in the project, the learning path is a

6 The videos are recorded in RP/SBE, but GA is covered where there are important
differences between RP/SBE. The last unit covers these two varieties more fully and the
very last activity exposes the learners to other varieties of English.
32 Dan Frost

compulsory part of the degree course on which the students are enrolled. The
participants were given access to the pronunciation learning path in January
2021, at the beginning of the second semester. The pre-test, post-test, initial and
final questionnaires for the pronunciation path can be found in the appendices.

Preliminary Data: Results and Discussion

Of the 600 first year LEA students enrolled in the first year, 206 chose
to participate in the study by signing up for the learning path. Of these, 55
participants completed the first questionnaire and 44 took the pre-test. Only two
participants completed the post-test, and of these two, only one completed the
second questionnaire. As may be seen in Figure 1, the participants accessed the
path thousands of times in the first month, but their participation rapidly waned.
The majority of the “hits” were watching the first few videos and completing
the first few activities. We expected a high attrition rate; indeed, studies have
shown that the completion rate for MOOCs is in the order of 3% - 8% (Reich and
Ruipérez-Valiente, 2019), but not to the extent that we saw for this pilot study.
This extremely high attrition rate is undoubtedly due to the fact that completion
of the learning path was voluntary, compounded perhaps by distance learning
fatigue after a year of lockdown due to Covid-19, with screens replacing face-to-
face learning.

Figure 1: Number of “hits” per month.

The initial questionnaire revealed several interesting pieces of data about the
1st year LEA students (see fig. 2), for example Q5, where they self-reported their
CEFR level. Perhaps the most surprising fact is that over a third of them did not
know their CEFR level in English! Of those that did, half reported having B1/
B2 level. This is a full level above the results found in previous studies (Frost &
O’Donnell, 2015; Macré 2015; Taillefer, 2007). The results to Q9 show that over
 Doing Pronunciation Online 33

half the students believe their French accent in English to be strong or very strong,
which, given the responses to Q11 indicating that 95% of them have had little or
no training in phonetics or pronunciation, is hardly surprising. However, as we
can see in the answers to Q10, they are very positive about their comprehension
of authentic spoken English – which we may speculate has more to do with
Netflix than the teaching they receive in secondary schools – with 63% of the
participants admitting to watching films or series every day or almost every day.

Figure 2: Questionnaire 1: selected results (Q5, Q9, Q10, Q11).

The results to the pre-test (n=55, see Figure 3) show above all that the
participants have three areas in particular where they are weak, namely nuclear
stress placement (Q3), knowledge of schwa (Q4), and knowledge of linking
vowel-final and vowel-initial words with /r/, /w/, and /j/ (Q5.) – see appendices
for all 10 questions in the pre-test and post-test. These results correspond to data
we collected when calibrating a prosody assessment tool (Frost & O’Donnell,
2018), where we discovered that French learners at A2 level had little difficulty
knowing where to place lexical stress correctly (Q6 – Q10), although often it was
not always correctly realised using all of the acoustic cues. Particularly lacking
is the ability to correctly reduce unstressed syllables, typically with schwa (Q4),
but we will need many more completed post-tests and recordings to explore this
more. On the other hand, during the calibration process in the previous study
(op cit), it became evident that mastery of focus / nuclear stress (Q3) and linking
typically occurs between B2 and C1 for most French learners of English, and this
seems also to be borne out by the current study. As only two subjects completed
the post-test, we are reluctant to draw and conclusions at this stage, although it
is unsurprising to see that even on completion of the learning path, one of the
34 Dan Frost

participants still answered the questions regarding nuclear stress (Q3) and linking
(Q5) incorrectly. We hope to be able to further confirm and develop on these
results following this pilot study when we have more data, both pre-test / post-test
results, and recordings of the participants’ actual oral performance.

Figure 3. Pre-test and post-test results.

Questionnaire 2 (see appendices) is intended mainly to provide feedback

on the perceived difficulty, usefulness of the resources, and to provide the
participants with the opportunity to give their opinions and tell us about any
technical problems. As only one participant completed this questionnaire, the
results are not worth reporting here.

Conclusions

Despite (and thanks to) the extremely high attrition rate, this pilot study was
able to provide us with some very valuable data. Firstly, we were able to correct
several errors in the learning path that we had not detected earlier, such as typing
errors and duplicated activities. Most importantly, the contents of the learning
path seem to be aimed at the right level (A2–B2) and the contents seem to address
problems which the participants themselves identify as needing attention. And
more pragmatically, we have decided that we will encourage participation over
the remaining three years of the project with a reward system: participation in
the research project will still be voluntary, but an extra two credits will be given
to those participants who complete the pre-test, initial questionnaire, all 24 units,
post-test and final questionnaire—this will give us our experimental group. The
control group will be composed of those participants who elect only to complete
the pre-test, first questionnaire, post-test and final questionnaire—for this, they
will receive one extra credit. We hope in this way to gain more insight into the
feasibility and usefulness of our cognitive and embodied approach to learning
pronunciation online.
 Doing Pronunciation Online 35

References
• AKITA, M. (2005): “The effectiveness of a prosody-oriented approach in L2
perception and pronunciation training”, Gakujyutsu Kenkyuu 53, p. 1-22. https://
core.ac.uk/reader/286928385 (accessed 28 September 2021).
• ANDERSON-HSIEH, J., JOHNSON, R., & KOEHLER, K. (1992): “The
relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and
deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure”, Language Learning 42,
p. 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.x.
• BAESE-BERK, M.M., & SAMUEL, A.G. (2016): “Listeners beware: Speech
production may be bad for learning speech sounds”, Journal of Memory and
Language 89: 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.008.
• BASSETTI, B., & ATKINSON, N. (2015): “Effects of orthographic forms on
pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners”, Applied
Psycholinguistics 36.1, p. 67-91. DOI:10.1017/S0142716414000435.
• BASSETTI, B., MAIRANO, P., MASTERSON, J., & CERNI, T. (2020): “Effects
of orthographic forms on second language speech production and phonological
awareness, with consideration of speaker‐level predictors”, Language Learning
70.4, p. 1218-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12423.
• BIROS, C., & MATTHYS, L. (2020): “Anglais des biotechnologies santé à
l’Université Grenoble Alpes pendant la crise sanitaire du printemps 2020”, ASp
78, p. 65-73. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.6656.
• BÜRKI, A., WELBY, P., CLÉMENT, M., & SPINELLI, E. (2019): “Orthography
and second language word learning: Moving beyond ‘friend or foe’?”, The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145.4, p. 265-271. https://doi.
org/10.1121/1.5094923
• CHAN, M. (2018): “Embodied Pronunciation Learning: Research and Practice”,
The CATESOL Journal 30.1, p. 47-68. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1174234.
pdf (accessed 28 September 2021).
• COLOMBO, L., & TABOSSI, P. (1992): “Strategies and Stress Assignment:
Evidence from a Shallow Orthography”, in FROST, R. & KATZ, L. (eds.),
Advances in Psychology: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning vol.
94. Elsevier, p. 319–340.
• COUNCIL OF EUROPE. (2001): Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 273 p.
• CROSNIER, E., & DECURE, N. (2018): “Parler ou ne rien dire : La prise de
parole en classe d’anglais Lansad”, Recherches en didactique des langues et des
cultures 15.2. http://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/3062 (accessed 28 September
2021).
• DE MEO, A. (2012): “How credible is a non-native speaker? Prosody and
surroundings”, in GRAZIA BUSÀ, M. & STELLA, A. (eds.), Methodological
36 Dan Frost

Perspectives on Second Language Prosody. Papers from ML2P 2012, p. 3-9. http://www.
maldura.unipd.it/LCL/ML2P/proc/rognoni.pdf (accessed 28 September 2021).
• DERWING, T. M. (2010): “Utopian Goals for Pronunciation Teaching”, in
LEVIS, J. & LEVELLE, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Iowa State University, p. 24-37.
• DUPOUX, E., PEPERKAMP, S., & SEBASTIAN-GALLES, N. (2001): “A robust
method to study stress ‘deafness’”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
110.3, p. 1606-1618. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1380437.
• FABRICIUS, R. T. (2007): Pourquoi les Français éprouvent-ils autant de
difficultés à apprendre l´anglais ? [Unpublished Master’s thesis, University
of Aarhus]. https://gerflint.fr/Base/Paysscandinaves2/paysscandinaves2.html
(accessed 28 September 2021).
• FROST, D. (2011): “Stress cues in English and French: A perceptual study”,
Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41.01, p. 67-84. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0025100310000253.
• FROST, D. & HENDERSON, A. (2013): « Les résultats du sondage EPTiES
(English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey) : L’enseignement de la
prononciation dans plusieurs pays européens vu par les enseignants », Recherche
et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT 32.1,
p. 92113. DOI:10.4000/apliut.3586.
• FROST, D. & GUY, R. (2016): “L’innovation est le ton qui fait la chanson :
une approche musico-prosodique en secteur Lansad”, Recherche et pratiques
pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT 35.1. https://doi.
org/10.4000/apliut.5526.
• FROST, D. & O’DONNELL, J. (2015): “Success: B2 or not B2, that is the question
(the ELLO project – Étude Longitudinale sur la Langue Orale)”, Recherche et
pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT 34.2.
• FROST, D. & O’DONNELL, J. (2018): “Evaluating the essentials: The place of
prosody in oral production”, in VOLÍN, J. (ed.), The Pronunciation of English as a
Foreign or Second Language Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 228-259.
• GILLESEN, C. (2021): Rapport du jury, Agrégation externe, Langues vivantes
étrangères, option anglais, Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la jeunesse
et des sports. 205 p. https://media.devenirenseignant.gouv.fr/file/agregation_
externe/56/0/rj-2021-agregation-externe-lve-anglais_1419560.pdf (accessed 28
September 2021).
• GOULLIER, F. (2005): Les outils du Conseil de l’Europe en classe de langues.
Cadre européen commun et Portfolios, Paris, Didier, 52 p.
• HERRY-BENIT, N., NISHINUMA, Y., & GHIO, A. (2003): Prosodia : Auto-
aprentissage de la prosodie anglaise. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00136760
(accessed 28 September 2021).
• JENKINS, J. (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 258 p.
 Doing Pronunciation Online 37

• JENKINS, J., BAKER, W., & DEWEY, M. (eds.). (2018): The Routledge handbook
of English as a Lingua Franca. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• JUNG, Y., KIM, Y., & MURPHY, J. (2017): “The role of task repetition in learning
word-stress patterns through auditory priming tasks”, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 39.2, p. 319-346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000031.
• LE PAGE-PITULLO, N. (2020): “La multimodalité et le numérique pour
la maîtrise du code écrit en anglais à l’école en France : Effets de l’écriture en
couleurs”. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. https://www.theses.fr/2020GRALL010
(accessed 28 September 2021).
• LEV-ARI, S., & KEYSAR, B. (2010): “Why don’t we believe non-native speakers?
The influence of accent on credibility”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
46.6, p. 1093-1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025.
• LEVIS, J. M., & LEVIS, G., MULLER. (2018): “Teaching High-Value
Pronunciation Features: Contrastive Stress for Intermediate Learners”, The
CATESOL Journal 30.1, p. 139-160.
• MACRE, N. (2015): “Situation paradoxale ou catch 22 : le cas d’un dispositif
hybride mis en place pour des étudiants LANSAD de niveau A2/B1 en anglais en
première année d’université”, Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de
spécialité 34.1, p. 106-126. DOI: 10.4000/apliut.5053.
• MAJOR, R. (2008): “Transfer in second language phonology: A review”, in
EDWARDS, J. G. & ZAMPINI, M. (eds.), Phonology and Second Language
Acquisition, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, p. 63–94.
• MENNEN, I., & de LEEUW, E. (2014): “Beyond segments: Prosody in SLA”, Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 36.2, p. 183-194. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263114000138.
• MUNRO, M.J. & DERWING, T.M. (2011): “The foundations of accent and
intelligibility in pronunciation research”, Language Teaching 44.3, p. 316-327.
DOI: 10.1017/S0261444811000103.
• MUNRO, M. J., & DERWING, T. M. (2015): “A prospectus for pronunciation
research in the 21st century: A point of view”, Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation 1.1, p. 11-42. DOI: 10.1075/jslp.1.1.01mun.
• MURPHY, J. M. (2014): “Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/
EFL pronunciation teaching”, System 42, p. 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2013.12.007.
• NOCAUDIE, O., ALAZARD-GUIU, C., & BILLIERES, M. (2019): “Oral
d’aujourd’hui, oralité de demain : Et la phonétique corrective dans tout cela ?”,
Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures 16.1, p. 67-73.
• REED, M., MICHAUD, C., LEVIS, J., & LEVELLE, K. (2010): “An Integrated
Approach to Pronunciation: Listening Comprehension and Intelligibility in
Theory and Practice”, in LEVIS, J. & LEVELLE, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the
1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Iowa
State University, p. 95-102.
38 Dan Frost

• REICH, J., & RUEIPEREZ-VALIENTE, J. A. (2019): “The MOOC pivot”.

Science 363.6423, p. 130-131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958.
• SCHWAB, S., & LLISTERRI, J. (2013): “Does training make French speakers
more able to identify lexical stress?”, New Sounds, Montreal. http://archive-
ouverte.unige.ch/unige:28676 (accessed 28 September 2021).
• STENTON, A. (2009): “The inhibition of mother tongue interference in foreign
language speech perception and production—A proposed solution for European
university students”, in VILAS A. M., MARTIN, A. S. GONZÁLEZ, J.A.M. &
GONZÁLEZ, J. M. (eds). Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT
in Education, p. 297-303. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/785039 (accessed 28
September 2021).
• TAILLEFER, G. (2002): “L’anglais dans les formations spécialisées à l’université :
Un cheveu sur la soupe ? Peut-on rendre le plat plus appétissant ?”, ASp 37-38,
p. 155-165. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1531.
• TAILLEFER, G. (2007): “Le défi culturel de la mise en œuvre du Cadre européen
commun de référence pour les langues : implications pour l’enseignement
supérieur français”, Les Cahiers de l’APLIUT 16.2, p. 33-49. https://doi.
org/10.4000/apliut.1987.
• TROFIMOVICH, P., & BAKER, W. (2006): “Learning second language
suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics
of L2 speech”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.01, p. 1-30. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263106060013.
• TRUBETZKOY, N. S. (1939): Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du cercle
linguistique de Prague 7.
• WEILER, A. (2005): “Information-seeking behavior in generation y students:
motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory”, The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 31.1, p. 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2004.09.009.
• YOSHIDA, M.T. (2018): “Choosing technology tools to meet pronunciation
teaching and learning goals”, The CATESOL Journal 30.1, p. 195-212.
 Doing Pronunciation Online 39

Appendix
1: The 24 Units & 30 Videos of the English Pronunciation
Learning Path
Unit Video Content Focus
1 1 Introduction: English vs French pronunciation
2 2 Warming up activities
3 3 Introduction to stress
4 Word stress 1: what it is
4 5 Word stress 2: where it is
6 Word Stress 3: patterns
7 Rhythm 1: An exercise
5
8 Rhythm 2: What is it & English vs French + prosody
6 9 Tone units
7 10 Focus (nuclear / sentence stress)
8 11 Contrastive stress
9 12 Intonation
10 13 Unstressed syllables 1: the basics
11 14 Unstressed syllables 2: schwa
12 15 Unstressed syllables 3: disappearing vowels
1 16 Stressed vowels 1: English vs French vowels
2 17 Stressed vowels 2: simple vowels
18 Stressed vowels 3: diphthongs
3
19 Stressed vowels 3: triphthongs
4 20 Consonants 1: English vs French
5 21 Consonants 2: /p t k/
6 22 Consonants 3: /r/
7 23 Consonants 4: /l/ & /ɫ/ + segmental
8 24 Consonants 5: /w/
9 25 Consonants 6: /h/
26 Words in contact 1 (linking)
10
27 Words in contact 2 (assimilation)
28 Words in contact 3 (contractions)
11
29 Words in contact 3 (deletions)
12 30 UK vs. US English, and beyond…
40 Dan Frost

2: Screenshots of the Pronunciation Learning Path

4. Appendix-screenshot-contents

5. appendix-screenshot-video

6. Appendix-screenshot-activity
 Doing Pronunciation Online 41

3: Questionnaire 1
1. Vous êtes en :
– LLCER anglais / LEA / Une autre filière en premier cycle (Licence) / Une autre filière
en 2e cycle (Master) / Une autre filière en 3e cycle (Thèse) / Formation continue
(enseignant, enseignant-chercheur, administration, etc.) / Autre
2. Votre sexe :
– M / F / Autre / je préfère ne pas déclarer
3. Votre âge :
– 18 ans ou moins / 19-25 ans / 26-30 ans / 31-40 ans / 41-50 ans / Plus de 50 ans
4. Votre langue maternelle est :
– Français / Une autre langue latine (espagnol, italien, etc.) / Une autre langue
européenne (allemand, roumain, etc.) / Une langue asiatique (chinois, japonais, etc.)
5. Votre niveau en anglais selon le CECRL (si vous le connaissez) :
– A1 / A2 / B1 / B2 / C1 / C2 / Je ne sais pas
6. Le temps que vous avez passé dans un pays anglophone en total :
– Jamais / Une semaine ou moins / Entre une semaine et un mois / Entre un mois et 6
mois / Entre six mois et un an / Plus d’un an
7. Vous regardez des séries et/ou films en anglais :
– Jamais / Une ou deux fois par an / Plusieurs fois par an / Plusieurs fois par mois /
Plusieurs fois par semaine / Tous les jours ou quasiment
8. Vous parlez / écoutez de l’anglais dans votre vie professionnelle et/ou personnelle :
– Jamais / Une ou deux fois par an / Plusieurs fois par an / Plusieurs fois par mois /
Plusieurs fois par semaine / Tous les jours ou quasiment
9. Votre accent français (ou autre, selon votre nationalité) quand vous parlez anglais est :
– Très fort / Fort / Assez fort / Pas très fort / A peine détectable / Je parle anglais
comme un anglophone
10. Vous comprenez l’anglais parlé (à une vitesse « réelle » par des anglophones) :
– Pas du tout / Un peu / Assez bien / Bien / Très bien / Parfaitement
11. Vous avez déjà eu des cours sur la prononciation / phonétique de l’anglais (à l’école ou
ailleurs) :
– Jamais / Presque jamais / De temps en temps / Assez souvent / Régulièrement / Très
souvent
12. Si vous avez quelque chose à ajouter, veuillez l’écrire ici :

4: Questionnaire 2
1. Vous avez trouvé l’ergonomie du parcours :
– Très mauvais / Mauvais / Assez mauvais / Pas mal / Bien / Très bien
2. Vous avez trouvé les vidéos :
– Trop faciles / Faciles / Assez faciles / Assez difficiles / Difficiles / Très difficiles
3. Vous avez trouvé les activités :
– Trop faciles / Faciles / Assez faciles / Assez difficiles / Difficiles / Très difficiles
4. Vous avez trouvé les vidéos :
– Complètement inutiles / Pas très utiles / Un peu utiles / Utiles / Très utiles /
Indispensables
5. Vous avez trouvé les activités :
– Complètement inutiles / Pas très utiles / Un peu utiles / Utiles / Très utiles / Indispensables
42 Dan Frost

6. Suite à la réalisation de ce parcours, comment vous vous sentez pour continuer à

progresser en prononciation et compréhension de l’anglais
– Complètement démotivé.e / Peu motivé.e / Un peu motivé.e / Motivé.e / Très motivé.e
/ Super-motivé.e
7. (Soyez honnête SVP, c’est important…) Depuis le pré-test, donc pendant le temps que j’ai
travaillé sur ce parcours, j’ai aussi fait d’autres activités qui auraient pu améliorer ma
prononciation et / ou compréhension de l’anglais :
– Oui / Non
8. Si oui, il s’agit de (vous pouvez cocher plusieurs cases) :
– Cours, TD ou TP dans le cadre d’une Licence ou Master LLCER anglais / Cours,
TD ou TP dans le cadre d’une Licence / Master LEA / Cours de service des langues /
Cours en formation continue / Lectures, vidéos, activités en ligne (site Web, Youtube,
Duolinguo, etc.) // Autre
9. Si vous avez d’autres commentaires, veuillez les écrire ici :

5: Pre- & Post-test

1. English is a:
– Stress-timed language / Syllable-timed language / I don’t know
2. In English:
All syllables are stressed / Every word has a stressed syllable / No syllables are stressed /
The last syllable of words is usually stressed / I don’t know
3. Nuclear stress usually falls on:
The verb / The noun / The first word in a tone unit / The last content word in a tone
unit / I don’t know
4. “Schwa” is:
A syllable / A stressed vowel / An unstressed vowel / A consonant / A rule / I don’t know
5. The following consonants are useful for linking words ending in vowels:
/p/, /t/ & /k/ / /w/ /r/ & /j/ / /s/ & /z/ / /h/ / I don’t know

Word stress patterns

Please select the stressed syllable in the following words (the one marked in
capital letters):
1. volcano
VOLcano / volCAno / volcaNO / I don’t know
2. university
University / uNIversity / uniVERsity / univerSIty / universiTY / I don’t know
3. photograph
PHOtograph / phoTOgraph / photoGRAPH / I don’t know
4. photography
PHOtography / phoTOgraphy / photoGRAPHy / photograPHY / I don’t know
5. photographic
PHOtographic / phoTOgraphic / photoGRAphic / photograPHIC / I don’t know
 Teaching English
Sociophonetics through
a Tutored Project

THOMAS JAURIBERRY♦

Educational Innovations and the Teaching of

Pronunciation
Teaching English pronunciation in English studies usually consists of lectures
and practice in phonetics classes. This classic approach has two drawbacks.
First, the role of the learner remains very weak, and the role of the teacher is
essentially to transmit knowledge. Second, the phonological system taught is
generally that of R.P. (Received Pronunciation, see Altendorf, 2004). While this
standard variety has its advantages, it nonetheless remains virtually non-existent
in the real communication situations that students will face. English departments
can supplement the training of students with courses in sociolinguistics and
sociophonetics (Foulkes and Docherty, 2006; Foulkes et al., 2013; Hay and
Drager, 2007), allowing students to gain insight on the phonetic and phonological
variation which exists in the contemporary English-speaking world, but these
courses are still taught according to the same classic approach.
Bédard and Raucent (2015) point out that educational innovation is an
important issue in higher education, and Bertrand (2014) militates for a change
in teaching methods in higher education and invites higher education teachers
to innovate. For Bertrand (2014), if we want to promote student success, it is
therefore necessary to change teaching practices, which he considers still too
unsuited to the training objectives and the student population. Unlike the classic
approach consisting of a direct transmission from the teacher to the student, he

♦ Thomas Jauriberry, Université de Haute-Alsace, UR 4363 ILLE, Institut de Recherche en

Langues et Littératures Européennes.

ranam n°55 /2022

44 Thomas Jauriberry

deems necessary a change of orientation, so as to take into account the students

and their learning as a priority: breaking with the classic approach and promoting
access to information and interactions. Indeed, it seems clear that students
entering university today have access to a phenomenal body of knowledge,
including quality information and materials. Access to knowledge is therefore no
longer necessarily guaranteed only by the teacher, and the latter must be able to
change roles in order to better train the students.

Project-Based Pedagogy
Bertrand (2014) specifies that today’s world is about developing skills and
fostering interdisciplinarity, rather than disciplinary knowledge. By placing the
focus on the student and the acquisition of skills, the learner becomes an active
and autonomous actor in their learning and the teacher is no longer just a simple
instructor: they now support the student in their journey (Bertrand, 2014).
Likewise, Poumay (2014) summarizes the ‘six levers’ for improving the learning
of higher education students. This includes making students more active, and
giving them more control and autonomy over the tasks they have to perform and
their learning. This approach is not new, since, as Poumay (2014) recalls, Biggs
(1987) already stressed the need for deep learning and active students, while
several educators, such as Decroly and Dewey (Charest, 2008) have highlighted
the importance of placing the student in an active situation, in real and practical
applications where one learns by doing.
Charest (2008: 82) defines project-based pedagogy (see also Béchard, 2001;
Bell, 2010; Paccoud, 2014) as “an innovative teaching strategy that aims to
motivate students by making them work in a functional and interdisciplinary
team, in order to promote the acquisition of skills while carrying out a concrete
project”.
The role of the teacher in a project-based pedagogy is obviously no longer
the same as in a traditional pedagogy of transmission. It is now a question of
monitoring the groups, guiding them if necessary but without leading them, in
order to promote the quality of the projects and to overcome dead ends (Charest
2008). Project-based pedagogy, which is relatively common in scientific and
technical fields (Rouvrais et al. 2005), seems to be quite rare in language studies.
This article presents the case of a tutored project set up at the University of
Upper Alsace, in Mulhouse, with third-year undergraduate students of English
studies. The students work autonomously, but are guided and advised by the
teacher throughout the project, for which they must produce research work on
the variation or change of spoken English.
 Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project 45

Objectives of the Project

The tutored project which was carried out with third year students of the
undergraduate degree in English (LLCER licence d’anglais) aims to apply the
principles of pedagogical innovation and project-based pedagogy. It is part of
a sociolinguistics course with classic content on phonetic and phonological
variation (both social and geographic) and change in contemporary English.
This tutored project has three main objectives for learners. First, to reactivate
knowledge about the social and geographical variation of spoken phenomena
in English, such as T-GLOTTALING, R-VOCALISATION, FOOT-STRUT SPLIT,
CREAKY VOICE, etc. (Wells, 1982), and to apply it to a specific corpus of
contemporary English, according to a research focus chosen by the students
themselves. Listening, transcription, linguistic and extra-linguistic parameters
can be acquired in connection with productions from the English-speaking world,
in all its variety, rather than in an artificial context. Secondly, it is about acquiring
a set of transversal skills and learning strategies. Finally, it involves developing
essential skills in sociophonetic research. These skills include collecting and
creating a corpus of oral English, analyzing this corpus, analyzing data with
statistics and graphs, managing citations and bibliography, writing a research
paper, but also transversal skills such as group work, information retrieval, task
planning. Eventually the tutored project is assessed on the final realization of the
project, which takes the form of a research article, in which the students present
their research.

Sociophonetics
Linguistic variation is at the centre of sociolinguistic research (Hay and
Drager, 2007: 90; Laks, 1992). It is not random and it is structured by a number of
factors (Foulkes and Docherty, 2006: 409). Sociophonetics is defined by Hay and
Drager (2007: 90) as the study of socially conditioned phonetic variation. This
discipline lies at the intersection of sociolinguistics and phonetics (Foulkes, 2005:
495). It involves the integration of the principles, techniques, and theoretical
foundations of phonetics with those of sociolinguistics (Foulkes et al., 2013:
703). It is a question of jointly considering social variation and the phonetic and
phonological production of speakers (Foulkes, 2005: 495; Hay and Drager, 2007:
90). Sociophonetic variation thus corresponds to the variation which is linked
to a certain number of linguistic factors but also to social factors, in particular
the age, the gender, and the social class of the speakers, as well as the style or
the geographical origin (Foulkes, 2005: 495; Foulkes and Docherty, 2006: 409-
410; Hay and Drager, 2007: 90). Finally, sociophonetic variation is generally
manifested by statistical differences in the distribution of variants between
different groups, rather than by the categorical presence or absence of a variant
(Foulkes and Docherty, 2006: 410; Foulkes et al., 2013: 704).
46 Thomas Jauriberry

Organisation of the Project

The tutored project was carried out within an English linguistics course, part
of the 3rd year undergraduate degree in English. Unlike tutored projects which are
often carried out in other academic fields such as law, marketing, or engineering,
and which can be spread over several years, this is not the case for this type of
project. Its duration is limited by the structure of the degree, as well as by the
content of the lessons. The project itself lasts one semester, or twelve weeks of
teaching, excluding evaluation. The project involved around 50 students. These
are divided into around ten groups of four to six people, generally by affinity.
The teacher did not intervene in the constitution of the groups, as this freedom
of choice is at the heart of project-based learning. The teacher monitored,
guided, and advised the different groups throughout the semester, discussing any
problems of organization, method, or analysis with each group on an individual
level. With the Covid situation, these interviews, initially in class, were replaced,
along with distance learning, by videoconference interviews.

Choice of the Subject

During the first session, the rules and principles of the project and of the
semester were presented to the students. They then formed groups. Each group
had to determine a research theme for the tutored project, and define a research
problem or hypothesis (Table 1). Only two parameters had to be absolutely
respected. First of all, the work had to focus on the English language. Although it
was not prohibited to compare this language with another, all the groups chose
to focus only on English. The other parameter was the obligation to carry out
research in sociophonetics. Students could refer to the studies and concepts seen
during the first semester’s course (such as Labov 1972, Wolfram 1969, Trudgill
1974, Harrington et al. 2000, etc.) to define the aims of their research, the
methods to be used, and the varieties of English. These notions can be categorized
into three broad concepts: linguistic change, social variation, and geographical
variation. Of course, these three notions could intersect, and a group could, for
example, study the evolution of a linguistic innovation over time, for different
social categories of speakers.
For practical reasons, it was impossible for students to construct their own
corpora. Indeed, this is a project carried out in Mulhouse, in Eastern France, and
it was not possible, for reasons of time, resources, health and political constraints,
to do so. Thus, the projects focused on corpora available either online or digitally.
For example, the recordings of the IDEA (International Dialect of English
Archive) site constitute a quality corpus, available free of charge online, and
which brings together numerous standardized recordings of English-speaking
speakers of different ages, genders, and geographical origins.
 Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project 47

Many groups chose to analyse television series, generally recent ones. While
some clips are available on platforms like Youtube, most of the series chosen
are available on major streaming platforms, in particular Netflix. Some students
chose, for example, to work on The Crown or Outlander. One group studied
several phonetic and phonological features of Queen Elizabeth II, to compare
her accent with that of the actresses who interpreted her role, for example in
The Crown. Others opted for music analysis, using recordings of songs on the
one hand, and public videos on YouTube on the other. One group, for example,
looked to see if the accent of Matt Bellamy, singer and guitarist of the band Muse,
had changed during their career, and if his accent was different live and on studio
recordings. Finally, some groups chose to focus on the public discourse, usually in
interviews, of various celebrities. For example, one group studied T-GLOTTALING
(the realization of the phoneme /t/, in particular in the intervocalic position, as
a glottal stop), for several groups of actresses and actors. In this study, three
regions of the UK were analysed: London, Scotland, and Wales. In each of these
geographic groups, three actresses and three actors were chosen. The research
objective of this project was to show how the non-standard innovation that is
T-GLOTTALING manifested itself for actors, taking into account the social factors
of gender and geographical origin.
Varieties of English Project title
American The quality of an imitated American accent by British actors
Scottish Sam Heughan’s Scottish accent in Outlander and interviews
American Vocal fry among popular and influential female celebrities
RP and American Non-RP features of English in French singers’ songs
British Non-standard features in British politics
English Matt Bellamy’s accent through time and popularity
RP Clare Foy acting in The Crown: Vocal lookalike of Elizabeth II?
British Accents & Identity: The Evolution of One Direction
Australian Linguistic Accommodation: Chris Hemsworth’s Accent
British Age, gender and glottalization in different regions of the UK
Table 1: Examples of sociophonetic studies conducted by students and the main varieties
of the study

Division and Planning of Tasks

In a project-based pedagogy, the groups are autonomous. All the tasks that are
to be carried out to complete the project must therefore be listed and defined by
the members of the group. If possible, these tasks should be quantified in order
to establish a schedule as quickly as possible. The groups thus had to define these
tasks, but also to distribute them among the different members. The role of the
teacher is minimal here, as each group must be able to determine how it works.
48 Thomas Jauriberry

The tasks were distributed relatively evenly, depending on individual skills, but
also on thematic or methodological interest. Some opted for statistical analyses
and graphs because they already had good computer skills, especially with
spreadsheets like Excel, or even with R (R Core Team, 2020). Others preferred to
carry out documentary research in libraries or online. When the study included
several social variables, or several linguistic variables, the students distributed
these variables. It should also be noted that, during lockdown, some students did
not have computer equipment at their disposal, which also influenced the choice
of tasks to be performed. To help with the organization, the teacher presented
Gantt charts in class, and several groups used such charts to plan tasks throughout
the semester. Group work, collaboration, but also planning and distribution of
tasks are transversal skills that are not specific to linguistics or even university
studies. This type of project-based pedagogy thus makes it possible to combine
disciplinary skills, in this case linguistics, with various management skills, valued
both in the world of work and in that of university research. Although Gantt
charts, discussion and peer negotiation are often new ways of doing things for
students, most adapted well and quickly.

Corpus Collection

To carry out their project, the groups had to create their corpora. Since it
was not possible for them to record English speakers directly, several other
methods were chosen. In the case of corpora that were already established, such
as IDEA recordings, it was a matter of selecting the speakers, then recording the
conversations as audio files in .wav format. Usually, free software like Audacity
were used. Students then had to search the documentation online and learn how
to use it. In addition to the simple recording function, Audacity allows cleaning
and editing of an audio file. This type of software could also be used to record only
audio from series or movies, as several groups chose to analyse sociophonetic
phenomena in popular series.

Data Analysis
Once the corpus was built, usually in the form of a set of .wav or .mp4 files,
it was up to the group to analyse it. When distributing tasks, several strategies
were chosen. Some groups preferred to delegate the analysis to just one or two
people, who then analysed the entire corpus. Others divided up the analysis
tasks, according to speakers or phonetic variables, if the study included several
linguistic variables. Student were free to use the methodology they wanted, but
were encouraged to draw inspiration from the studies and methods seen in class
during the first semester. Thus, an essentially quantitative approach, in line with
variationist sociolinguistic studies, was generally adopted. The students thus
 Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project 49

determined one or more phonetic or phonological variables. The independent

variables (age, sex, gender, social class, origin, etc.) were determined beforehand
once the subject had been chosen and before the corpus was collected. Taking
into account the material possibilities, the analyses were either auditory or
acoustic, but not articulatory. During auditory analyses, for a given sociophonetic
variable, the students’ task was to determine the phonetic or phonological
realization of a variable in a given word and context. For example, students who
studied the frequency of T-GLOTTALING in the Muse group, for words where the
phoneme /t/ appears in intervocalic position after a stressed vowel (for example
in better), determined whether this phoneme was realized phonetically as an
alveolar plosive [t] or glottal stop [ʔ]. Sometimes the variants were phonological,
with the presence or absence of a phoneme, such as /h/. The case of rhoticity,
with the presence or absence of /r/ in non-prevocalic position, is more complex,
and was more difficult for students. Some groups opted for an acoustic rather
than aural approach. In this case, the analysis was carried out using software
such as Audacity, but mainly with Praat (Boersma & Weenik, 2014), a software
recognized as effective in the acoustic analysis of speech. For example, one group
acoustically quantified the presence of vocal fry in American female speakers. For
their analyses, the students used their first semester course (sound change and
variation through social and spatial space), as well as a set of research resources
in linguistics and sociophonetics. The articles and books thus helped these groups
to properly determine the phonetic phenomena (glottal stop, rhoticity, vocal fry,
etc.) in order to identify them during analyses. Finally, the quantitative analysis
of sociophonetic data involves the use of statistics and visualizations in the form
of graphs from dataframes, approaches that are still too little known to language
students. While the majority of groups chose to use Excel features, some opted for
R, a more demanding choice but also more powerful in terms of statistics. Finally,
in writing the research article, the students needed to present the results and the
graphs obtained, with clarity and consistency.

Project Evaluation

The evaluation of the project takes place at the end of the semester. It is
for the teacher to assess the acquisition of a set of skills targeted by this type of
project, using a detailed evaluation grid (Table 2). These skills can be grouped
into three categories. First of all, disciplinary skills, which relate to knowledge
of the English-speaking world, the English language and its sociophonetic
peculiarities. It is also about understanding, remobilizing, and applying linguistic
studies and theories to a specific case, chosen by the group. The second category
of skills centres around disciplinary know-how, not knowledge. Rather, it is
about mastering analysis techniques in linguistics and phonetics, concepts and
methods of data analysis (spreadsheets, graphics, statistics, Praat, Audacity), as
50 Thomas Jauriberry

well as corpus creation techniques. This category also includes expectations in

terms of writing skills. Students should acquire the codes of writing scientific
English, and citation. Finally, the third category includes transversal skills, which
are not specific to linguistics or English. These are the approaches, methods and
skills that make it possible to collaborate with peers, to work in groups, to plan in
advance, to seek reliable information and to synthesize it.
All these skills are therefore assessed in the form of a criteria grid, and a
number of points is assigned to each skill. It is up to the teacher, depending on
the objectives of the tutored project, to weigh the skills. Therefore if the work in
sociophonetics is essential, but the transversal skills are considered secondary,
this should appear in the number of points obtained for each skill. However,
this type of project precisely aims to combine disciplinary skills, methodological
skills, and transversal skills. From this perspective, a certain balance is justified
between these categories.
The evaluation grid is shown to the students at the start of the semester, and
they have access to it. This represents a learning contract with them, in terms of
expectations, but also allows, thanks to the indications in the grid, to guide their
work. The teacher, throughout the semester, must also be able to guide and help
the groups.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Target
The research
The research
The aims of the The aims of objectives and
objectives and
Objectives study are not the study are the hypotheses
the hypotheses
and presented in the only vaguely are present but
are presented
hypotheses paper expressed lack precision
clearly
0 pt 1 pt and/or clarity
2 pts
1.5 pts
The relevant
The relevant
The relevant The relevant concepts or
concepts or
concepts or concepts or terms necessary
terms necessary
terms necessary terms necessary in the study are
Literature in the study are
in the study are in the study are presented but
review presented and
not presented used but not should have been
explained clearly
and explained explained more complete
and in details.
0 pt 1 pt or precise
2 pts
1.5 pts
The methodology
The methodology
Some elements of used in the study
used in the study
the methodology (speakers, data,
The methods (speakers, data,
are presented, analysis, etc.) is
used are not analysis, etc.)
Methodology or are extremely incomplete or
presented in the is presented in
and corpus imprecise OR the too vague OR
paper details. Sufficient
corpus size is not the corpus size
0 pt data was
sufficient should have been
analysed.
1 pt larger
2 pts
1.5 pts
Table 2. Example of some disciplinary skills and their description in the evaluation grid
 Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project 51

Benefits for Students and Conclusion

Although the evaluation criteria are quite different, it is possible to compare

the grades that students obtained at the end of the first semester, when they took
a one-hour exam on the content of the lecture, with those they obtained at the
end of the second semester, with the tutored project.

Figure 1. Mirror density plots of the grades students obtained at the end of the first
semester with a content exam (top) and at the end of the second semester with a tutored
project (bottom)

The results of the grades of the first semester (M =11.2, SD =4.4) and second
semester (M =14.5, SD =5.8) indicate that the change towards a skill-based
evaluation through the tutored project resulted in an objective improvement of
the results, t(58) =5.33, p<.0001 (Figure 1). That the better grades really reflect a
better understanding of English pronunciation and sociophonetic research still
remains to be tested empirically, but this is an indication that it might be the
case. In addition to the quantitative comparison of results, most students who
completed an online survey about the tutored project (N =13) claim that they had
a better understanding of English pronunciation and variation after their project
(61%), while some are unsure (23%), and only some (16%) disagree. Finally,
even though a majority of students (69%) found that the tutored project required
more work than the regular course, only 15% found the project less interesting.
This needs to be tested, but increased engagement may well facilitate the learning
process in this case.
Although it remains rare in English studies, project-based pedagogy is an
innovative pedagogy which makes it possible to give a new role to both the
student and the teacher. It appears that the back and forth between analytical
work, theory, and empirical studies helps consolidate students’ knowledge of the
sociophonetic variation of the English language. Better acquisition is achieved
through student autonomy and personal and group work. This type of project
therefore seems relevant to enable the acquisition of language skills, research
52 Thomas Jauriberry

skills, and transversal skills, and might be used more frequently for the teaching
of English and its pronunciation.

References
• ALTENDORF, C. (2004): “Received Pronunciation”, in B. KORTMANN & C.
UPTON (eds.), Varieties of English: The British Isles (Vol. 1), Mouton de Gruyter,
p. 237–252.
• BECHARD, J.-P. (2001): “L’enseignement supérieur et les innovations
pédagogiques : Une recension des écrits”, Revue Des Sciences de l’éducation, 27.2,
p. 257–281.
• BEDARD, D., & RAUCENT, B. (2015): “Les innovations pédagogiques
en enseignement supérieur: Pédagogies actives en présentiel et à distance”,
Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, 31.1. https://doi.
org/10.4000/ripes.898.
• BELL, S. (2010): “Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the
Future”, The Clearing House, 83.2, p. 39–43.
• BERTRAND, C. (2014): “Soutenir la transformation pédagogique dans
l’enseignement supérieur” https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/34320-soutenir-
la-transformation-pedagogique-dans-lenseignement-superieur (accessed 01
January 2022).
• BIGGS, J. B. (1987): “Student approaches to learning and studying”, Australian
Council for Educational Research.
• BOERSMA, P., & WEENINK, D. (2014): “Praat: Doing phonetics by computer”
[Computer program]. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
• CHAREST, J. (2008): “Pédagogie par projets pour étudiants allophones”, Actes
Du 28e Colloque AQPC, p. 81–86.
• FOULKES, P. (2005): “Sociophonetics”, in K. BROWN (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), Elsevier Press, p. 495–500.
• FOULKES, P., & DOCHERTY, G. (2006): “The social life of phonetics and
phonology”, Journal of Phonetics, 34.4, p. 409–438.
• FOULKES, P., SCOBBIE, J. M., & WATT, D. (2013): “Sociophonetics”, in W.J.
HARDCASTLE, J. LAVER, & F.E. GIBBON (eds.), The handbook of phonetic
sciences (2nd ed.), Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p. 703–754.
• HARRINGTON, J., PALETHORPE, S., & WATSON, C.I. (2000): “Does the
Queen speak the Queen’s English?”, Nature, 408.6815, p. 927–928. https://doi.
org/10.1038/35050160.
• HAY, J., & DRAGER, K. (2007): “Sociophonetics”, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 36.1, p. 89–103.
• LABOV, W. (1972): “The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department
Stores”, in Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns, University of Pennsylvania Press,
p. 43–54.
 Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project 53

• LAKS, B. (1992): “La linguistique variationniste comme méthode”, Langages,

26.108, p. 34–50.
• PACCOUD, J. (2014): “L’enseignement du français au Japon: Mérites et limites
de la perspective actionnelle”, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, Journal of
School of Foreign Languages, 47, p. 31–54.
• POUMAY, M. (2014): “Six leviers pour améliorer l’apprentissage des étudiants
du supérieur”, Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur,
30.1. https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.778.
• R CORE TEAM. (2020): “R: a language and environment for statistical
computing”. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
• ROUVRAIS, S., ORMROD, J., & GILLIOT, J.-M. (2005): “Séances de démarrage:
Mise en exergue des objectifs en pédagogie par projets”, 3e Colloque Pédagogie
Par Projet Dans l’enseignement Supérieur : ‘Nouveaux Contextes, Nouvelles
Compétences’, p. 287–291.
• TRUDGILL, P. (1974): The social differentiation of English in Norwich.
Cambridge University Press.
• WELLS, J.C. (1982): Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge University Press.
• WOLFRAM, W. (1969): A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech.
Center for Applied Linguistic, 237 p.
 Using Learner Corpora in
Serious Game Design for
English Phonology and
Pronunciation Teaching

MAHDI AMAZOUZ♦
FRANCK ZUMSTEIN♦♦

I nterest in using games to impart knowledge has grown tremendously over

the past few years. With their growing popularity and diversity, serious games
offer new perspectives in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). However, with
their increasing presence inside the classroom, a research-based framework is
necessary to understand their functioning and identify the required structural
elements of a serious game. This research highlights the pedagogical aspects
that need to be considered when designing a serious game that attempts to
meet students’ educational needs. In this paper, we first define the concept of
Serious Game Mechanics (SGM) and explain why we have decided to develop a
serious game to teach English pronunciation. In the second part, we will display
our research method and comment on the result of our analysis of students’
phonemic transcription errors. We finally conclude with a summary of the
targeted pedagogical priorities and competencies that we have included in our
serious games and an analysis of students’ progression.

♦ Mahdi Amazouz, Université Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP (EA 3967 Centre de Linguistique
Inter-langues, de Lexicologie, de Linguistique Anglaise et de Corpus-Atelier de Recherche sur
la Parole).
♦♦ Franck Zumstein, Université Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP (EA 3967 Centre de
Linguistique Inter-langues, de Lexicologie, de Linguistique Anglaise et de Corpus-Atelier de
Recherche sur la Parole).

ranam n°55 /2022

56 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

Serious Game Mechanics (SGM)

Learning occurs when the mechanics of a serious game allow us to practice
and acquire the target language. Arnab et al. (2015: 2) explain that:

The concept of Serious Game Mechanics (SGM) is the design

decision that concretely realises the transition of a learning
practice/goal into a mechanical element of game-play for the sole
purpose of play and fun.

Simulation, a current game mechanic, can be used to allow training. Quests allow
knowledge acquisition; ranking and game levels give feedback on the degree of
acquisition and can be used to evaluate learners.
Over the past few years, different approaches to game integration in language
classrooms have arisen. The first and earliest approach aims at using existing
commercial games and game mechanics in classrooms to gamify the learning
process (gamification). A second and more ambitious approach focuses on
designing and creating language learning games that answer learners’ specific
needs (serious gaming). Sykes et al. (2012: 39) define “game-based L2TL” in
contrast with “game-enhanced L2TL” (use of vernacular and commercial games
in L2 teaching) as “the use of games and game-inclusive synthetic immersive
environments that are designed intentionally for L2 learning and pedagogy”.
When designing a serious game for learning the pronunciation of English and
more precisely learning the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) in “Licence”
(French Degree in English Language, equivalent to BA), we have adopted this
second approach. We have learned from the design process that a corpus-based
approach to define the pedagogical content of a learning game is suitable.

A Serious Game for Second Language

Acquisition (SLA)
At Paris University, we teach English phonetics and phonology to students
enrolled in the first year (licence 1), in the second year (licence 2) and the third
year (licence 3). The course includes the study of syllables and stress patterns,
reading rules, an introduction to the study of intonation, specific courses in
articulatory and acoustic phonetics, and phonology. Learning the International
Phonetic Alphabet is the first and necessary step in the courses. Phonemic
transcriptions based on written and audio documents are also used to assess
learners’ acquisition of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The overall
purpose is to help students develop solid foundations in English phonetics and
phonology. However, after six semesters of theoretical and practical courses, it
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 57

should be noted that the acquisition is only partial, and students make a lot of
mistakes in their phonemic transcription and their pronunciation in general.
Moreover, the learning process appears to be arduous for a majority of students
who point out the complexity of the IPA. Although the majority of IPA symbols
correspond to the “traditional” alphabet, difficulties arise as soon as a new symbol
appears such as /æ/, /ʒ/, /ә/. Due to these difficulties, we have noticed a rejection
of the learning process. As a result, we have decided to create a serious game to
motivate students and bring them to a greater mastery of the IPA and phonemic
transcription.

Learner Corpora and Language Teaching

A corpus-based approach was adopted to define the pedagogical principles

that inform decision-making in the choice of activities and game mechanics
in our serious game. The first corpora used in the context of second language
acquisition were used to study learners’ production errors. In this regard,
Campillo-Paquet (2015: 49) explains that “in the field of cognitive psychology, an
error, like an iceberg, exhibits mental processes to which one does not have direct
access”. According to De Cock and Tyne (2014: 2), analyses of learner corpora
can allow us to observe the regularity of use of the target language and quantify
certain aspects of language development.
When it comes to learning English pronunciation, transcription being the
only accessible and quantifiable form of the acquisition of the pronunciation,
it is necessary to analyse the form it takes (De Cock and Tyne 2014). In this
perspective, the constitution of a corpus of phonemic transcriptions carried out
by students allowed us to explore specific aspects of learning the International
Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and the pronunciation of English at university.
The underlying ambition is to collect a representative sample of L1, L2, and L3
students’ transcription errors and determine a typology of errors. The results of
our analyses provide an in-depth review of learners’ most recurring transcription
mistakes and accordingly define their specific needs when it comes to the study
of phonetics and phonology. It is crucial to keep in mind that identifying these
educational needs is necessary to define the activities and the game mechanics that
we would use in our game. Moreover, it should be noted that it is quite difficult,
if not impossible, to integrate all aspects of English phonetics and phonology in
a serious game. This difficulty explains partly our corpus-based approach, which
targets learners’ mistakes and, accordingly, their learning priorities.
The analysis of these transcriptions also aims to offer new perspectives in
teaching pronunciation. We will discuss more precisely, through our study,
French learners’ difficulties when learning the pronunciation of English and, to
a greater extent, determine how to exploit these data to improve the learning
process via serious games.
58 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

Method

The data of this study were collected using quantitative methods, whereby
106 student transcriptions were analysed. 35 enrolled in the first year (licence 1),
51 in the second year (licence 2) and 20 in the third year (licence 3). Taking
into consideration French learners’ difficulties with English pronunciation, the
following words and sentenced were chosen:

The North Wind and the Sun had a quarrel about which of them
was the stronger.
1. booked, 2. monkey, 3. master, 4. Britain, 5. thumb, 6. liar, 7. measure,
8. earns, 9. carriage, 10. obey, 11. scheme, 12. judges, 13. aisle, 14. yawn,
15. don’t, 16. oyster, 17. hair, 18. psycho, 19. would, 20. Alive

Using an IPA keyboard, we converted learners’ written transcriptions into a

SAMPA format. The Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet (SAMPA) is
a character set developed by researchers to encode IPA symbols via a keyboard.
The EEC ESPRIT (information technology research and development program)
developed this computer-readable phonetic script to encode special IPA symbols
(not available on a keyboard) such as /@/ for schwa, or: /æ/ =/{/. IPA characters
that can be encoded via a keyboard have been used identically. With a manual
annotation of errors, we have carried out searches using regular expressions and
the word processing software notepad ++ to form a typology of errors.

Corpus Analysis
There is a large number of anterior and posterior vowels for French. English,
on the other hand, has several central vowels, which makes it difficult for students
to learn how to pronounce them. These difficulties were materialized by an
important number of vowel transcription errors.

Figure 1: Number of vowel and consonants errors.

 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 59

There are transcription errors for all types of vowels. Given that we have taken
into account all accepted varieties1 (British English and American English) in
the same transcription, these results show a minimal mastery of the IPA. 1561
errors correspond to vowels and 478 to consonants. Short vowels count for 390
of transcription mistakes among which: /ɪ/=133; /ʌ/=90; /ɒ/=69; /æ/=47; /ʊ/=30;
/e/=17. 485 correspond to a long vowel among which 352 are diphthongs:
/əʊ/=113; /aɪ/=110; /ɔː/=47; /i:/=45; /eə/ =45; /aʊ/=42; /ɜː/=41; /ɔɪ/=28; /eɪ/=16; etc.
Regarding short vowels, the following lines list some examples of confusions.
– /ɪ/: many students used /i/ or /iː/ and a fair number did not transcribe the
vowel. Some transcribed /e/ or /ə/.
– /ʌ/: here the vowel /ʌ/ was confused with /ə/, /ɒ/, /u/, /ʊ/, or even /æ/.
– /ɒ/: many errors include the use of /a/, /ɑ/ and /æ/ and we also found the
vowel transcribed /ɑː/, /ɔː/ and /ə/.
– /æ/: this vowel was mistaken for /ɑ/, /e/ and /ə/
As for diphthongs, we suggest some examples of errors below.
– /əʊ/: students transcribed this vowel /ɒ/, /o/ or /ɔː/, /ə/, /ʊ/ or even /ɑː/.
– /aɪ/: errors of transcription here include /ɑɪ/, /ai/ and /aj/.
599 errors correspond to the vowel schwa /ə/, which shows the problem of stress
patterns and vowel reduction in English for French learners.

Figure 2: Vowels students used instead of the schwa.

The short vowel /æ/ was used instead of the schwa 125 times. Other occurrences
include /e/ n =115, /ɒ/ n =61 and /ʌ/ n =54. The phoneme /ɑ/ was used 31 times.
Students also used non-IPA symbols and graphemes such as: <a> 23 times.
These errors mainly correspond to the transcription of grammatical words
with full vowels which shows a certain paralysis of students when it comes to
vowel reduction.

1 During the internal and the external CAPES examinations, candidates must indicate
the chosen variety of English and be consistent with it throughout the transcription.
60 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

Towards a Typology of Obstacles

The lack of training induces several critical difficulties in learning the

pronunciation of English. Our survey shows that students have acquired only
a minimal mastery of the IPA. Interference of the mother tongue in their
acquisition of the IPA and acquisition of English speech sounds is among the
obstacles that hamper the learning process.
Unlike the mother tongue, which is acquired unconsciously and naturally, the
acquisition of a second language requires a certain intellectual effort (Krashen,
1985). During the learning process of an L2, we see the emergence of an
interlanguage, an intermediate language, halfway between L1 and L2 (Adjemian,
1976). In this regard, an interlanguage obeys language rules from L1 and L2 at
the same time. This language behaviour, which is undoubtedly beneficial when
starting to learn a new language tends to mislead learners at an advanced level
and hinders progression in the development of the target language.
In addition to the problem of language interference, a certain number of
difficulties arise due to the differences in point and manner of articulation of the
French and English phonological systems. According to Flege (1987: 49):

difficulty in producing L2 phones authentically might be motoric

in nature. Adults might be generally less able than young children
to develop new articulatory patterns or to translate the sensory
information associated with L2 phones into stable motor control
patterns.

Furthermore, the suprasegmental (intonation, stress, rhythm, etc.) differences

between English and French exacerbate these pronunciation difficulties. This
is particularly the case with regard to stress pattern differences in English and
French.
Faced with the difficulties of learning English pronunciation, a number
of students point out the inconsistency of the writing system of English
with its pronunciation. Words in <gh> which are pronounced /f/ (enough =/
ɪˈnʌf/; rough =/rʌf/), words in <igh> pronounced /aɪ/ (sigh, might), and the
pronunciation of the consonant <d> in worked /wɜːkt/ are examples of this
inconsistency between spelling and speech.
An interference between writing and transcription also occurs due to the lack
of bi-univocity between these systems. Ballier (2004: 13) indicates that the use
of a new semiotic system (IPA) increases the risk of confusion between letters
and symbols and between phonetic symbols. Some errors are directly linked
to the spelling and lack of knowledge of the IPA and the grapheme-phoneme
correspondences. We count 209 graphemes in students’ transcriptions. The
most recurring ones are: <a> and <o> similarly, a “spelling transgression” occurs
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 61

when the <c> is transcribed by /c/ instead of the phonemic symbol /k/ (Ballier,
2004: 11). These errors show a certain symbol/letter literality that arises from
the proximity that may exist between the symbols of the IPA and the letters of
the Latin alphabet. Also, writing IPA symbols presents additional difficulties to
students; 324 transcription errors or erroneous combination of symbols have
been recorded (/ʊː/; /at/; /aɪː/; /ɒː/; /Uə/.)

Learning Priorities
Our analyses show that learners’ errors are mainly due to confusions between
letters and phonetic symbols, a lack of knowledge of the grapheme-to-phoneme
correspondences, and the inability to apply appropriately vowel reduction in
unstressed syllables, as pointed out by Mompean (2015). Based on our analyses of
students’ transcriptions we have defined three areas for improvement: phonemes,
reading rules and stress patterns. Six levels of competence are identified below for
learning word stress patterns. Three levels of mastery for L1 students and three
advanced levels for L2 and L3 students.

A1 A2 B1
– mapping IPA – distinguishing and – reading written
symbol with their transcribing all the forms and
Phonemic level corresponding various phonemes transcribing with
sounds & vice versawhen listening to a corresponding IPA
word form symbols
– syllabifying word – identifying and – assigning
forms; explaining stress secondary stress and
– explaining what neutrality of weak transcribing related
stress is; suffixes (-dom, -ing, vowel;
– identifying stressed -ness, etc.); – assigning stress
Word-stress and unstressed – assigning stress in adjectives with
pattern syllables; in words ending strong endings such
– assigning stress in with -ic(s), ical, -ity, as -al and -ous,
words ending with -ate, -i+V- (strong as in 'vertical vs
eer, -ee, -ese, -ette, endings), -ify/-efy hori'zontal.
-ade, oo, -een, -oon
(strong endings).
– transcribing word – transcribing – transcribing vowel
final -ed and -s special consonant monographs in
monographs such stressed syllables
Graphophonemics as <x>, <s>, <c+e/ in relation to their
(reading rules) i> vs <c+a/o/u> and right-hand contexts
digraphs such as (hiatus, one or more
<ph>, <ch>, etc. consonants, etc.) &
exceptions.
Table 1: Learning priorities for L1 students (Amazouz, 2021).
62 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

In Figure 3, for example, the teaching of word-stress placement in words ending

with een/eer, oo/oon, ade, ese and -ette falls under the level of competence A1
because the stress rule is very simple in such cases: primary stress falls on the last
syllable so that the endings are usually called “stressed-endings”. The location of
stress in words ending in ic(s), ical, ity, ate, and i+V is more difficult to explain to
learners because primary stress may fall on the penultimate or antepenultimate
syllable so that they have to compute the number of syllables to find the correct
stressed syllable. In this respect, the teaching of word-stress placement in such
words is aimed at the level of competence A2.

B1 C1 C2
-describing vowel -distinguishing -identifying
& consonants and transcribing contexts for
sounds (articulatory minimal pairs in /r/-linking, intrusive
descriptions). English (vowels & /r/, regressive
Phonemic level
consonants). & progressive
assimilation,
consonant cluster
reduction, etc.
-assigning stress in -identifying and -identifying stress-
dissyllabic prefixed stressing (classical) shift environments
and non-prefixed compounds. and applying stress-
word forms. shift rules.
Stress pattern -assigning stress in
prefixed word forms
of more than 2
syllables.
-transcribing vowels -transcribing vowel -transcribing
followed by <r>, digraphs: regular andconsonant clusters
differences between irregular phonetic with silent letters
Graphophonemics
rhotic and non- such as kn- as in
qualities (e.g. obtain
(reading rules)
rhotic varieties of vs mountain, pain vs know, -mb as in
English. pair). dumb, -lk as in talk,
etc.
Table 2: Learning priorities for L1 students (Amazouz, 2021).

Better knowledge of the main stress patterns and the relationship between
written and spoken forms of the language can improve students’ pronunciation.
Guierre’s work (1987) on reading rules and stress patterns in English has had
a significant impact on how pronunciation is taught in France. However, due
to lack of training and motivation, the assimilation of these rules remains
incomplete. Consequently, it is necessary to define specific learning priorities
and contextualize the learning process through automation and optimization
strategies.
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 63

Serious Games Development and Integration

We relied on the multiplatform game engine UNITY2 to develop a serious
game that students can use autonomously. IPA Word Maze allows you to work
on word transcription and lexical stress in English. In addition to this game, we
also used the LearningApps3 platform to produced “apps” and Mentimeter4 to
create quizzes whose focus is phonemic transcription.

Figure 3: Screen capture of the IPA Word Maze game (Amazouz, 2021).

In IPA Word Maze, the player must navigate the maze and select words that share
the same phoneme or correspond to the same stress pattern. Players can click
on words to listen to their pronunciation and select them. For each of the 104
words that make up the maze, we indicate the corresponding pronunciation and
the phonetic transcription that appears when the player checks a word or a series
of words. The game includes three types of mazes: IPA (reverse transcription),
Alphabet, and Word Stress. The game also includes tips learners can consult while
playing by clicking on the lamp icon. If we take the example of the vowel schwa,
the following reading rules are integrated.

2 https://unity.com/.
3 https://learningapps.org/.
4 https://www.mentimeter.com/.
64 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

In initial position, the predominant spelling is <a>: abide, aboard, about,

ahead, adopt → /əˈbaɪd/, /əˈbɔːd/, /əˈbaʊt/, /əˈhed/, /əˈdɒpt/
In medial position, in words in <-ative>, <-able>, <-al>, <-ial>, <-some>,
<-um>, <ous>, <-us>, <-ard>, <-ock>, <-op>, <-on>, <en>, <an>: remedial,
blossom, royal, editorial, material, procure, biological, atrium, bacterium, etc.
/ə/ behaviour, /əd/ steward, /dəm/ freedom, /ən/ Persian, /əs/ circus, /ək, əp/:
bullock, pillock, /əbəl/ adorable, etc.
In final position <a>: data /ˈdeɪtə/, arena /əˈriːnə/, etc.
In final position <-er>: number, oyster, ladder, water, etc.
Figure 4: Reading rules that correspond to the vowel schwa.

Twolve quizzes were also created, each one lasting about 15 minutes, and
students are invited to play synchronously online. During these sessions, we
focused mainly on sentence transcription and vowel reduction.

Figure 5: Screen capture of the quiz.

In speech, function words (conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and auxiliaries)

are generally unstressed and their vowels reduced. Below another example of
a sentence retrieved from Jobert and Mandon (2009) for which learners had to
choose the correct transcription:

But as soon as his father was dead he began to go to the city.

/bʌt æz suːn æz hɪz ˈfɑːðə wɒz dɛd hiː bɪˈgæn tuː gəʊ tuː ðə ˈsɪti/
/bət əz suːn əz ɪz ˈfɑːðə wəz ded hiː bɪˈgæn təː gəʊ tə ðə ˈsɪti/ (✓)

Results

In order to assess the added value of serious games to the learning process, 35
out of the initial 106 students transcribed a second list of words and a sentence at
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 65

the end of the semester5. 18 volunteers were part of the experimental group and
17 were part of the control group.

In the last part of May the sky grew pale and the clouds that had
hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated […] as
soon as the valley and the mountain…
1. typical 2. kidney 3. advance 4. mountain 5. column, 6. octopus
7. following 8. curbs 9. marriage 10. perceive 11. badges
12. misbehaviour 13. maths 14. added 15. certain 16. oyster
17. colosseum 18. senate 19. abrupt 20. Curator.

Although the second list of words above is slightly more difficult than the first
one (pre-test), it appears that 80% of the students who have played the game have
improved the quality of their transcriptions. 15 students out of 18 made fewer
errors and on average transcription errors were reduced by 41%. The number
of errors in students E-017 and E-004 was reduced from 22 and 21 transcription
errors, respectively, to one error each. Likewise, E-19 also shows a notable
improvement and reduced the number of mistakes from 23 to 10.

Figure 6: Comparison of students’ pretest-posttest transcriptions (experimental group).

E-085 and E-094, on the other hand, made more mistakes, 26 to 45 and 24 to 33
transcription errors, respectively. Both participants, nonetheless, indicated they
participated in “3 to 5 rounds” only. Likewise, E-78 makes more mistakes than
during the pre-test (9 to 11). This student also indicates to have taken part in “one
to two rounds” only. All of these students did not play the IPA Word Maze game.

5 The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of schools and universities. Distance
learning was expanded to ensure a certain pedagogical continuity.
66 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

Figure 7: Comparison of students’ pretest-posttest transcriptions (control group).

Regarding the control group, seven students out of 17 showed an improvement in

the accuracy of their transcriptions. C-086 made 38 errors at the beginning of the
semester and six errors at the end. C-051 and C-003 reduce the number of errors
from 23 to 14 and 27 to 23 errors, respectively. Likewise, C-091 and C-036 go
from 17 to 15 and 17 to 4 errors. On the other hand, C-002 went from eight errors
to 42, C-089 from four errors to 23, and C-073 from six to 16 transcription errors.

Discussion
Mompean and Fouz-González (2021) identified several potential benefits in
learning phonetic transcription when learning pronunciation. These affordances
include systematicity, awareness-raising, visualness and visual support in
teaching/learning, and autonomous learning.
Systematicity refers to the relationship between a phoneme and its graphic
representation (IPA), which is said to be a one-to-one relationship. It allows
learners and teachers to work precisely on phonemes and the pronunciation of
the target language. Awareness-raising allows precise work on stress patterns and
vowel reduction. When reading, learners can easily miss some of the features
of L2 speech. Visualness and visual support in teaching and learning is another
affordance. It refers to the materialization of sound, which allows a better
understanding of the target language’s phonological system. Finally, autonomous
learning refers to the metacognitive work of the learner who plays a more active
role in the learning process. Analyses of learners’ transcriptions show that
feedback is the main source of improvement. According to Mompean & Fouz-
González (2021: 1):

Despite shifting views on some instructional matters, there is a

general consensus that it is hard to change certain aspects of L2
pronunciation substantially without specific training (Derwing et
al., 2006; Pennington, 1998). (Mompean and Fouz-González 2021)
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 67

Lester et al.’s (2020: 56–57) study on serious games shows that feedback and
guidance in game-based learning environments hold “the potential to promote
deeper learning experiences and enable learners to focus on the most salient aspects
of a learning scenario.” According to Sykes et al. (2012: 56–57):

When feedback is untimely and not recycled into further learning,

internalization is minimal. In good digital games, by contrast,
real-time immediate feedback is a foundational mechanism that
promotes successful gameplay and internalization, because the
player perceives a sense of agency with ever choice, and choices are
discernible and integrated.

If we take the example of the Mentimeter quiz, our analyses of the gaming
sessions and players’ interactions with the game show that students understand
and assimilate better the rules they are presented with. If we take the example
of vowel reduction in function words (the, a, and, etc.) in sentences, all players
choose the correct transcription after receiving feedback on their previous
erroneous answers.

Conclusion

De Cock and Tyne (2014: 145) stress that although “the characteristics of the
interlanguage brought to light by studies of learner corpora do not necessarily
have to give rise to educational applications” it is necessary to examine the
question of their relevance. In this study, a corpus-based approach allowed us to
shape educational practices that are consistent with learners’ pedagogical needs.
This study shows that obstacles to learning the IPA stem partly from students’
lack of understanding of graphophonemic and phonographic correspondences,
in addition to difficulties in learning stress patterns and vowel reduction. Lack
of motivation is another factor that hinders the training process. Students
often perceive these exercises as tedious and time-consuming. As a result, their
transcriptions remain below lecturers’ expectations.
Feedback on learners’ mistakes and the adequate matching of learning material
with their learning needs helped significantly reduce the number of mistakes. 80%
of the students who played the games improved the quality of their transcriptions.
On average, transcription errors were reduced by 41%. Nonetheless, it should be
noted that a subtle balance between learning and playing must be struck when
designing a serious game to engage learner’s interest while making them progress.
Finally, the integration of these pedagogical tools in the learning process must be
contextualized to ensure a certain educational continuity.
68 Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein

References
• ADJEMIAN, C. (1976): “On the nature of interlanguage system”, Language
Learning 26.2, p. 297-320.
• AMAZOUZ, M. (2021): “Un jeu sérieux pour l’apprentissage de l’alphabet
phonétique international en licence d’anglais : théories, études et développement”,
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Paris, Paris.
• ARNAB, S., LIM, T., CARVALHO, M.B., BELLOTTI, F., DE FREITAS, S.,
LOUCHART, S., SUTTIE, N., BERTA, R. & DE GLORIA, A. (2015): “Mapping
learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis”, British Journal of
Educational Technology 46.2, p. 391-411.
• BALLIER, N. (2004): “Quelques problèmes métalinguistiques en phonologie de
l’anglais.” Corela. Cognition, représentation, langage 2–1. Université de Poitiers.
• BOGOST, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
• CAMPILLO-PAQUET. (2015): « “E-Maginaires” éducatifs : nécessaires utopies
ou inutiles innovations ? », Interfaces Numériques, Imaginaire(s) et numérique,
4.2. https://doi.org/10.25965/interfaces-numeriques.597.
• DE COCK, S, & TYNE, H. (2014): “Corpus d’apprenants et acquisition des
langues”, Recherches en didactique des langues et cultures – Les Cahiers de l’Acedle
11.1, p. 137–168.
• FLEGE, J.E. (1987): “The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign
language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification”, Journal of
Phonetics 15.1, p. 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30537-6.
• GEE, J. (2003): “What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy”,
Computers in Entertainment 1: 20.
• GUIERRE, L. (1987): Règles et exercices de prononciation anglaise. Longman
France.
• KRASHEN, S. D. (1985): The input hypothesis: Issues and implications, Addison-
Wesley Longman Limited.
• LESTER, J.C., SPAIN, R.D., ROWE, J.P., & MOTT, B.W. (2020): “Instructional
support, feedback, and coaching in game-based learning,” in PLASS, J., MAYER, R.
& HOMER, B. (eds.) Handbook of Game-Based Learning, Cambridge, MIT Press,
p. 209-37.
• MOMPEAN, J A. (2015): “Phonetic notation in foreign language teaching and
learning: potential advantages and learners’ views”, Research in Language 13.3,
p. 292-314.
• MOMPEAN, J.A., FOUZ-GONZÁLEZ, J. (2021): “Phonetic symbols in
contemporary pronunciation instruction”, RELC Journal 52.1:155-168, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0033688220943431.
 Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English 69

• REINHARDT, J., & THORNE, S. L. (2020): “Digital games as language-learning

environments”, in PLASS, J., MAYER, R. & HOMER, B. (eds.) Handbook of
Game-Based Learning, Cambridge, MIT Press, p. 409-436.
• SYKES, J.E., REINHARDT, J., LISKIN-GASPARRO, J.E. & LACORTE, M.
(2012): Language at Play: Digital Games in Second and Foreign Language
Teaching and Learning, London, Pearson Higher Ed., 176 p.
 Une image vaut mille
prononciations: Using Twitter
to Support the Acquisition of
Hard-to-Pronounce Words in
L2 French

AMANDA DALOLA♦

L anguage educators have long sought to use the latest social media platforms
to not only encourage students to interact with their second language (L2)
outside of the classroom, but also to build community within the learning group,
and target the delivery and rehearsal of certain linguistic skills. This desire to
bring language learners L2 exposure on social media platforms is motivated by
the reality that online spaces afford new and different realms of interaction for
participants (even for those in regular face-to-face contact) and the reality that
the average college student spends between 1-2 hours in these spaces daily for
recreational purposes (Educause, 2018). Twitter, an online microblogging tool,
popular for news and networking, is of particular interest to many educators
because its unique format restricts the length of its messages (to 140 characters
from 2006-2017 and to 280 characters beginning in 2017), making the passive
observation and active production of such texts manageable for learners of all
levels studying different types of content and form. Even before Twitter, the
efficacy of other written/visual shortform media in teaching linguistic structures
was well documented. In particular, several studies reported on the successful
use of SMS (Short Message Service, i.e. text messages) and MMS (Multimedia
Messaging Service, i.e. a text message with any type of attached file) to teach
vocabulary to learners of Italian (Kennedy & Levy, 2008; Levy & Kennedy,
2005) or learners of English (Li & Cummins, 2019; Li, Cummins & Deng, 2017;

♦ Amanda Dalola, University of South Carolina, Department of Languages, Literatures &

Cultures, Linguistics Program.

ranam n°55 /2022

72 Amanda Dalola

Saran, Seferoglu, & Cagiltay, 2009; Thornton & Houser, 2001; 2005). The success
of this media type, the authors argued, was likely due to the high accessibility
and concise content of SMS and MMS, given the availability of mobile phones
worldwide and the limited size of text messages to 140-160 characters (Hassall,
2017). More than a decade later, the evolution of mobile phones into smartphones
has given individuals round-the-clock access to the internet and the various social
media applications that live there, including Twitter. If the high accessibility
and concise content is indeed what made SMS/MMS successful at delivering
bite-sized vocabulary lessons directly to an individual at any hour, and Twitter
shares in these features, then it stands to reason that it, too, should be successful
at dispensing this kind of miniature instruction, on similar and related linguistic
topics. The present study explores this question, by examining the efficacy of
Twitter in delivering extracurricular pronunciation instruction to L2 learners of
French on canonically hard-to-pronounce words.

Twitter in L2 Instruction

The research on Twitter in the L2 classroom is divided according to the

various functionalities it offers its users. While some studies have focused on
how Twitter can be leveraged for collaborative learning and community building
(Antenos-Conforti, 2009; Lomicka & Lord, 2012; Newgarden, 2009) or to train
students in communicative competencies (Borau, Ullrich, Feng & Shen, 2009),
others have examined if it can be a useful forum for observing and generating
input, output, and interaction among students, instructors and native speakers
(Antenos-Conforti, 2009; Blattner & Dalola, 2018; Blattner, Dalola & Lomicka,
2015; 2016; Castro, 2009; Hattem, 2012; Ullrich, Borau & Stepanyan, 2010).
On the front of collaborative learning and community building, Antenos-
Conforti (2009) found that the use of Twitter among university-level L2 Italian
students expanded the space limitations of the physical classroom, by inviting
more routine interaction and establishing a more defined sense of community.
In a similar endeavor, Lomicka & Lord (2012) reported notable cultural and
linguistic gains in a community of university L2 French learners using Twitter
with each other and native francophones, a culturally authentic addition that
they argue adds an established social presence to the community that learners
can directly benefit from.
In the area of authentic language observation, Blattner, Dalola & Lomicka
(2015, 2016) examined to what extent Twitter could cultivate learners’ ability to
analyze and understand rhetorical norms. Beginning and intermediate French
learners interpreted the tweets of native francophone celebrities on Twitter every
week via the use of a guided questionnaire that focused on various linguistic
forms (greetings, salutations, English borrowings, abbreviations). Learners
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 73

at both levels showed difficulty in making sense of English borrowings and

abbreviations (acronyms, truncations, SMS speak) that they had not seen prior
to the task, but a majority demonstrated being able to decode their meaning
thanks to the focused context presented by the tweet. The authors concluded that
Twitter, therefore, represents an authentic, dynamic, and effective platform for
exposing language learners to elements of invisible L2 culture that build their
intercultural competence. Blattner & Dalola (2018) carried out a similar study
with high-intermediate ESL learners following anglophone celebrities on Twitter.
Despite their real-world immersion context (i.e., living in the US at the time of
English instruction), the ESL learners still showed gaps in their comprehension of
linguistic variables with cultural, pragmatic, or figurative components (i.e., puns,
idiomatic expressions, cultural/social/historical references to life in the US, etc.),
but their skill at identifying and making sense of these elements was measurably
better following participation in the task. The authors argue that Twitter is an
openly accessible platform that can and should be used in L2 classrooms of all
types to provide authentic, non-traditional input that complements the poor
selection of pragmalinguistic choices presented in most L2 textbooks.
In the investigation of Twitter as an additional space for L2 production,
Hattem (2014) invited ESL learners to write 10 sentences a week for 7 weeks
using the grammatical structures presented in class in a context of participants’
choosing from their class or personal life. Learners then received corrective
feedback on their tweets from the instructor, which encouraged them to
re-engage with their posts in the dynamic style of an instant messaging chat
room, rather than the static style of a blog, a process which moved the target
production of the participants from the level of the sentence to the level of the
utterance. The author concluded that the use of Twitter allowed learners to take
ownership of their learning by causing them to create their own learning contexts
via the framing and reframing of their activities.

Pronunciation Instruction
The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching, the predominant
method of foreign language instruction in the Americas and Europe since the
1980’s which emphasizes interaction as both the means and the goal of study,
has not consistently focused on the development of phonetic or phonological
awareness in foreign language instruction, resulting in several generations of
learners who have received little to no explicit instruction on the phonetic trends
that characterize their language of study (Morley, 1991; Burgess & Spencer, 2000,
among others). Despite the strong prescriptivist forces attempting to set the tone
for the use of localized varieties of Normative French in France and in Quebec,
e.g., l’Académie française and l’Office québécoise de la langue française (OQLF),
respectively, most 21st-century students of the language outside of these spaces
74 Amanda Dalola

will not have access in their curricula to a designated course in French Phonetics/
Phonology/Pronunciation that focuses on the development of phonetic skills
unique to the L2. Combined with a dwindling number of foreign language classes
being offered at American universities (Stein-Smith, 2019), a rise in the number
of foreign language autodidacts (Blanco, 2020), and the French language’s
notoriously opaque orthography (i.e., an idiosyncratic relationship between what
is written and what is pronounced) (Ziegler et al., 2010), the need for additional
pedagogical methods that explore novel formats and content in the area of French
pronunciation is significant.

Twitter in L2 Pronunciation Instruction

A few applied linguists have already identified this gap in the literature and
set about measuring the efficacy of Twitter in foreign language pronunciation
instruction. The first, Mompean & Fouz-González (2016), report on a group of
16 L1 Spanish EFL students’ acquisition of three kinds of canonically hard-to-
pronounce words in English: silent letters, e.g., aisle, unusual grapheme-phoneme
correspondences, e.g. sugar, and stress in underived lexical items, e.g. CA-tho-lic.
27 testwords were selected from the results of a pretest—only words that had
been mispronounced by 95%+ in the group were eligible to be a testword. Then
participants received one tweet a day for 27 days that contained instruction on
how to pronounce the testword, either within the body of the tweet or in a link
to an audio or visual resource that contained the testword. Following the 27
tweets/days, participants engaged in a posttest that elicited their pronunciation of
the testwords. Results reported a high level of interaction with the instructional
tweets and significant improvement in the pronunciation of participants who
had completed all phases of the task. Plutino (2017) took a different approach
to combining Twitter with pronunciation instruction, by encouraging her group
of 35 second-semester university-level Italian students to use the speech-to-text
function on their cellphones to compose tweets in Italian. Although this method
slowed down the process of tweeting and, in turn, the resulting interactions,
75% of participants reported finding the process useful for assessing their
pronunciation and identifying accuracy errors.
The following research investigates the efficacy of Twitter in instructing
university-level learners of French on six different types of canonically hard-to-
pronounce words in French. More specifically, it will examine the role of testword
type, lexical frequency, and type of supporting media to determine which factors,
if any, play a significant role in the method’s efficacy.
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 75

Methods
Participants

Twelve L1-American English L2-French learners (7 men, 5 women), ranging

in age from 18-67 years (x̄ =23.92, SD=13.62) and enrolled in an intermediate
third-year oral French class at a large public American university, participated
in the study.

Procedure & Stimuli

In the style of Mompean & Fouz-González (2016), participants were first
audio-recorded playing a game focused on adjectival agreement that required
them to speak aloud 108 commonly mispronounced adjectives and nouns in
French (hereafter, pretest). This set of target words was divided into six different
categories depending on the nature of the pronunciation difficulty they presented
for learners: 1) unusual sound-spelling correspondences (e.g., poêle, chandail),
2) silent final consonants (e.g., tronc, œufs), 3) silent non-final consonants (e.g.,
comptoir), 4) pronounced final consonants (e.g., laps, fil), 5) English-French
cognates with unexpectedly pronounced letters (e.g., psychiatre), and 6) English-
French cognates with globally different pronunciations (e.g., xylophone). An
examination of the recordings found that 33 of the 108 words were mispronounced
by every participant; these 33 words were then redistributed into a smaller set
of 24 testwords, via the selection of four words from each of the six difficulty
categories, and balanced for lexical frequency (Leipzig Corpora Collection, 2012)
(see Table 1 for complete set of stimuli).

Unusual sound-spelling correspondences

corail, hall, secondaire, poêle
(Un So-sp)
Silent final consonants (SFC) joug, escroc, porc, croc
Silent non-final consonants (SNFC) comptoir, comptabilité, baptême, sculpture
Pronounced final consonants (PronFC) os (sg.), as, chips, abject
English cognates with different
dessert, version, exercice, xénophobe
pronunciations (EngCogwDiffPr)
English cognates with silent letters in
psychique, psychose, psychologue,
English that are pronounced in French
pseudonyme
(EngCogwSLsFr)
Table 1: The set of 24 testwords (four in each of the six pronunciation difficulty types).

Participants then followed the handle @GamecoqGaspard and the hashtag

#17Fronetics on Twitter and received a tweet containing overt pronunciation
76 Amanda Dalola

instruction targeting one of the testwords once a day for 24 days. Of the 24
total tweets participants received during this part of the task, half contained an
attached image illustrating the testword, while the other half contained a link
to an external video that prominently displayed the testword, e.g., in the title
and the clip’s main content. The image and video clip tweets were presented
to participants in alternation, so as to not have several of the same type on
consecutive days. Search #17Fronetics on Twitter to see the full set of posts from
the experiment.
During this task, participants were asked to check their Twitter at least once
per day for the instructional tweet, and to interact with the tweet and its contents
fully, including looking at any attached images and watching any linked video
clips. Following their interaction with the tweet, they were instructed to reply J’ai
vu ‘I’ve seen it’ to the original tweet. Participants were also encouraged to post
comments or questions on the tweet, although only two participants of the total
twelve added additional comments and reactions at some point during the task.
One week after the final tweet was sent, participants were audio-recorded
playing a different adjective matching game (hereafter, posttest) that elicited their
pronunciations of each of the 24 testwords aloud. Recordings were inspected for
the pronunciation of the 24 testwords and coded binarily (incorrect or correct)
for their pronunciation, in terms only of the realization of the difficult element
of the word. At the close of their participation in the experiment, participants
completed an exit survey that asked them to reflect on various aspects of the task
and provide satisfaction and involvement ratings via quantitative and qualitative
methods.
Participants were audio-recorded during the pretest and posttest via a
Marantz Omnidirectional XLR Microphone connected to a Marantz PMD660
flash recorder at a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz with 16-bit quantization.

Statistical Analyses
To determine if the Twitter task had been effective at providing meaningful
pronunciation instruction, pretest and postest pronunciation accuracy scores
were submitted to a repeated-measures ANOVA using the rstatix package
(Kassambara, 2020) in R (R Core Team, 2019), with time (categorical (2 levels):
pretest, posttest) as the independent variable.
To determine if tweet type, testword type or lexical frequency played a
role in conditioning participants’ pronunciation accuracy, binary measures
of pronunciation correctness were submitted to a factorial logistic regression
using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2014) in R (R Core Team, 2019), with
tweet type (categorial (2 levels): accompanying image, accompanying link to
external video), testword type (categorical (6 levels): unusual sound-spelling
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 77

correspondence (Un So-sp), silent final consonants (SFC), silent non-final

consonants (SNFC), pronounced final consonants (PronFC), English cognates
with different pronunciations in French (EngCogwDiffPr), English cognates
with silent letters that are pronounced in French (EngCogwSLsFr)), and lexical
frequency (continuous) as independent variables.
Analysis and descriptive statistics of the quantitative and qualitative data
collected during the exit survey were carried out in Microsoft Excel.

Results
Pretest-Posttest Gain
Participants’ pretest and posttest pronunciation accuracy scores are presented
in Table 2.
Participant Pretest score (%) Posttest score (%)
P1 0/0 (0%) 13/24 (54.2%)
P2 0/0 (0%) 13/24 (54.2%)
P3 0/0 (0%) 13/24 (54.2%)
P4 0/0 (0%) 11/24 (45.8%)
P5 0/0 (0%) 14/24 (58.3%)
P6 0/0 (0%) 12/24 (50.0%)
P7 0/0 (0%) 11/24 (45.8%)
P8 0/0 (0%) 13/24 (54.2%)
P9 0/0 (0%) 14/24 (58.3%)
P10 0/0 (0%) 14/24 (58.3%)
P11 0/0 (0%) 14/24 (58.3%)
P12 0/0 (0%) 12/24 (50.0%)
Table 2: Pretest and posttest pronunciation accuracy scores listed by participant.

The results of a repeated-measures ANOVA report significantly different

pronunciation accuracy scores across time #1 (pretest) and time #2 (posttest)
(F(1, 552) =191215.61, p<0.0001). Post-hoc analyses with a Bonferroni adjustment
revealed that all pairwise differences between time points were statistically
significant (p<0.0001). Since the testwords were comprised of items that
participants all mispronounced in the pretest (therefore scoring a 0), this finding
documents a significant improvement in participants’ pronunciation accuracy
following the instruction task via Twitter, indicating its efficacy.
78 Amanda Dalola

Predictor Variables

The results of a factorial logistic regression are visualized in Table 3.

Odds Ratio Std. Error z value p value
(Intercept) 0.412 0.449 -1.976 <0.050 *
tweettype=Image 5.898 0.635 2.794 <0.010 **
testwordtype=SFC 2.055 0.608 1.185 0.236
testwordtype=SNFC 2.429 0.607 1.462 0.144
testwordtype=PRONFC 0.810 0.651 -0.325 0.746
testwordtype=EngCogwDiffPr 0.810 0.651 -0.325 0.746
testwordtype=EngCogwSLsFr 0.810 0.651 -0.325 0.746
tweettype=Image*
testwordtypeSFC 1.403 0.976 0.347 0.729
tweettype=Image*
*
testwordtypeSNFC 0.143 0.859 -2.260 <0.050
tweettype=Image*
testwordtypePronFC 3.561 1.000 1.266 0.206
tweettype=Image*
testwordtypeEngCogwDiffPr 1.933 0.659 0.703 0.482
tweettype=Image*
testwordtypeEngCogwSLsFr 1.235 0.211 0.232 0.816
Table 3: Factorial logistic regression output table. Estimates are displayed in odds ratios.

The best-fit model selected tweet type and testword type as relevant predictor
variables but not lexical frequency, suggesting that frequency may not play a signif-
icant role in conditioning participants’ pronunciation accuracy. A significant
interaction was found between tweet type and testword type, such that words
containing silent non-final consonants (SNFC) (e.g. comptoir) did not exhibit
significantly higher pronunciation accuracy rates when presented in tweets
containing an image, as did all other testword types (p<0.05), as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Pronunciation Accuracy by Tweet Type and Testword Type.

 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 79

A main effect was also found for tweet type, in which words presented in
tweets containing images were 5.9 times more likely to be pronounced correctly
than those presented in tweets containing links to external videos (p<0.01), as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Pronunciation by Tweet Type.

Participant Reactions
In the exit survey, participants were asked to rate on a scale of one to ten how
satisfied they were with the experience, how likely they would be to participate
in a similar task again, and how much they felt their own pronunciation in
French had improved as a result of their participation in it. The results from
these questions are visualized in Table 4. All twelve participants completed the
exit survey.
Average/Max (Std.Dev.)
Satisfaction with the experience 6.25/7 (1.482)
Likeliness to participate in similar task again 10/12
Self-rated pronunciation improvement score 5.67/7 (1.37)
Table 4: Exit survey participation and satisfaction feedback.

The results from these questions suggest that the vast majority of the twelve-
person test group found their participation in the task to be satisfying, worthwhile
and effective for improving their pronunciation in French. These trends were also
echoed in the free-response reflective feedback, displayed in Table 5.
80 Amanda Dalola

Positive reflections Negative reflections

1a. “I thought it was fun and funny.” 1b. “I didn’t like having to check Twitter
every day. I only get on a few times a
week normally.”
2ab. “I wish we could have spent more time doing it. I need help with pronunciation!”
3a. “Some of the tweets were hilarious and 3b. “If I didn’t like the song in the link, I
made me excited to see what was next.” didn’t want to wait for the chorus to
hear the word I was supposed to be
listening for.”
4a. “It was educational but fun.” 4b. “I don’t like social media, so I didn’t like
having to use it for a class.”
5a. “I liked that it was short and to the
point.”
Table 5: Free-response reflections from the exit survey.

The positive aspects cited by participants included the entertaining nature of

the task, its educational value, and the concision of each of the pronunciation
lessons, while the negative aspects focused on the use of social media (at all or on
a daily basis) and the amount of time necessary to engage with the linked videos.
One comment (2ab) was categorized along both positive and negative lines
because it was not possible for the researcher to deduce how it was intended from
its written form, i.e., the method by which this data was collected.

Discussion
Twitter, a Useful Platform for Pronunciation Instruction
The finding that participants scored significantly higher in pronunciation
accuracy during the posttest than during the pretest suggests that the Twitter
platform, even with its constrained context of 140 characters (at the time of
this experiment), lends itself well to microlessons on (French) pronunciation.
This result is particularly meaningful here, given the low rate of supplemental
interaction with the tweets that was cited among this sample population (beyond
the posting of confirmation messages that the tweet had been seen). Mompean
& Fouz-González (2016) also cite significant improvement in the pronunciation
of testwords across pre- and posttests but do so in the context of high levels
of participant interaction with the tweets. The finding here then suggests that
participant interaction beyond the passive reception of and engagement with the
tweet’s contents is not necessary for a positive effect to result. Future research
should aim to assess the interaction of different participation types and varying
lengths of time between the posttest and the Twitter activity to determine if the
same positive results remain constant in the long term. A more robust sample and
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 81

the inclusion of a control group (i.e., a group not participating in the Twitter task
that participates in both the pre- and posttests) should also be targeted in future
work, as the results reported here are based on a group of twelve participants
without a control group for comparison.

A Picture Is Worth 1,000 Words But Not for SNFCs

That tweets containing images were more likely to yield correct pronunciations
than those containing links to external video clips suggests that learners on
Twitter may show a preference for media types that are quickly consumed while
scrolling, without the need to pause, click on and wait for external links. This
finding elaborates previous research on mobile learning in the 21st century that
identifies language learners’ preference for “opportunistic, bite-sized learning”
over that which requires more time and a deeper attention (Kenning, 2007:192).
This noted lack of engagement with the links to external videos may be caused
by any number of reasons: lack of time, of interest, of headphones, of ability to
understand what is being said/sung in the clip or of being in a location where
media can be played aloud. The one exception to this finding seemed to be the
case of SNFCs (e.g., comptoir), which was the sole testword type that did not
exhibit significantly higher pronunciation accuracy rates when presented with
images versus links to external videos. This may suggest that some pronunciation
difficulty types are more difficult for learners to master than others. In this case,
a difficulty with SNFCs could indicate that learners have a harder time extending
the more general phonological behavior of final consonant non-realization to
other positions in the word than they do mastering idiosyncratic sound-spelling
correspondences on a case-by-case basis. This finding runs contra Mompean
& Fouz-González (2016) who reported the greatest amount of pretest-posttest
accuracy gain in their silent letters category, however, their testword types did
not distinguish between final and non-final position as they did in this study, so
the comparison is not equal. Another possibility for why SNFCs did not exhibit
significantly higher pronunciation accuracy rates when presented with images
versus links to external videos is the fact that most of the testwords in this category
(comptoir, comptabilité, baptême, sculpture) also have cognate status in English
and French, which may confound participants since these words exist in their
native language with internal consonants that are unquestionably pronounced.
A third possibility to explain the exceptional case of SNFCs is that the images
chosen to support the items in this category may have been comparatively
less engaging or less catchy than the images used for the other categories. As
“catchiness” is a subjective determination, future studies would do well to elicit
engagement ratings from a small but representative sample to control for any
unforeseen variation in appeal ahead of the experiment.
82 Amanda Dalola

Fun If You Can Stand Being on Twitter

In the post-task reflection, participants commented on the entertainment

and educational value of the task but not on its success at building community
within the learning group, a positive outcome of Twitter use in the classroom
cited by several previous studies (Antenos-Conforti, 2009; Lomicka & Lord,
2012; Newgarden, 2009). This difference is likely due to the task being carried
out largely as a passive task in which participants received their daily tweet but
did not need to interact with it or with each other beyond posting confirmation
that they had seen it. Mompean & Fouz-González (2016), who followed the same
method, suggest that asking participants to confirm their reception of the tweets
may be viewed as overbearing on the part of the researchers, to the point that it
inhibits any less formal and/or more spontaneous participation. The following
comment from our exit survey adds additional insight to the question: “I had
never seen many of these words before. Sometimes I wanted to say something in
the comments about them but I wasn’t sure what I could say that wouldn’t make
me look dumb.” Although lexical frequency was not selected as part of the best-fit
model for predicting pronunciation accuracy, it may very well play a meaningful
role in conditioning participants’ ease of engagement.

Conclusions

The microblogging tool, Twitter, has inspired a full range of activities in L2

instruction since its 2006 inception—from community building and passive
tweet observation to active tweet composition by learners in their L2. This study
explored Twitter’s effectiveness in dispensing bite-sized pronunciation lessons
on different types of hard-to-pronounce words to intermediate L2 learners of
French, through an examination of the role of testword type, tweet type and
lexical frequency on pronunciation accuracy. The results found Twitter to be
overwhelmingly successful in delivering micro pronunciation lessons, but not
equally across different testword types and tweet types. A significant increase
in pronunciation accuracy was reported for all testword types when the tweet
contained an attached image versus a link to an external video, except for SNFCs.
As such, this study has implications for both phonology and applied linguistics.
It appears that learners experience varying degrees of difficulty with different
types of irregularly pronounced words, inviting instructors to redistribute
course attention accordingly. Additionally, while Twitter has been found to
be a generally useful tool for delivering micro pronunciation instruction in L2
language classes, it is important to acknowledge that a tweet’s supporting media
may make or break its effectiveness, particularly if that media counteracts the
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 83

tweet’s highly digestible shortform by requiring prolonged attention from rapidly

scrolling learners.

References

• ANTENOS-CONFORTI, E. (2009): “Microblogging on Twitter: Social

networking in intermediate Italian classes”, in Lomicka, L. & Lord, G. (eds.), The
next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language
learning, San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium,
p. 59-90.
• BATES, D., MÄCHLER, M., BOLKER, B., & WALKER, S. (2015): “Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4”, Journal of Statistical Software 67.1, p. 1-48.
• BLANCO, C. (2020): 2020 Duolingo Language Report: Global Review. https://
blog.duolingo.com/global-language-report-2020/ (accessed 27 November 2021).
• BLATTNER, G., & DALOLA, A. (2018): “I tweet, you tweet, (S)He tweets:
enhancing the ESL language-learning experience through twitter”, International
Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) 8.2,
p. 1-19.
• BLATTNER, G., DALOLA, A., & LOMICKA, L. (2016): “Twitter in foreign
language classes: Initiating learners into contemporary language variation”,
in WANG V. (ed.), The Handbook of Research on Learning Outcomes and
Opportunities in the Digital Age, Hershey, PA, IGI Global, p. 769-797.
• BLATTNER, G., DALOLA, A., & LOMICKA, L. (2015): “Tweetsmart: A
pragmatic analysis of well-known native speaker Tweeters”, in Dixon E. &
Thomas M. (eds.), Researching Language Learner Interaction Online: From Social
Media to MOOC’s, San Marcos, TX, Computer Assisted Language Instruction
Consortium (CALICO), p. 231-236.
• BORAU, K., ULLRICH, C., FENG, J., & SHEN, R. (2009): “Microblogging
for language learning: Using twitter to train communicative and cultural
competence”, in International Conference on Web-based Learning, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 78-87.
• BURGESS, J., & SPENCER, S. (2000): “Phonology and pronunciation in
integrated language teaching and teacher education”, System 28, p. 191-215.
• CASTRO, M. (2009): “The use of microblogging in language education”, in
Proceedings of the third international wireless ready symposium, p. 8-11. http://
opinion.nucba.ac.jp/~thomas/castro2009.pdf.
• “Educause: A Day in the Online Life of a Student”. (2018): Online. https://
www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-
students-and-information-technology/2018/a-day-in-the-online-life-of-a-
student (accessed 25 November 2021).
84 Amanda Dalola

• HASSALL, I. (2017): “Why is an SMS just 160 characters?” https://www.

smsglobal.com/blog/why-is-an-sms-160-characters-or-less/ (accessed 26
November 2021).
• HATTEM, D. (2014): “Microblogging activities: Language play and tool
transformation”, Language Learning and Technology 18.2, p. 151-174.
• HATTEM, D. (2012): “The Practice of microblogging”, The Journal of Second
Language Teaching and Research 1.2, p. 38–70. http://pops.uclan.ac.uk/index.
php/jsltr/article/view/47.
• KASSAMBARA, A. (2020): rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical
Tests. R Package Version 0.4.0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstatix/
index.html.
• KENNEDY, C., & LEVY, M. (2008): “L’italiano al telefonino: Using SMS to
support beginners’ language learning”, ReCALL 20.3, p. 315-330.
• KENNING, M-M. (2007). ICT and language learning. From print to the mobile
phone, Basingstoke, UK/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• “Leipzig Corpora Collection: French mixed corpus based on material from 2012”,
Leipzig Corpora Collection, Dataset. https://corpora.uni-leipzig.de?corpusId=fra_
mixed_2012 (accessed 25 November 2021).
• LEVY, M., & KENNEDY, C. (2005): “Learning Italian via mobile SMS”,
in Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for
educators and trainers, London, UK, Taylor & Francis, p. 76–83.
• LI, J., & CUMMINS, J. (2019): “Effect of using texting on vocabulary instruction
for English learners”, Language Learning & Technology 23.2, p. 43-64.
• LI, J., CUMMINS, J., & DENG, Q. (2017): “The effectiveness of texting to
enhance academic vocabulary learning: English language learners’ perspective”,
Computer Assisted Language Learning 30.8, p. 816-843.
• LOMICKA, L., & LORD, G. (2012): “A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging
among language learners”, System 40, p. 48-63.
• MOMPEAN, J.A., & FOUZ-GONZÁLEZ, J. (2016): “Twitter-based EFL
Pronunciation Instruction”, Language Learning & Technology, p. 166-190.
• MORLEY, J. (1991): “The pronunciation component in teaching English to
speakers of other languages”, TESOL Quarterly 25.3, p. 481-520.
• NEWGARDEN, K. (2009): “Annotated bibliography–twitter, social networking,
and communities of practice”, Tesl-Ej 13.2, p. 1-20.
• PLUTINO, A. (2017): “Teachers as awakeners: a collaborative approach in
language learning and social media”, Innovative language teaching and learning
at university: enhancing employability, p. 115-125.
• R CORE TEAM. (2019): “R: A language and environment for statistical
computing”, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://
www.R-project.org/ (accessed 12 February 2021).
 Using Twitter to Support the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words 85

• SARAN, M., SEFEROGLU, G., & CAGILTAY, K. (2009): “Mobile assisted

language learning: English pronunciation at learners’ fingertips”, Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research 34, p. 97–114.
• STEIN-SMITH, K. (2019): “Foreign language classes becoming more scarce”,
The Conversation. https://www.amacad.org/news/foreign-language-classes-
becoming-more-scarce (accessed 26 November 2021).
• THORNTON, P., & HOUSER, C. (2005): “Using mobile phones in English
education in Japan”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21.3, p. 217–228.
• THORNTON, P., & HOUSER, C. (2001): “Learning on the move: Vocabulary
study via e-mail and mobile phone SMS”, in Montgomerie C. & Viteli, J. (eds.),
Proceedings of EdMedia 2001, Chesapeake, VA, Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education, p. 1896–1897.
• ULLRICH, C., BORAU, K., & STEPANYAN, K. (2010): “Who students interact
with? A social network analysis perspective on the use of twitter in language
learning”, in European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 432-437.
• ZIEGLER, J.C., BERTRAND, D., TÓTH, D., CSÉPE, V., REIS, A., FAÍSCA, L.,
SAINE, N., LYYTINEN, H., VAESSEN, A., & BLOMERT, L. (2010): “Orthographic
depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language
investigation”, Psychological Science 21.4, p. 551-559.
 Assessing Spoken English
Performance and Self-Efficacy
Beliefs in the Classroom:
Some Considerations on the
Value of an Interdisciplinary
Embodied Methodology for
French Learners of English

JULIE ROUAUD♦
NATHALIE HUET♦♦
ANNE PRZEWOZNY♦♦♦

T he present paper was triggered by a twofold line of thought. The initial

perspective draws on the authors’ teaching experience, both at university
and secondary levels, and therefore falls within the scope of applied and situated
research. The second perspective stems from cognitive (embodied) theoretical
traditions in linguistics and psychology. We first provide the theoretical context
and goals of the study that motivated the research project. We then present the
PICL! project (Phonologie Incarnée de l’anglais au Collège Labitrie!), an ongoing
longitudinal investigation in a French secondary school, from its collaborative
roots to its implementation (first and second years of our study, 2019-2021).
We examine some salient interdisciplinary outcomes within PICL!, from
the conception of educational modules to the measurement of the learners’
production and perception in English phonology. Finally, we discuss some
transitional results of this four-year longitudinal study, specifically in terms of
the assessment of self-efficacy, motivation and phonetic performance of learners.1

♦ Julie Rouaud, CNRS et Université de Toulouse, UMR 5263, Cognition, Langues, Langage,
Ergonomie.
♦♦ Nathalie Huet, CNRS et Université de Toulouse, UMR 5263, Cognition, Langues,
Langage, Ergonomie.
♦♦♦ Anne Przewozny, CNRS et Université de Toulouse, UMR 5263, Cognition, Langues,
Langage, Ergonomie.
1 Our warmest thanks and gratitude go to Cécile Baron and Murièle Barou, English
teachers at Pierre Labitrie College in Tournefeuille, Haute-Garonne and our colleagues
committed to the PICL! applied research project. Our thanks also go to the two reviewers
who provided insightful comments and advice on the prefinal version of this article.

ranam n°55 /2022

88 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

Theoretical Frameworks and Goals in the

PICL! Research Project
The teaching of English as a foreign language as well as methods of language
learning involving speech processes and concerns for norms and variation are
long-standing and complex issues (e.g., Collins and Mees 1999, Skela 2019,
Durand and Lyche 2021), with more recent developments in situated research
and embodied cognitive sciences, crucially at the interplay of Psychology and
Linguistics, between embodiment, the physicality of speech, bodily activity,
gesturing and performance and learners’ perceptions of speech structure and
musicality (see Ionescu and Vasc 2014, Skulmowski and Rey 2018 for a typology
and, as illustrations in different domains of teaching and learning, Abercrombie
1965 on rhythm, Billière 2002 for a verbo-tonal method of phonetic correction,
Glenberg 2011 on reading, Lapaire 2019 on grammar, as well as studies such as
Delhoume and Ferragne 2018 on body posture and speech production).
Our stance is a situated one (Condamines and Narcy-Combes 2015),
inasmuch as we consider authentic language phenomena in the non-native
context of the French classroom, in connection with specific needs of the learners,
namely the ability to i) learn an adequate phonological system of English, ii) gain
confidence in the performance of English in a school setting and ultimately iii)
address schoolmates and teachers in the classroom. Within this field of enquiry,
an applied research project at the crossroads of phonology and psychology was
elaborated on embodied grounds, which are sustained by concomitant embodied
traditions of thought in the two disciplines.
According to the theory of embodied cognition, cognitive processes are
grounded in sensory, motor and emotional systems (Barsalou 2008). Concepts
are stored along with any other component of knowledge in long-term memory.
During the retrieval process, the individual reactivates the memory trace on the
basis of a reactivation of these same sensory-motor and emotional neuronal
systems. From the point of view of pronunciation, a sensory experience reinforces
the memory trace of the right pronunciation of a word. Recent research has
shown that bodily actions (hand gesture, head nodding, labial gesture) promote
the learning of a native or foreign language (e.g., Tellier 2008; Zheng, Hirata
and Kelley 2018). Other studies such as Macedonia (2019) have shown that only
gestures that are semantically-related to the word facilitate memorisation.
Our embodiment-based research takes into account the congruency of
the gesture and performance of four speech components: phonemes, syllabic
structure, words as well as rhythmic patterns towards the production/perception
of post-lexical units (from feet to utterances) and phenomena (such as /r/-sandhi)
typical of native-like standards of English.2

2 In the PICL! project, we rely on in-class body gesture sessions and videos, in which
congruent hand gesture is used to accompany consonantal plosion (as in pit) or facial
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 89

Besides, our methodology promotes the awareness of the sensory experiences

associated with the pronunciation of each word.
We start with the observation that French pupils dread speaking aloud in
English in the classroom. They often share low self-efficacy beliefs regarding
speech acts in English. Self-efficacy beliefs were defined by Bandura (1997) as
people’s beliefs in their abilities to succeed in a given task. Many authors (Mills,
Pajares and Herron 2006, 2007; Wang, Spencer and Xing 2009; Hsieh and Kang
2010; Tilfarlioğlu and Ciftci 2011; Raoofi, Hoon Tan and Heng Chan 2012)
reveal that foreign language learners’ self-efficacy beliefs affect their performance
in varied language skills as well as their level of anxiety whenever speaking in a
foreign language (e.g., Zheng 2008). Finally, authors such as Sardegna, Lee and
Kusey (2018) show that the higher the self-efficacy beliefs towards pronunciation
performance in a given foreign language, the higher the learner’s engagement and
performance.
With reference to the scientific literature mentioned above, and in line with
the longitudinal perspective of our study, we hypothesise that
i) embodied tasks in English phonology designed in coherence with the
teachers’ undertakings may benefit pupils and
ii) self-efficacy beliefs positively affect the pupils’ performance in spoken
English, despite early adolescents’ expected behaviour (Sawyer et al. 2018)
towards more introspection and less public speaking.
We globally expected the following results:
i) our cohort of pupils’ self-efficacy beliefs about their spoken performance
and their English classes in general will be lower before experiencing
embodied phonology sessions than after performing a series of tasks
during those sessions;
ii) negative emotions (such as anxiety about pronunciation) after the
sessions will be lower than those experienced before the sessions;
iii) self-efficacy beliefs regarding pronunciation will be higher in the
‘Embodied Phonology’ experimental group than in the control group;
iv) pupils who have followed the embodied phonology protocol are expected
to experience an increase of their self-efficacy beliefs, while learners from
the control group are expected to experience a decrease or stagnation of
these.

gesture used to illustrate degrees of mouth aperture and tongue position (as in the cat-kit
minimal pair).
90 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

Phonologie Incarnée de l’anglais au Collège

Labitrie: The PICL! Project
The PICL! project (Phonologie Incarnée de l’anglais au Collège Labitrie) is an
applied research project which has been elaborated from 2018 onwards in the
framework of the PAC Programme (The Phonology of Contemporary English:
usage, varieties, structure; Przewozny, Viollain and Navarro 2020; Durand
and Przewozny 2012). Therefore, it follows its theoretical and methodological
frameworks in sociophonological and variationist studies, while also contributing
to research in the domains of interphonology and Teaching/Learning within the
PAC framework.
The PICL! project explicitly draws on the conceptual backgrounds and field
methods of corpus phonology (Durand, Gut and Kristoffersen 2014; Durand
2017), embodied cognitive psychology and Teaching/Learning methods. The
general purpose is to anticipate the impact of articulatory phonetics through
embodied phonology exercises of production and perception on phonological
deafness and, subsequently, on the potential improvement of spoken performance
as well as self-confidence on the part of young learners (e.g., Borrell 1996, Llisterri
and Schwab 2019). As detailed below, the four-year protocol is built on a high
degree of bodily engagement and gestural task performance in the classroom
(Skulmowski and Rey 2018). For the teachers and researchers involved in
this study, the goals are to improve pupils’ competence and performance in
spoken English in the classroom and to determine interphonological as well as
psychological hindrances in the process, while helping the pupils to improve their
pronunciation skills and their levels of self-efficacy and personal motivation in
and out of the classroom.

Setting and Implementation of the Project

Collège Labitrie (Tournefeuille, Greater Toulouse area, France) was selected

on institutional and sociolinguistic grounds as a joint place for sociophonological
investigation and testing in cognitive psychology in a four-year longitudinal
perspective (from ‘sixième’ to ‘troisième’ class levels3). During the preparatory
year of the project (2018-2019), the school had 802 pupils, 28 classes and 85 staff
members. The sociological indicators of the pupils’ family networks are 69.3%
teachers or middle and senior managers, 17% employees, artisans, merchants or
farmers, 8.4% workers or inactive persons, and 5.3% others.
In Year 1 (2019-20), 64 pupils from four classes of ‘sixième’ were selected in
collaboration with some members of the English teaching team at Labitrie, Cécile

3 Corresponding to Years 7 to 10 in the British secondary school system.

 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 91

Baron and Muriel Barou, dispatched into two experimental versus control classes.
The pupils were aged 10 to 11 with a proportion of 46.4% of male learners and
53.6% female learners. They presented various sociolinguistic profiles. In terms
of levels of English, the 64 informants were situated on a scale between A1 and
A2 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. A yearly
institutional process of intermixing between pupils from several classes led us to
reshuffle our cohorts from experimental and control groups at the beginning of
each school year. Hence 25 informants from Year 1 (‘sixième’) could be kept in
Year 2 (16 of them in the experimental group and 9 pupils in the control group),
while new informants (‘cinquième’) were selected by the teachers so as to broaden
the groups to 60 subjects of study. In both Years 1 and 2, the learners had English
classes three hours a week on average.

A Scalable Protocol

From 2019 onwards (starting in Year 1 of the study with ‘sixième’ level
cohorts), our informants have been recorded in pairs with digital recorders4
within the Collège Labitrie buildings, either in available classrooms or in offices.
The interviews were performed as ecologically as possible, although the quality
of the recordings can be affected by external parameters such as background
noise. The interviews have been carried out following a similar protocol each
year. The PICL! protocol is adapted from the PAC Interphonology protocol for
learners of English (Mairano and Bouzon 2020) and expanded to a psychological
component. Anonymity was preserved by applying the procedure recommended
by Audette, Hammond, and Rochester (2019) in longitudinal studies. Participants
self-generated their identification code by answering a few simple questions (for
example, the month you were born in; the first initial of your mother’s first name).
A parallel identification procedure was implemented for future PAC analyses in
a corpus phonology framework.5
The protocol comprises the following components:
1. A questionnaire (see Appendix 1) about interest (3 items), perceived
usefulness (3 items) of English (adapted from Eccles and Wigfield 1995),
and general self-efficacy beliefs in English was adapted from Schwarzer
and Jerusalem (1995). The learners have to rate a series of items ranging
from “Not true at all for me” (1) to “Totally true for me” (6). Emotional
states regarding English pronunciation (5 items adapted from Caci and
Baylé, 2007) are assessed by requiring the learners to express their degree
of agreement on a scale ranging from “I strongly disagree” (1) to “I totally

4 Digital recorders: Edirol R-09 and Zoom H4nPro-BK/IF.

5 The PICL! protocol was granted the University of Toulouse Research Ethics Board IRB
approval n°2021-366.
92 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

agree” (6). Finally, self-efficacy beliefs related to confidence in succeeding

English pronunciation are assessed by asking pupils to rate how confident
they are in succeeding to pronounce English correctly, from “not at all
sure of being confident” (1) to “totally sure of being confident” (6). The
learners are asked to fill in the questionnaire twice, once in April and once
in June so as to assess potential changes in their reactions.
2. A sociolinguistic semi-guided conversation (in French, see Appendix 2)
in which the fieldworker asks questions about the speakers’ background,
the languages they speak, their parents’ background, etc.
3. A reading task of two wordlists in English (Appendix 3): 38 lexical items in
citation form with a focus on vocalic phenomena (such as the realisation
of short front vowels and diphthongs in closed syllables) and 20 lexical
items in citation form focusing on consonantal phenomena (such as
the realisation of /r/ in postvocalic position, quality of the approximant,
/h/-dropping). The reading task remains the same each year so as to get
comparable data. Depending on their level of proficiency, the informants
are asked to pronounce the numbers in front of each lexical item.
4. A Maptask to encourage the informants to interact using continuous
speech. In Year 1, we chose a simplified version of the PAC Maptask
(Przewozny and Huet 2020, Herment 2021), but it proved difficult for
‘sixième’ pupils although they had been prepared beforehand in the
classroom. Consequently, a Year 2 Maptask was created to adapt to the
cinquième’s curriculum. Thanks to the teachers’ help, the theme of a
treasure hunt for the Holy Grail in a secondary school was developed
in two teaching units “Discovering a British School” and “All Hail the
King!” featuring King Arthur and his knights. The Maptask was designed
so that the subjects were able to use the vocabulary they were familiar
with (see below Appendix 4), which proved to be more efficient than in
Year 1. For Year 3, the Maptask is to be adapted again to fit the pupils’
new curriculum and classroom activities as designed by the teachers.
Both teachers will prepare all the pupils (in experimental and control
groups) beforehand with a training session, so that the learners are able
to communicate more easily with their peers and to feel more comfortable
during the recording session.
The PICL! corpus can be defined as a database of authentic spoken performances
in the classroom (Van Lier, in Cots and Tusón 1994). Whatever the precision
of the pupils’ productions on a scale of native/non-native norms (Jenkins 2000,
Mukherjee and Hundt 2011, Gilquin and De Cock 2013) in the varied stylistic
targets within the PICL! protocol, the spontaneous quality of the data offers a
basis for the measurement of each learner’s phonetic performance from Year 1
onwards, provided that
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 93

i) spoken data express some naturalness of the learners’ speech (non-

modified speech; Warren 2006) and
ii) reasonable intelligibility (Derwing and Munro 1997, Jenkins 2000, Smith
and Nelson 2008, Mairano, Bouzon et al. 2019).

Linguistic Data and Metadata Analysis:

Typologies and Preliminary Outcomes
In this section, we present a provisional interphonological classification
designed to observe what difficulties pupils are faced with in their pronunciation
of English, given their sociolinguistic background (metadata), individual
phonological system(s) and oral skills and self-efficacy beliefs, both in production
and perception (data). This classification offers the basis of our phonological
measurement scale throughout the four years of the PICL! longitudinal study. The
sociolinguistic metadata compiled from Year-1 64 semi-guided interviews were
structured in 39 descriptors (e.g., age, gender, place of birth, spoken languages,
proficiency, knowledge of a musical instrument, type of the neighbourhood,
parents’ geographical origins, etc.), plus the relevant CEFRL levels of proficiency
for correlations with the linguistic data.
As far as the spoken linguistic data are concerned, a specific methodology
was implemented so as to support the learners’ increase in performing spoken
English. Each recording of the PICL! corpus (four segmented audio files, medium
length 50 minutes per anonymised learner) is analysed auditorily, providing
a preliminary overview of a learner’s phonological system. The audio files are
gradually processed through Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2020) for acoustic
(spectrographic) inspection of each learner’s system and future processing of
the data and metadata through Phonometrica (Eychenne and Courdès-Murphy
2019) for annotation and analysis of the corpus and hypothesis testing.
A list of phonological difficulties or errors among French L2 speakers of
English can be drawn from Kenworthy (1987), Jenkins (2000), Capliez (2011,
2016): h-dropping (vs. hypercorrection), non-aspirated voiceless plosives /p, t,
k/ in syllable onset, erroneous vocalic contrasts and consonant clusters, vocalic
reduction and lexical stress patterns. Interphonological typologies usually
account for the systems of young adults or adult L2 speakers (Tortel 2008,
2010, Herment, Loukina and Tortel 2012; see also De Cock and Tyne 2014,
Ballier and Martin 2015, Capliez 2016). As expected from the PICL! corpus, the
interphonological system developed by our L2 learners displays transient features
(Detey, Durand and Nespoulous 2005). This provides an opportunity to describe
the interphonological development of 10- to 14-year-old learners, allowing for a
new interphonological typology from the end of Cycle 3 onwards.
94 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

Figure 1: An English-French contrastive vocalic trapezium

(adapted from Deschamps et al. 2004, Roach 2009, Capliez 2011)

One criterion and a benefit of starting our longitudinal study with ‘sixième’
pupils is the “magic barrier” of children aged 10 to 12 which is emphasised by
Guiora and Acton (1979) and Voise (2019). The <10-12> age range corresponds
to the end of ‘Cycle 3’ when young learners express enjoyment in learning, while
speaking up is not yet felt as taboo. Furthermore, in the French context, Cycle 3
pupils’ exposure to a second language (let alone an L3, see Gut 2009, 2010) is still
limited, except in rare cases of non-sequential bilingualism. And yet, although we
do have an example of non-sequential bilingualism in the PICL! corpus (French/
Arabic speaker 12FLL0, see Table 1 above), this does not prejudge the speaker’s
quality of production in L2 English. In such Cycle 3 classrooms, phonological
consciousness of English is in progress (Chaplier 2010), and many segmental
realisations towards native English targets can be the result of imitation of
(variably rhotic) teachers or leisure activities (TV series for example).
Table 16 displays some salient segmental realisations (Wordlists reading task)
which are retrievable from the PICL! corpus (Year 1, ‘sixième’ class). We choose
to illustrate our point with partial data of three informants (07FEA0b, 09FLC0,
12FLL0).

6 Data processing is ongoing work, as the longitudinal quality of our study suggests
(2019-2023).
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 95

Target Lexical item 07FEA0b 09FLC0 12FLL0

Vocalic realisations, closed σ
/æ/ pat, van Fr. [a] Fr. [a] Fr. [a]
/ɪ/ pit, witch, little Fr. [i] Fr. [i] Fr. [i]
/ʌ/ duck, judge En. [ʌ] En. [ʌ] Fr. [y]
/ɜ:/ bird En. [ɜ:] En. [ɜ:] Fr. [i]
/aɪ/ side En. [aɪ] En. [aɪ] Fr. [i]
/ɛ/ wet, yet [ɪ] En. [ɛ] En. [ɛ]
/ʊ/ put [ju:] [ju:] En. [ʊ]
/i:/ feel [eɪ] [eɪ] En. [i:]
/ɜ:/ bird [ɪə] En. [ɜ:] En. [ɜ:]
/ɑ:/ heart [ɪə] [ɜ:] [ɜ:]
/eɪ/ wait En. [eɪ] En. [eɪ] [aɪ]
Consonantal realisations
/t/ pit, pat, sport Fr. [t] Fr. [t] Fr. [∅]
/ð/ father, this Fr. [z] Fr. [d] Fr. [t]
/h/ horse, heart En. [h] En. [h] Fr. [∅]
/tʃ/ church Fr. [ʃ] Fr. [ʃ] Fr. [ʃ]
/dʒ/ judge En. [dʒ] En. [dʒ] Fr. [ʒ]
/n/ knows Fr. [kn] Fr. [kn] En. [n]
/ɹ/ in σ onset rack, run, rubber En. [ɹ] En. [ɹ] Alveolar trill
[r]
postvocalic /ɹ/ far Non-rhotic En. [ɻ] Fr. /ʁ/
board, church En. [ɻ] En. [ɻ] Fr. /ʁ/
/∅/ earth /h/-insertion En. [∅] En. [∅]
(hypercorrection)
Table 1: Phonemic targets and segmental realisations, PICL! Spoken data
(Year 1; σ for syllable)
Three types of realisation can be observed from the data (Table 1): English-
targeted realisations (in bold types, with variable quality as for [ɜ:] in bird,
/h/-insertion in horse), French realisations ([a] in pat, van) and other realisations
(underlined in grey) which exemplify issues in L2 lexical knowledge and/or oral
performance in a reading task.
Although our Year 1 and 2 cohorts’ representation of a Teaching/Learning
norm of English was limited, our data suggests that the learners’ vocalic target
is generally non-rhotic (RP-type, bird [ɪə] to En. [ɜ:] realisations), with random
variability of rhoticity depending on syllabic environments in the reading tasks
(in open syllables such as far, we found rhotic and non-rhotic production; in
closed syllables such as board, church, rhotic productions were observed, with
qualities varying from En. [ɻ] to Fr. [ʁ] with 12FLL0). This variability can be
explained by several factors, such as i) the influence of spelling when learners
read an orthographic r and try to produce an anglicised target, ii) their individual
levels of English, iii) the influence of their teachers’ own targets of production.
Informant 12FLL0 demonstrates the usefulness of sociolinguistic correlates: the
96 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

speaker almost systematically produces an alveolar trill [r] in onset position (rack,
run, rubber). Following her sociolinguistic portrait, 12FLL0’s parents are Syrian.
She was born and spent several years in Spain, and she regularly speaks Arabic
and Moroccan in her family network. Her Spanish background and her practice
of Darija may be clues to this seemingly unexpected phonetic realisation in the
context of our study.
It has to be underlined that our aim is not to reach any perfect matching
between the performance of young French learners and a standard vocalic system
of native English (see Figure 1 for a contrastive vocalic trapezium of standard
French and RP English), which would obviously not be attainable and which
raises the complex issue of desirable targets and norms for L2 learners of English
in a French context. Table 1 provides a basis for a phonological measurement scale
in order to measure i) segmental phonetic improvement towards a native English
norm in the successive embodied phonology tasks and, ii) future correlation
between phonetic improvement and self-efficacy beliefs. As far as suprasegmental
production is concerned, the authors decided on a scoring system taking into
account lexical stress placement in the reading tasks. Prosodic features are to be
taken into account through the Maptask data. Once processing is completed, this
classification will be scored so as to enable us to perform quantitative analyses
together with qualitative ones that have already been carried out. The purpose
is to verify potential correlations with self-efficacy beliefs. Meanwhile, each year
some educational tools are elaborated in close collaboration with the school’s
teaching staff, so as to offer further support and remediation modules which
compensate for some of the pupils’ gaps or personal lack of performance. These
modules focus on segmental knowledge, phonetic performance and rhythm
and are based on the vocabulary which is covered during classroom work. The
following section specifically deals with this procedure.

Educational Modules for Embodied Phonology

Knowing that the teaching team at Collège Labitrie were already engaged in
a regular use of bodily resources in their elaboration of teaching modules and
tools, a preparatory phase of observation in the classroom was set up for both
the experimental and control classes in early 2020. On the part of the pupils, the
corroborations we gained from the observation phase were i) strong influence
of the written medium on the production and the behaviour of the pupils (as
stated in Durand 2000, Capliez 2011 among others), as well as ii) few spoken
performances in connected speech situations. This raises a number of questions
in terms of access to phonological processes such as coalescence, rhythm and
alternation patterns of strong and weak syllables that all foster intelligibility
(Mennen 2006). On the part of the teachers, the observation phase confirmed
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 97

a sustained incentive to use spoken English in the classroom (with role playing
situations and a choice of teaching material), as well as a set of teaching tools
which explicitly rely on embodied T/L, with gestural support of the plosion
phenomenon at the segmental level (in lexical tasks with words such as pencil),
or of vowel reduction (about).
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic during Years 1 and 2 of the PICL! longitudinal
study, access to French schools was restricted. The authors of the present paper
and the teachers had to adapt to those new circumstances and turned to online
tools so as to help pupils improve their skills in perception and production in
English and increase their phonological awareness and performance in English. A
series of educational modules for the experimental group were built in accordance
with the teachers’ needs regarding their curricula and the pupils’ progress in
pronunciation. A remediation process was devoted to the experimental group
and was composed of three different modules in an embodied perspective7:
1. On a semi-autonomous basis, the team created distance learning
explanatory videos focusing on the learners’ articulatory and auditory
knowledge of English phonemes. Each segment is explained in simple
terms and the articulation is accounted for using bodily and vibratory
gesture demonstrations. The segments are then illustrated with an example
word (and an image) which is repeated several times. The learner is
provided with specific visual and auditory hints for a more comprehensive
learning experience. Each explanatory video is 15 minutes long.
2. Corresponding short videos offering segmental drills are then meant to
carry out repetition loops (e.g., pit, pet, pat, pot, put, putt). The learners
are shown how to pronounce each lexical item within the loops with
precise instructions and then, they practise by repeating the words. These
exercises are provided as homework by the teachers, and the pupils must
send their personal recording back through their personal digital work
environment.
Once it became possible to go back into the classroom, in-class articulatory
and auditory body gesture sessions (“ateliers gymnastiques”) were organised in
collaboration with the teachers during usual class hours. First, some contrastive
(French-English) exercises focused on the awareness of the vocal apparatus
as well as the usefulness of articulators and resonators. Then at the segmental
level, learners were made aware of distinctive features such as voiced and
voiceless consonants, oral and nasal vowels, etc. In order to be consistent with
the teachers’ curricula, specific exercises were carried out on the pronunciation
of -ed and the plural, which gave the pupils the opportunity to apply the voiced/
voiceless distinction. Bodily gestures and articulatory demonstrations were also
used to help pupils pronounce consonant sounds that do not exist in the French

7 Videos are available on the PICL! YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/

channel/UCENmPY8jPkvtgx8JHU-dbNw.
98 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

segmental system. At the suprasegmental level, the embodied approach allows us

to emphasise some prosodic phenomena such as rhythm and syllabic prominence.
During the in-class sessions, pupils became aware of how omnipresent rhythm is
in their everyday lives and how it works in language thanks to breathing exercises.
Other exercises on prosody were carried out with nursery rhymes and popular
songs by the authors and the teachers. As an example, students would use their
hands to mark rhythm and lexical stress whenever they would hear stress.
At the end of Year 2 (2020-2021), each online module was rated by the
pupils. The latter were asked to indicate whether they had watched all the PICL!
videos on YouTube or only some of them or none. In order to make sure they
had actually watched the videos, they were asked to discuss their content. Then
the pupils were invited to indicate whether they had done the pronunciation
exercises from the drills: from “none” (1) to “all the exercises done” (4). The next
items were about the perceived usefulness of each method (video, repetition loop
and in-class body gesture sessions). Each pupil was asked to assess if he or she
thought that the module was useful to improve their pronunciation of English
and easy to use, ranging from “not true at all for me” (1) to “totally true for me”
(6). The same response scale was applied to assess the amount of effort required
to go through each module. Finally, pupils were asked to rank each module from
the one they had liked the most (1) to the one they had liked the least (3), (2)
being the one they had moderately liked. The following section displays some
preliminary results about our psychological data for Year 2.

Assessing the Learner’s Motivation and

Emotions as Psychological Variables
Four sets of analysis were conducted in Year 2 of the protocol. The first set
of analysis was a descriptive one. The second set examined, on the one hand, the
relationships between motivational variables (interest, perceived usefulness of
pronouncing English correctly, self-efficacy beliefs in English and in pronouncing
English correctly) and, on the other hand, emotional variables related to English
pronunciation. The third set was meant to test the effect of our embodied
phonology method on the motivational and emotional variables from Time 1
(April) to Time 2 (June, the same year) by comparing the experimental and the
control groups. Finally, the fourth set of analysis explored the pupils’ perception
of the embodied phonology method and of the videos which were used within
the experimental group.8

8 A preliminary analysis was carried out in order to detect outliers. Outliers were
dropped, thus resulting in slight variations between numbers of observations in the
different analyses. As a consequence, the degrees of freedom slightly differ from one
analysis to another.
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 99

Descriptive Analysis (Set 1)

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess homogeneity within questionnaire

items about interest, usefulness, emotions and general self-efficacy beliefs. The
scales demonstrated good reliability (all of the Cronbach’s alpha being above
0.70 as recommended in Nunnally 1978). Our results reveal (see Table 2) that,
whatever the measurement time was, both groups self-reported a moderately
high interest in pronouncing English correctly, and a rather high perception of
usefulness in pronouncing English correctly for their future education. Besides,
the pupils self-reported a moderately high self-efficacy belief score in English in
general and in English pronunciation more specifically. Finally, in both groups,
learners tend to agree on the fact that pronouncing words in English generates
rather negative emotions such as anxiety, nervousness or fear (see appendix 1).

Control group Experimental group

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Motivational variables
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Interest 4.08 (1.09) 3.96 (1.10) 4.10 (0.98) 4.13 (0.96)
Utility 5.26 (0.66) 5.19 (0.83) 5.29 (0.73) 5.36 (0.79)
ESEB* 4.44 (0.94) 4.14 (1.05) 3.99 (1.04) 4.18 (0.98)
PSEB** 4.08 (1.27) 4.12 (1.05) 4.32 (1.16) 4.54 (1.07)
Emotion 3.14 (0.80) 2.83 (0.81) 3.17 (0.85) 3.11 (0.99)
Table 2: Mean (Standard Deviations) of the motivational variables and of emotion
expressed on a scale from 1 to 6 as a function of group from Time 1 to Time 2.
*ESEB: English Self-Efficacy Beliefs; PSEB**: Pronunciation Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Relationships Between Motivational and Emotional

Variables (Set 2)
Results in Table 3 reveal that the more learners showed an interest in
pronouncing English correctly, the more they perceived the usefulness of
correctly pronouncing English, the more they showed high general self-efficacy
beliefs in English and specifically in English pronunciation. Besides, the more
they felt negative emotions about pronouncing English, the less they showed
interest in pronouncing English correctly and the less they expressed a high
pronunciation self-efficacy belief.
100 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

N=60 1 2 3 4 5
1. Interest
2. Perceived utility .40**
3. General self-efficacy beliefs .69** .44**
4. Pronunciation self-efficacy beliefs .42** .40** .57**
5. Emotions -.40** -.24 -.11 -.54**
Table 3: Pearson’s correlations between motivational and emotional variables
Note. **correlation was significant at p < .01

Effect of the Embodied Phonology Method on

Motivational and Emotional Variables (Set 3)
A two-way ANOVA was computed with the method (experimental vs.
control group) as an independent variable, and measurement time as the
repeated measure on the motivational variables. The results show no significant
effect of the group (F (1,56) =.753, p =39) or time of measurement (F (1,56) =.22,
p =.64), but they display a significant effect of the group*time interaction on the
self-efficacy beliefs related to English (F (1,56) =4.74, p =.033, ηp2 =.08). In the
experimental group, the learners did not change their English self-efficacy beliefs
over time whereas in the control group, the self-efficacy beliefs decreased over
time (see Table 2).
Unexpectedly, no significant effect of group was found on pronunciation self-
efficacy beliefs (F (1,55) =1.39; p =.24), neither on time effect (F (1,55) =.97; p =.33)
nor on the interaction group*time (F (1,55) =.51; p =.48).
Concerning the interest to pronounce English correctly, no group effect
(F (1,57) =.11; p =.75; ηp2 =.002), no time effect (F (1,57) =.23; p =.63, ηp2 =.004),
and no interaction group*time (F (1,57) =.79; p = .38; ηp2 =.01) were found.
Concerning the perception of usefulness, no group effect (F (1,58) =.28;
p =.60, ηp2 =.005), no time effect (F (1,58) =.002; p =.97, ηp2 =.00), no interaction
group*time (F (1,58) =.98; p =.33, ηp2 =.02) were found.
Finally, for the emotional variable, no group effect (F (1,57) =.60; p =.44;
ηp2 =.01), no time effect (F (1,57) =3.32; p =.07, ηp2 =.06), no interaction group*time
(F (1,57) =1.49; p =.23; ηp2 =.03) were found.

Learners’ Perceptions of the Embodied Phonology

Method and of the Videos Used within the
Experimental Group (Set 4)

Our results show that 20 out of the 29 pupils within the experimental group
self-reported that they watched the two videos per session, eight self-reported that
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 101

they saw only one video and one pupil self-reported no video. In order to assess
the truth of these claims, the pupils were asked to write down the content of what
they had watched. 25 out of 29 responded with some content which matched the
videos. In addition, 13 out of 29 certified that they had done all of the exercises,
9 out of 29 said that they had done most of the exercises, and 7 out of 29 claimed
that they had done some of the exercises. Finally, the results about the embodied
method ranking from the most preferred to the least preferred exercises (see
Table 4) show that 27.6% of the pupils preferred the repetition loops, then the
in-class articulatory and auditory body gesture exercises and at last the longer
videos; 24.1% of the learners ranked the in-class body gesture exercises first, the
repetition loop exercise second, and the explanatory videos as last.

Ranking from the most preferred to the least preferred exercises

Video Repetition loop In-class gestures Percentages
1 2 3 6.9
1 3 2 13.8
3 1 2 27.6
2 1 3 17.2
3 2 1 24.1
2 3 1 10.4
Table 4: Percentages of pupils ranking from the most preferred
to the least preferred exercises.
Note: “1” the most preferred; “3” the least preferred

Concerning the perceived usefulness of the three embodied types of exercises,

a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. The results reveal a
significant effect of the exercises on the perceived usefulness (F (2,54) =4.91,
p =.011). The repetition loop exercise was perceived as significantly more useful
(M =5.06; SD =.12) than the other two types of exercises, both for the video
(M =4.54; SD =.20) and for the bodily gesture exercises in class (M =4.5; SD =.22).
Finally, as far as the perceived ease of use of the exercises is concerned, results
from the t-test with repeated measures show no significant difference between
the in-class bodily gesture exercises and the repetition loop exercises (t (27) =.20;
p =.85). Similarly, the pupils did not find any difference in terms of perceived
effort between the repetition loop exercise and the in-class bodily gesture
exercises (t (28) =.26; p =.80).
102 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

Discussion and Conclusive Remarks

The PICL! project was elaborated on a longitudinal basis. It therefore awaits
two more years of collecting, analysing and interpreting data and measurements
so as to assess the values and limits of our embodied methodology for the benefit
of the PICL! cohorts of pupils and the teaching staff at Labitrie Secondary School,
as well as on-going research in the field of French learners’ interphonology. The
needs of our PICL! cohorts were defined in collaboration with their teachers
with two highly interrelated perspectives in this applied research project: i)
an academic perspective with the description of interphonological system of
learners, the definition of Teaching/Learning targets in the French context of
Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 classrooms, the increase of their performance in production
and perception, and ii) the increase of confidence in the performance of spoken
English in and (hopefully) outside the classroom.
After two years of implementation, we are able to confirm that our embodied
methodology in language T/L confirms previous findings on the value of bodily
actions in the promotion of the spoken component of EFL/ESL in the classroom.
Our exploratory results support the initial hypothesis that embodied tasks in
English phonology designed in coherence with the teachers’ undertakings may
benefit pupils. In terms of the congruency of the gesture and performance of
speech components, in-class observation shows increased attention on the part
of some pupils to proper phonemic and word production. An increase in the
perception and production measurement of rhythmic patterns and towards
post-lexical issues and phenomena will not be assessed before the conclusion
of the PICL! project, since few comparable data have been available so far.
Data and metadata collecting and processing have enabled us to describe the
interphonological system of 64 pupils in Year 1 of the project. This description
will serve for Years 3 and 4 as a basis for inter- and intra- speaker variability
analysis and, crucially, as a phonological scale of measurement in terms of
individual spoken performance (in production and perception) of English in
correlation with the implementation of the PICL! embodied methodology.
One constant hindrance so far has been the gap between classwork (in terms
of lexical learning and methodological rehearsals of repetition loops and map
tasks, for example) and the spoken actuation of the pupils’ linguistic knowledge
in the various testing phases of the PICL! protocol. Two directions have already
been elaborated to avoid such a hindrance: on the one hand, to further strengthen
upstream work between teaching staff and researchers and, on the other hand, to
increase in-class articulatory and auditory body gesture support as well as semi-
autonomous distance learning sessions for pupils. In the COVID-19 context of
both Years 1 and 2 of the PICL! project, the present authors cannot but stress
the fact that more practice of the English lexicon in a spoken context is a clue
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 103

to performance and confidence in spoken English and adequate pronunciation

(whatever the Teaching/Learning pronunciation norm).
Despite the COVID-19 situation, we can also conclude positively that from
a general point of view, both experimental and control groups of learners from
Years 1 and 2 have shown eagerness in participating in a collaborative project
with their teachers and external researchers. These age groups may have played a
positive role that we may not find in the third and fourth years of our project, for
want of a renewed “magic” socio-psychological barrier.
We now turn to our initial goal of assessing the efficiency of our embodied
phonological method to support learners’ better production and perception
in spoken English. Unexpectedly, our most important finding was that pupils
who benefited from the embodied phonological method (experimental groups)
did not change their English self-efficacy beliefs over time both for general
English and for English pronunciation. But those who did not benefit from
the embodied phonology method (control groups) expressed a lower English
self-efficacy belief at the end of the year than at mid-year. This suggests that the
embodied phonology method maintained the self-efficacy beliefs. In other words,
it prevented the self-efficacy beliefs from decreasing. This is important because
many authors have shown that a high self-efficacy belief is positively associated
with high performance (e.g., Hsieh and Kang 2010; Mills, Pajares and Herron
2007).
Furthermore, and contrary to expectations, the negative emotions associated
with correct English pronunciation did not decrease after going through the
embodied method. These remained stable regardless of the groups.
Another important result is that the embodied phonological method was
perceived by the pupils as useful, user-friendly and as not too challenging in
terms of effort-making. Finally, the repetition loop exercise was perceived as
significantly more useful than the other two exercises.
The lack of effectiveness of our embodied method on pronunciation self-
efficacy beliefs can be explained by several factors: firstly, the training duration of
the embodied method was too short. More sessions are now necessary. The pursuit
of the same method with the same pupils when they are in grades 8 and 9 will
enable us to evaluate the duration necessary for the effectiveness of the method.
Secondly, it is possible that, due to their lack of expertise, 12-year-old pupils may
have difficulty assessing the correctness of their English pronunciation, which
may lead to biases in the self-efficacy beliefs to pronounce English correctly.
Our future targets in the PICL! project include collaborative work on new
educational in-class and online educational modules for Years 3 and 4 of the
project, in coherence with the interphonological table which was set up and
which serves as a basis of measurement for a spoken English production and
perception scale. Meanwhile, further individual performance measurements will
be produced on the basis of renewed linguistic data and psychological testing.
104 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

An ultimate internal criterion in the process will be the ability of pupils to

decide on the quality of their segmental and suprasegmental production within
the normative context of the classroom. At the level of psychological enquiry,
we should be able to confirm correlation levels between self-efficacy beliefs and
phonetic performance within learners on a four-year basis.

References

• ABERCROMBIE, D. (1965): “A phonetician’s view of verse structure”, in

Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics, London, Oxford University Press, p. 16-26.
• AUDETTE, L., HAMMOND, M.S. & ROCKCHESTER, N.K. (2019):
“Methodological issues with coding participants in anonymous psychological
longitudinal studies”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80, p. 163-185.
• BALLIER, N. & MARTIN P. (2015): “Speech annotation of learner corpora”, in
GRANGER S., MEUNIER, F. & GILQUIN, G. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook
of Learner Corpus Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 107-134.
• BANDURA, A. (1997): Self-efficacy. The exercise of Personal Control, New York,
Freeman.
• BARSALOU, L. (2008): “Grounded Cognition”, Annual Review of Psychology,
59, p. 617-645.
• BASSETTI, B., MAIRANO, P., MASTERSON, J. & CERNI, T. (2020): “Effects
of orthographic forms on L2 speech production and phonological awareness,
with consideration of speaker-level predictors”, Language Learning, 70.4, p. 1218-
1256.
• BILLIERES, M. (2002): “Le corps en phonétique corrective”, in RENARD,
R. (ed.), Apprentissage d’une langue étrangère seconde, 2. La phonétique verbo-
tonale, Brussels, De Boeck, p. 35-70.
• BOERSMA, P. & WEENINK, D. (2020): “Praat: doing phonetics by computer”
[Computer program]. Version 6.1.21. http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 20
September 2020).
• BORRELL, A. (1996): “Parallèle entre perception et production ? Complexité du
lien entre reconnaissance et production des unités phonético-phonologiques”, La
Linguistique, 32.2, p. 105-16.
• BOTTINEAU, D. (2010): “Language and enaction”, in STEWART, J.,
GAPENNE, O. & DI PAOLO, E. (eds.), Enaction: toward a new paradigm for
cognitive science, Cambridge, MIT Press, p. 267-306.
• CACI, H. & BAYLE, F. (2007): “L’échelle d’affectivité positive et d’affectivité
négative”, Congrès de l’Encéphale, Paris, pp. 25-27.
• CAPLIEZ, M. (2011): “Typologie des erreurs de production d’anglais des
francophones : segments vs. suprasegments”, Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques
en langues de spécialité. Cahiers de l’Apliut, 30.3, p. 44-60.
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 105

• CAPLIEZ, M. (2016): “Prosody- vs. segment-based teaching: impact on the

perceptual skills of French learners of English”, Language, Interaction and
Acquisition, 7.2, p. 212-237.
• CHAPLIER, C. (2010): “Comment susciter la prise de conscience phonologique
de l’anglais : cas d’étudiants en formation LANSAD-sciences”, Cahiers de
l’APLIUT, 29.2, p. 44-58.
• COLLINS, B. & MEES, I.M. (1999): The Real Professor Higgins: The Life and
Career of Daniel Jones, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
• CONDAMINES, A. & NARCY-COMBES, J.-P. (2015): “La linguistique
appliquée comme science située”, in CARTON, F., NARCY-COMBES, J.-P.,
NARCY-COMBES, M.-F. & TOFFOLI, D. (eds.), Cultures de recherche en
linguistique appliquée, Riveneuve éditions.
• COTS, J. M., & TUSON, A. (1994): “Language in Education: An Interview with
Leo van Lier”, Sintagma, 6, p. 51-65.
• DE COCK, S. & TYNE, H. (2014): “Corpus d’apprenants et acquisition des
langues”, Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures [Online], 11.1.
• DELHOUME, A. & FERRAGNE, E. (2018): “Influence de la posture corporelle
sur les paramètres acoustiques de la parole”, Proceedings of the XXXIIth Journées
d’Études sur la Parole, p. 568-575.
• DERWING, T.M. & MUNRO, M.J. (1997): “Accent, intelligibility, and
comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s”, Studies in second language
acquisition, 19.1, p. 1-16.
• DESCHAMPS, A., DUCHET, J-L., FOURNIER, J-M. & O’NEIL, M. (2004):
English phonology and graphophonemics, Paris, Ophrys, 225 p.
• DETEY, S., DURAND, J. & NESPOULOUS, J.-L. (2005): “Interphonologie
et représentations orthographiques : Le cas des catégories /b/ et /v/ chez des
apprenants japonais de Français Langue Etrangère”, PAROLE, Université de
Mons-Hainaut, 34-36:140-185.
• DURAND, J. (2000): “Oral, écrit et faculté de langage”, in GUILLOT, M.-N.
& KENNING, M.-M. (eds.), Changing Landscapes in Language and Language
Pedagogy, London, AFLS/CILT, p. 40-72.
• DURAND, J. (2017): “Corpus Phonology”, in ARONOFF, M. (ed.), Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 1-20.
• DURAND, J., GUT, U. & KRISTOFFERSEN, G. (2014): The Oxford Handbook
of Corpus Phonology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• DURAND, J. & LYCHE, C. (2021): “Retour sur les sons du français : La
modernité de Passy”, Journal of French Language Studies, p. 1-20.
• DURAND, J. & PRZEWOZNY, A. (2012): “La phonologie de l’anglais
contemporain: usages, variétés et structure”, Revue française de linguistique
appliquée, 1.17, p. 25-37.
• ECCLES, J.S. & WIGFIELD, A. (1995): “In the mind of the actor: The
structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs”,
Personality and social Psychology, 21, p. 215-225.
106 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

• ECKMAN, F.R. (2008): “Typological markedness and second language

phonology”, in ZAMPINI, M. & HANSEN, J. (eds.), Phonology and Second
Language Acquisition, Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 41-62.
• EYCHENNE, J. & COURDÈS-MURPHY, L. (2019): “Phonometrica: an open
platform for the analysis of speech corpora”, Proceedings of the Seoul International
Conference on Speech Sciences 2019, Seoul National University, p. 107-108.
• GILQUIN, G. & DE COCK, S. (2013): Errors and disfluencies in spoken corpora,
Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
• GLENBERG, A. M. (2011): “How reading comprehension is embodied and
why that matters. International Electronic”, Journal of Elementary Education, 4,
p. 5-18.
• GUIORA, A.Z. & ACTON, W.R. (1979): “Personality and language behavior: a
restatement 1”, Language Learning 29.1, p. 193-204.
• GUT, U. (2009): Non-native Speech. A corpus-based analysis of the phonetic and
phonological properties of L2 English and L2 German, Frankfort, Peter Lang.
• GUT, U. (2010): “Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition”,
International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, p. 19-38.
• HERMENT, S. (2021): “La map task comme support de production orale :
retour d’expérience”, Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité
[Online], 40.1.
• HERMENT, S., LOUKINA, A. & TORTEL, A. (2012): AixOx. ⟨hal-01363437⟩
• HSIEH, P.P. & KANG, H.S. (2010): “Attribution and self-efficacy and their
interrelationship in the Korean EFL context”, Language Learning, 60.3, p. 606-627.
• IONESCU, T. & VASC, D. (2014): “Embodied cognition: challenges for
psychology and education. Procedia”, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, p. 275-
280.
• JENKINS, J. (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• KENWORTHY, J. (1987): Teaching English Pronunciation. London, Longman.
• KUSHCH, O., IGUALADA, A. & PRIETO, P. (2018): “Prominence in speech
and gesture favour second language novel word learning”, Language, Cognition
and Neuroscience, p. 992-1004.
• LAPAIRE, J.-R. (2019): “Engaging the ‘learning body’ in language education”,
English and American Studies, 16 [Online].
• LLISTERRI, J. & SCHWAB, S. (2019): “Perception of lexical stress in Spanish
L2 by French Speakers”, in GIBSON, M. & GIL, J. (eds.), Romance Phonetics and
Phonology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 177-190.
• MACEDONIA, M. (2019): “Embodied learning: why at school the mind needs
the body”. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.2098.
• MAIRANO, P. & BOUZON, C. (2020): “The Interphonology – IPCE-IPAC
protocol”, IPCE-IPAC Workshop, STL & University of Lille.
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 107

• MAIRANO, P., BOUZON, C., CAPLIEZ, M. & DE IACOVO, V. (2019):

“Acoustic distances, Pillai scores and LDA classification scores as metrics of L2
comprehensibility and nativelikeness”. Proceedings of ICPhS2019 (International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences), p. 1104-1108.
• MENNEN, I. (2006): “Phonetic and phonological influences in non-native
intonation: an overview for language teachers”, QMUC Speech Science Research
Centre Working Paper, 9, p. 1-18.
• MILLS, N., PAJARES, F. & HERRON, C. (2006): “A reevaluation of the role
of anxiety: self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening
proficiency”, Foreign Language Annals, 39.2, p. 276-294.
• MILLS, N., PAJARES, F. & HERRON, C. (2007): “Self-efficacy of college
intermediate French students: relation to achievement and motivation”, Language
Learning, 57.3, p. 417-442.
• MUKHERJEE, J. & HUNDT, M. (2011): Exploring second-language varieties
of English and Learner Englishes: bridging a paradigm gap, Amsterdam, John
Benjamins.
• NUNNALLY, J.C. (1978): Psychometric theory, 2nd edition, New York, McGraw-
Hill.
• PRZEWOZNY, A., VIOLLAIN, C. & NAVARRO, S. (eds), (2020): The Corpus
Phonology of English: Multifocal analyses of variation, Edinburgh, Edinburgh
University Press.
• PRZEWOZNY, A. & HUET, N. (2020): “Phonologie incarnée de l’anglais et
sentiment d’auto-efficacité en contexte d’apprentissage-enseignement chez des
collégiens”, Baby-TaLC E-GRAPHELES 2020 – Corpus pour l’apprentissage-
enseignement des langues : prise en compte des données, méthodologies et
applications, U. de Perpignan Via Domitia.
• RAOOFI, S., HOON TAN, B. & HENG CHAN, S. (2012): “Self-efficacy in
second/foreign language learning contexts”, English Language Teaching, 5,
p. 60-73.
• ROACH, P. (2009): English Phonetics and Phonology. A Practical Course,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• SARDEGNA, V.G., LEE, J. & KUSEY, C. (2018): “Self-efficacy, attitudes, and
choices of strategies for English pronunciation learning”, Language Learning, 68,
p. 83-114.
• SAWYER, S., AZZOPARDI, P.S., WICKREMARATHNE, D. & PATTON, G.C.
(2018): “The age of adolescence”, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2.3,
p. 223-228.
• SCHWARZER, R. & JERUSALEM, M. (1995): “Generalized self-efficacy
scale”, in WEINMAN, J., WRIGHT, S. & JOHNSTON, M. (eds.), Measures in
health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, Windsor, NFER-
NELSON, p. 35-37.
108 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

• SKELA, J. (2019): “A journey through the landscapes of language education”, in

KOSTOULAS, A. (ed.), Challenging Boundaries in Language Education. Second
Language Learning and Teaching. Cham, Springer, p. 15-32.
• SKULMOWSKI, A. & REY, G.D. (2018): “Embodied learning: introducing a
taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration”, Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications, 3.6, p. 1-10.
• SMITH, L.E. & NELSON, C.L. (2009): “World Englishes and issues of
intelligibility”, in The Handbook of World Englishes, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell,
p. 428-445.
• TELLIER, M. (2008): “The effect of gestures on second language memorization
by young children”, in GULLBERG, M., & DE BOT, K. (eds.), Special issue
Gestures in language development, Gesture, 8.2, p. 219-235.
• THOMPSON, H. et al. (1993): “The HCRC map task corpus: natural dialogue
for speech recognition”, Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop
Held at Plainsboro, New Jersey.
• TILFARLIOĞLU, F.T. & CIFTCI, F.S. (2011): “Supporting self-efficacy and
learner autonomy in relation to academic success in EFL classrooms (a case
study)”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1.10, p. 1284-1294.
• TORTEL, A. (2008): “ANGLISH : base de données comparatives L1 & L2 de
l’anglais lu, répété et parlé”, Travaux Interdisciplinaires du Laboratoire Parole et
Langage d’Aix-en-Provence (TIPA), 27, p. 111-122.
• VOISE, A.-M. (2019): “Pourquoi et comment entraîner l’écoute d’une autre
langue à l’école primaire ?”, Conférence De la découverte à l’appropriation des
langues vivantes étrangères, CNESCO, p. 58-65.
• WANG, J., SPENCER, K. & XING, M. (2009): “Metacognitive beliefs and
strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language”, System, 37, p. 46-56.
• WARREN, W. (2006): “The dynamics of perception and action”, Psychological
Review, 113.2, p. 358-89.
• ZHENG, Y. (2008): “Anxiety and Second/Foreign Language Learning”,
Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1, p. 1-12.
• ZHENG, A., HIRATA, Y. & KELLEY, S.D. (2018): “Exploring the effects of
imitating hand gestures and head nods on L1 and L2 Mandarin Tone Production”,
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61.9, p. 2179-2195.
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 109

Appendix
1: A questionnaire assessing motivational and
emotional variables (Source: PICL! project)
Questionnaire
“Ci-dessous, on va te demander de répondre à une série d’affirmations.
Indique à quel point chaque affirmation proposée correspond à toi. Il n’y a pas de bonnes ou
de mauvaises réponses, réponds le plus spontanément possible !!! Mets une croix dans la case
qui correspond le plus à toi ! (Échelle de réponse de pas du tout vrai pour moi (1) à tout à fait
vrai pour moi (6))
Interest
J’aime prononcer les mots en anglais
J’adore parler anglais en prononçant bien les mots
Les cours d’anglais sont très motivants
Perceived usefulness
Je pense que prononcer correctement l’anglais m’aidera plus tard dans ma vie
Je pense que prononcer correctement l’anglais me sera utile pour l’année prochaine
Je pense que prononcer correctement l’anglais me sera utile quand je serai au lycée et
plus tard.
Emotional variable (échelle de réponse pas du tout d’accord (1) à tout à fait d’accord (6))
Quand tu dois prononcer des mots en anglais, indique comment tu te sens
Je suis anxieux(se)
Je suis tendu(e) quand je dois prononcer des mots en anglais
Je suis nerveux(e) quand je dois prononcer des mots en anglais
Je suis excité(e) quand je dois prononcer des mots en anglais
J’ai peur de mal prononcer les mots en anglais.
English Self-efficacy beliefs
Indique à quel point chaque affirmation proposée correspond à toi. Il n’y a pas de bonnes ou de
mauvaises réponses, réponds le plus spontanément possible !!! Coche la case qui correspond le
plus à toi ! (Échelle de pas du tout vrai pour moi (1) à tout à fait vrai pour moi (6))
Je crois que j’aurais une excellente note en anglais à l’oral
Je suis sûr(e) que je suis capable de prononcer correctement les mots les plus difficiles
en anglais
Je sais que je peux apprendre à prononcer correctement les mots en anglais
Self-efficacy beliefs related to confidence in succeeding English pronunciation
Indique à quel point tu penses être certain de réussir à prononcer correctement l’anglais. Il n’y
a pas de bonnes ou de mauvaises réponses, réponds le plus spontanément possible !!! Coche la
case qui correspond le plus à ta certitude de réussir. (Échelle de réponse de pas du tout sûr (1)
à tout à fait sûr (6))
110 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

2: A sociolinguistic semi-guided conversation in French

(Source: PICL! project)
Fiche d’information - © PAC-PICL 2021
Date de l’enregistrement : .......................................................................
Prénom de l’informateur : ......................................................................
Identifiant PAC : ......................................................................................
Âge : ............................................................................................................
Genre : ☐ fille ☐ garçon
Lieu de naissance : ...................................................................................
Lieu d’habitation (village, ville, quartier etc.): .....................................
Langue maternelle : .................................................................................
Pratique d’un instrument de musique (ou chant) oui/non
depuis quand ....................................................................................
Autres langues pratiquées :
Langue 2 Lieu de pratique Niveau de pratique Fréquence de pratique
☐ à la maison, noyau familial ☐ basique ☐ rarement
☐ dans un centre linguistique ☐ intermédiaire ☐ souvent
☐ autre : ................................ ☐ courant ☐ tous les jours
Langue 3 Lieu de pratique Niveau de pratique Fréquence de pratique
☐ à la maison, noyau familial ☐ basique ☐ rarement
☐ dans un centre linguistique ☐ intermédiaire ☐ souvent
☐ autre : ................................ ☐ courant ☐ tous les jours
Langue 4 Lieu de pratique Niveau de pratique Fréquence de pratique
☐ à la maison, noyau familial ☐ basique ☐ rarement
☐ dans un centre linguistique ☐ intermédiaire ☐ souvent
☐ autre : ................................ ☐ courant ☐ tous les jours
Père de l’informateur :
Origine géographique : ...........................................................................
Métier ou autre activité : .........................................................................
Langue(s) parlée(s) : ................................................................................
Mère de l’informateur :
Origine géographique : ...........................................................................
Métier ou autre activité : .........................................................................
Langue(s) parlée(s) : ................................................................................
Qui joue ou a joué un grand rôle dans l’apprentissage de la langue maternelle/le cas
échéant d’une langue 2, 3, 4 (grand parents, nounou etc.) : ...............
Métadonnées de l’enregistrement
Nom de l’enquêteur : ...............................................................................
Longueur de l’enregistrement : ..............................................................
Contexte de l’enregistrement (lieu, salle, interruptions etc.) : ...........
Informateurs du binôme de la maptask :
Informateur 1 : .........................................................................................
Informateur 2 : .........................................................................................
 Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 111

3: Reading task: two wordlists in English

(Source: PICL! Project)
1. pic 20. four
2. pe1 21. for
3. pal 22. nose
4. pot 23. knows
5. put 24. start
6. far 25. horse
7. more 26. word
8. feel 27. short
9. bird 28. sport
10. board 29. next
11. plant 30. here
12. after 31. there
13. aune 32. merry
14. dance 33. sorry
15. father 34. scory
16. poor 35. hurry
17. pause 36. earth
18. wait 37. look
19. side 38. room
Wordlist l ©PAC-PICL 2021
1. bal
2. duck
3. fan
4. van
5. this
6. heart
7. badge
8. run
9. Jack
10. rack
11. wet
12. yet
13. witch
14. rubber
15. little
16. bigger
17. fat
18. bar
19. church
20. judge
Wordlist 2 ©PAC-PICL 2021
112 Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny

4: Conversation task: Maptasks (Source: PICL! Project)

Maptask 1: Leader (Source: PICL! Project)
Maptask 2: Follower (Source: PICL! Project)
Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs 113
 The Impact of Day-to-
Day Use of Multimedia by
L2 Learners of English on the
Comprehension of Regional
Varieties

KIZZI EDENSOR-COSTILLE♦

T raditionally, the teaching of British English in SLA has been centred around
Received Pronunciation (RP), with learners of English rarely exposed to
other accents. It was generally assumed that L2 learners understand the standard
accent more easily than other regional, ethnic or even international accents. The
first studies to test the intelligibility of the RP accent were carried out in the early
2000s.
Several linguists have questioned the status of RP as a model in L2 learning
and the changes it has undergone that are not always reflected in teaching,
while others have commented on the difficulty for L2 learners to comprehend
or acquire RP (Abercrombie, 1956; Wells, 1982; Foulkes and Docherty, 1999;
Jenkins, 2000). Wells (1982) suggests that learners use certain features from other
varieties, deemed easier to pronounce (e.g., use of /l/ vocalization, instead of dark
L). Other linguists have suggested using another accent as a reference model
(Abercrombie, 1956) or to simply focus on features essential for intelligibility
as presented in the lingua franca core (Jenkins, 2000). Some examples of the
latter are the simplification of consonant clusters, vowel length distinctions and
focusing on nuclear stress (Jenkins, 2000).
Attitudes towards regional varieties have also been progressively changing,
be it towards regional accents in the UK—with increasing acceptance of non-
RP speakers in the media—or a general shift towards the acquiescence of other
accents of English by universities (Glain, 2020). For example, in France, more and

♦ Kizzi Edensor-Costille, Université de Caen Normandie, EA 4255 CRISCO.

ranam n°55 /2022

116 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

more universities offer syllabi on regional accents, and it is no longer an absolute

prerequisite for French learners of English to aim for an RP accent (Rapport de
jury CAPES; Mioche 2015).
The boom of the Internet and consequential digital media usage (Reyna et al.,
2018) has completely transformed the way we teach and learn English. Nowadays,
listening to English, and even speaking or writing it, is only a click away, but has
this transformation impacted L2 acquisition?
For native listeners, linguistic variation due to regional accents is perceived and
generally understood in everyday language situations but what happens when the
listener is a non-native? Can they deal with the variation and understand regional
varieties? Has increased input from day-to-day use of multimedia improved the
ability of French learners of English to process and comprehend English accents?

Perception and Comprehension

Learning how variation in speech is perceived and comprehended is necessary

to understand the process of learners’ perception of L2 speech. The way listeners
deal with less familiar accents can provide a more general understanding of
perception as a cognitive process.
Several studies have examined how L2 learners adapt to certain sources
of variability, but for many years, research on non-natives’ speech perception
focused on the perception of their accent by natives. Bradlow and Pisoni (1998)
found that L2 listeners were not more susceptible to speaker variability effects
than L1 listeners and that L2 listeners even performed better than native listeners
on intelligibility tasks involving L2 speech. However, L2 learners may encounter
difficulties when confronted with strongly accented speech (Bent and Bradlow,
2003) which can be less intelligible than speech from one’s own dialect or accent
group. These researchers claim that listeners who have the same native language
all have the same “interlanguage” (Bent and Bradlow, 2003:1600) in an L2 and
because of their specific interlanguage, they may find certain features of speech
or accent, more (or less) intelligible than other listeners with a different native
language. In terms of speech intelligibility, the listener-speaker relationship must
be taken into consideration.

Comprehending and Processing Accented Speech

One of the first studies to evaluate the intelligibility of RP asked listeners from
Singapore and Britain to orthographically transcribe English spoken by a near RP
speaker and a Singaporean speaker (Fraser Gupta, 2005). The results confirmed that
it is easier to cope with a familiar accent. However, comprehending an unfamiliar
accent led to mixed results, some listeners being more skilled than others.
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 117

Another study examined the comprehension of 3 accents: Cambridge, Cardiff

and Belfast from the IViE corpus (Intonational Variation in English), by 3 groups
of listeners (Ikeno and Hanson, 2007). The first group was a mixed group of
L2s with various L1s (Chinese, Croatian, German, and Japanese), the other 2
groups were native speakers: 1 British group and 1 American. It was concluded
that overall transcription accuracy is affected by the listeners’ nativeness to
the language. The L2 listeners correctly transcribed 48% of what they heard,
compared to 78% for the British group and 82% by the Americans. The Cardiff
accent was the most comprehensible for the L2 group (58%), followed by the
Cambridge accent (44%) whereas the other 2 groups understood over 80% of
the Cambridge and Cardiff accents. In 2010, Edensor showed similar results (cf.
§2.3 Results for full discussion). A recent study that tested 12 native Chinese
listeners on speech-in-noise recognition of 13 different accents (Pinet et al., 2019)
concluded that the standard accents (RP and General American) were the most
intelligible.
Floccia et al. (2006) suggest that it is familiarity with a regional accent that
determines sentence processing, not specific accent features. The notion of
familiarity is often evoked when processing non-native speech.
Research on L2 accent adaptation indicates that processing costs should
eventually decrease after exposure to the accent has been sufficient to allow for
complete adaptation (Munro and Derwing, 1995; Clarke and Garrett, 2004).
There is normally a processing cost in spoken word recognition, but it is possible
to adapt after several sentences. Adaptation results from the combination of
a two-stage normalization process: first, comprehension is disrupted while
listeners adjust to local parameters, then adaptation takes place. However, full
accent adaptation is not always ensured. Dupoux and Green (1997) also suggest
that adaptation (to compressed speech) results from the combined action of two
mechanisms. First, a short-term adjustment to local speech parameters, followed
by a long-term learning process where phonological and lexical information
are encoded. According to these authors, this kind of mechanism also allows
adaptation to a regional or foreign accent.
Clarke and Garret (2004) argue that accents can be ranked on a perceptual
scale according to their acoustic distance from the native language. Non-native
accents are at one end, standard accents are at the other, and regional accents are
somewhere in the middle. This implies that the same processes are used for both
accented and non-accented speech and the extent of accent-related processing
effects simply reflect the accents’ distance from the native language or accent of
the listener. Other research has reached similar conclusions observing that when
the listener hears speech which is considerably different from their own category
prototypes, the listener must work harder to decode the message and therefore
it may take longer (Evans and Iverson, 2004; Larraza and Best, 2018; Munro and
Derwing, 1995).
118 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

Bond (2005) explains that misperceptions or ‘slips of the ear’ (Bond, 2005:
298) between natives of different dialects, or when listening to an L2 accent, are
often due to connected speech phenomena such as word boundaries, elision or
assimilation. She states that slips of the ear can take 2 forms: the listeners perceive
the phonetic detail correctly but retrieve something other than the original
utterance or listeners compensate incorrectly or over-compensate because of the
speaker’s accent characteristics.
Understanding the stream of speech can be problematic for L2 learners,
whatever the accent. The actual technique of learning to listen (and comprehend)
natural speech is not always taught in SLA. As teachers, we must be conscious
of our own speech or at least, how we modify it when teaching, be it by toning
down an accent or reducing our speaking rate. Recent work on the speech stream
by (Cauldwell, 2013) gives the metaphor of greenhouse, garden and jungle to
describe the different types of speech. The greenhouse and garden are said to be
careful speech models, the first is mainly made up of citation forms, the latter, is
governed by connected speech rules whereas the jungle is spontaneous, messy
and unpredictable. Teacherese or teacher talk (Håkansson, 1987), greenhouse or
garden (Cauldwell, 2013) simply do not reflect everyday speech. They can seem
necessary at the beginning of acquisition but, in the long run, do not help learners
decipher the message in the stream of speech.
Most linguists concur that when it comes to an unfamiliar accent, we are
dealing with degrees of skill of the listener, with some listeners being simply more
capable than others of mapping unfamiliar varieties onto their phonology in order
to comprehend the intended message. According to Rost (1990:129), ‘the listener
does not receive meaning, but rather constructs meaning’. The listener must deal
with new and old information and update their cognitive representation as the
speaker talks, even if their understanding is flawed or incomplete.

Digital Media and the Internet: Learning Through

Multimedia

In an article from 2009, Mayor cites the findings of Pérez Basanta (2000)
who noted that ‘most Spanish students are hardly exposed to the oral form of
English in or outside the classroom, which would account for their poor listening
proficiency’ (Mayor, 2009:110). A parallel may be drawn between this situation
and the one in France. Over the last decade, major technological changes and
affordable access to computers, smartphones and tablets have changed the way
we communicate, socialise and also learn. Nowadays, just with a smartphone,
it is possible to stream or make videos, watch films, connect to online classes—
basically, to communicate with anyone, anywhere. In 2014, Robertson found that
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 119

300 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube every minute (Robertson, 2014
cited in Reyna et al., 2018).
This digital revolution has had a global and consequential effect on L2 learning,
with the type and amount of varied input learners get inside but also outside the
classroom only a click away. Major advances in speech technology have led
to the increasing use of language software and technology, such as computer
assisted language learning (CALL) and computer-assisted pronunciation training
(CAPT). Several studies have shown that using multimedia contributes to the
learners’ comprehension of acoustic input and has the added benefit of presenting
authentic speech (King, 2002; Chung, 2017; Fouz-González, 2015).
In the same way that researchers in speech perception argue that increased
exposure to different types of speech variation improves processing, many
specialists in SLA believe that input is key and that wide exposure to the L2 can
impact the level of acquisition (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1985; Flege, 2009). Bongaerts
(1999) confirms that L2 Dutch learners of English became highly proficient when
3 factors were combined: “high motivation, continued access to massive L2 input,
and intensive training in the perception and production of L2 speech sounds”
(Bongaerts, 1999:155). Researchers, such as Cutler (2000) suggest that using
intensive listening training to decrease the influence of the L1 on L2 processing
is beneficial to L2 learners.
It could be said that continuously listening to L2 input, even without careful
listening, is a type of ubiquitous learning. One meaningful definition is given by
Bruce:

Learning occurs not just in classrooms, but in the home, the

workplace, the playground, the library, museum, and nature center,
and in our daily interactions with others. Moreover, learning
becomes part of doing; we don’t learn in order to live more fully,
but rather learn as we live to the fullest. Learning is through active
engagement, and significantly, is no longer identified with reading
a text or listening to lectures, but rather occurs through all the
senses […]. (Bruce, 2008:583)

With the rise of available input, we believe that ubiquitous learning is becoming a
common phenomenon, i.e., L2 learners increase their familiarity and experience
of a language simply by listening to different types of speech and variation.
Scandinavian populations, who have been watching undubbed television for
decades and are generally proficient in both speaking and comprehending
English can be seen as a good example of ubiquitous learning. This type of
unconscious learning corresponds to what teachers and researchers advocate—
input (listening) is essential, and especially effective in reducing the influence of
the L1 on L2 processing. Thanks to the Internet, resources are abundant, varied
120 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

and readily available. Multimedia resources provide a never-ending source of

authentic English where it is possible to hone into linguistic and paralinguistic
features. They offer the possibility of learning differently in the classroom but
also, and maybe most importantly, outside the classroom. Nowadays, any
learner can turn on the TV or computer and hear English. The soar in available
multimedia could be said to have democratized language learning, positively
affecting all aspects of L2 learning. The question remains to determine if it has
improved their comprehension of English regional accents. Are French learners
of English better equipped to deal with variation in speech? Does day-to-day use
of multimedia in English impact their comprehension?

The Initial Study (2009)

The main aim of the experiment was to evaluate L2 learners’ comprehension

of 9 regional accents.

Stimuli and Procedure

The read passage of the Cinderella story from the IViE corpus was used
for this experiment. The accents are Cambridge (near RP), London (Jamaican
bilinguals), Liverpool (S), Leeds (L), Bradford (Punjabi bilinguals), Cardiff
(Welsh bilinguals), Newcastle (N), Belfast (B) and Malahide (Dublin). The
passage was segmented into short (4-9 syllables), medium (10-14 syllables) and
long utterances (15-24 syllables). The initials of each accent (in bold) correspond
to the abbreviations indicated in the IViE corpus and in the graphs below.
Prior to this experiment, a study was conducted to identify the most
characteristic speaker from each variety. This enabled us to select 1 speaker per
accent. Then, 3 sentences were selected for each accent, attempting to include the
most inherent features. For example, the use of [x] instead of /k/ in the Liverpool
accent, /t/ and /d/ instead of /θ/ and /ð/ in the Dublin variety, L-vocalisation in
the London accent, etc (see Wells (1982), volume II, for a full account of accents
from the British Isles). The main aim of the experiment was to determine how
these typical regional pronunciations impacted comprehension, we therefore
tried to include as many as possible in the sentences selected. We also tried to
choose relatively frequent words (again, within the lexicon of Cinderella’s story).
Here are a few examples of the sentences in the experiment:

C: But he held on to the slipper.

J: The glass slipper was his only clue.
N: ‘Oh dear!’ she sighed.
L: But the slipper was always too small.
W: It was her fairy godmother!
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 121

Once the sentences had been chosen, the volume of the recordings was
harmonised to 60-75 decibels.
Each participant completed a questionnaire giving information on their
general background, and their habits and uses of English. 3 factors were
established as having a possible positive impact on comprehension: the amount
of time spent in an Anglophone country, the number of years spent studying
English and the frequency of watching media in English (possible answers were:
rarely, sometimes, often, and systematically). Regarding input, the questions
focused on how often they watched films or series in English. Participants were
not asked to quantify the number of hours per week because in 2009, media was
not readily available in English, and was mostly dubbed in French.
Lancelot, in the Perceval Package (a Computer-Driven System for
Experimentation on Auditory and Visual Perception) was used for this experiment
as it enables participants to progress at their own pace. The subjects were asked to
orthographically transcribe 27 utterances (3 per accent) and could listen to each
a maximum of four times. The listeners never heard the same speaker or accent
consecutively and none reported having hearing impairments.

Participants
2 groups participated in this experiment. The first (Grp1_09), is made up of
19 undergraduates enrolled in a BA of English. Their average age was 20 years
old and they had studied English for 9.1 years (average). 1 out of 2 had spent at
least a week in an English-speaking country and the average length of stay was
3 months. Almost all said they watched films in English ‘sometimes’. This group
was not familiar with any of the regional accents.
The second (Grp2_09), composed of 6 graduates whose average age was 26.6
years old and who had studied English for 12.8 years (average). All participants
had spent time in an English-speaking country, they therefore had slightly more
experience with some regional accents. The average length of stay was 5.2 months.
4 out of 6 watched films in English ‘systematically’.

Results

Following guidelines set out in previous studies (Fraser Gupta, 2005; Ikeno
and Hansen, 2007), the number of correctly transcribed words was counted,
giving a total out of 260 words. There was no penalty for the insertion of words
nor for spelling mistakes, compounds and contractions were classified as two
words.
122 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

Figure 1: Percentage of words correctly transcribed in 2009 by Grp1_09 and Grp2_09

As can be seen in Figure 1, comprehension is heavily impeded by the variation in

speech, but to different extents, depending on the accent. The overall percentage
of comprehension is 46.74% for Grp1_09, and 60.90% for Grp2_09. This result
indicates that experience (for example, through years of study) facilitates
processing regional accents in an L2. Nevertheless, the comprehension levels are
low in many accents, particularly for Grp1_09.
The results show that the number of correctly transcribed words is highest in
the Cardiff (W) accent for both groups: Grp1_09 - 84.05% and Grp2_09 - 93.23%
(difference between the 2 groups: 9.18 percentage points). For the Cambridge
(C) accent, the difference between the 2 groups is higher (18.98 percentage
points) and correct transcription for Grp1_09 is 68.25%, with Grp2_09 correctly
transcribing more words: 87.22%. It was expected that the Cambridge accent
be the most comprehended accent for 2 reasons; firstly, it is the variety that is
phonologically closest to the RP accent, secondly, RP is the variety with which L2
learners in France are a priori, the most familiar. The Liverpool (S) accent was the
third most comprehended accent by both groups: 57.26% (Grp1_09) and 74.67%
(Grp2_09).
For the accents, London (J), Newcastle (N) and Leeds (L) the level of
comprehension was inferior to 50%, in other words, all participants understood
less than 1 out of 2 words. Newcastle and Leeds had the lowest scores in both
groups: for Grp1_09: (N) - 24.67%; (L) - 25.09%, Grp2_09 did slightly better: (N)
- 36.46%; (L) - 33.33%. For these 2 accents, comprehension is clearly impeded.
Grp2_09 generally performed better than Grp1_09 because, except for J, N, and
L, Grp2_09 correctly transcribed over 50% of the words in the other accents.
This tendency suggests that the graduates—who studied for a longer period and
had more experience with English in general—were better equipped to deal with
variation than the undergraduates. For example, levels of comprehension were
inferior to 50% in 6 out of 9 accents for Grp1_09, whereas for Grp2_09 only 3
out of 9 were comprehended less than 50%. For Grp1_09, 3 accents (in order: P,
J, M) were understood 40% or less and their levels of comprehension fell below
30% when listening to the Leeds and Newcastle accents (L: 25.09 and N: 24.67).
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 123

Interestingly, the levels of intelligibility of both groups were the highest for the
same 3 accents (W, C, S), and the lowest for the same 2 accents (L, N), leading us
to think that both groups processed the accents in a similar way.
Now that levels of comprehension have been determined for each accent,
we turn to the 3 factors established as potentially having a positive impact on
comprehension: the amount of time spent in an Anglophone country, the number
of years spent studying English and how often they watched media in English.

Figure 2: The impact of years of study, time abroad in an English-speaking country and
frequency of watching films or series on the comprehension of regional accent by all the
participants.

Figure 2 regroups the participants (Grp1_09 and Grp2_09) altogether in order

to provide an overview of the impact of these factors on comprehension. The
comprehension levels that may be explained by time spent abroad are shown in
blue, in green are the number of years of study and in orange, the frequency of
watching or listening to media in English. As can be seen, the results are quite
dispersed, but seem to indicate a general tendency regarding their effect on
comprehension. For example, the green dots (corresponding to number of years
of study) show that comprehension is low (<50%) for most participants who
studied for less than 10 years. However, comprehension levels start to increase
for those who studied English for over 10 years. Time spent abroad has a slightly
more positive effect on comprehension, but is duration-sensitive, signifying that
most comprehension levels are 50% and above when the listener spent over a
month in an Anglophone country. Multimedia input has a positive effect when
done often to systematically, otherwise there is no effect.
124 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

This points to a homogeneous conclusion—the longer the amount of time

spent doing any of these activities, the easier comprehension of regional accents
is. In 2009, the task of comprehending regional English accents was difficult for
French learners of English—especially for undergraduates. Students who have
more experience; be it through the number of years spent studying English, the
frequency of input through the means of multimedia or the length of time spent
in an Anglophone country correctly transcribed more words. The participants
were able to compensate for this variation more efficiently and retrieve the
spoken message because they are more accustomed to dealing with the English
language.
These results reveal the difficulties of French learners of English in
comprehending regional variation in speech. However, a decade later, has
comprehension improved? Is the level of understanding impacted by day-to-day
use of multimedia?

The Present Study (2019)

In an age when many L2 learners get at least some of their input from
TV series, films or YouTube videos, French natives are increasingly exposed
to different English accents and types of speech. We therefore expect their
familiarity and experience with regional accents to have increased, but can the
same be said for their comprehension?

Material and Procedure

We propose replicating the same experiment to evaluate comprehension and
to determine the impact of multimedia input in English on the comprehension
of these 9 accents. 2 other factors (length of stay and years of studying) are also
examined. Each participant could listen to each stimulus a maximum 4 times (in
Lancelot). They orthographically transcribed the same 27 sentences taken from
the IViE corpus, using the same speakers.
Prior to the experiment, each participant filled out a questionnaire about their
background and English usage—more specifically, how frequently they listened
to English via multimedia. The participants were asked to provide information
about the number of hours per week spent listening to or watching multimedia.
This included 3 sub-categories: watching TV series and films; viewing YouTube
channels; interacting in English whilst playing video games or on social media,
thus providing information about frequency but also hours per week for each
specific activity.
To compare these results with the 2009 results, Figure 4 is presented using
frequency (rarely, sometimes, often, systematically) of watching media in
English. Once the results from both studies have been presented, we shall then
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 125

examine the number of hours spent on the different multimedia activities per
sub-category, and their impact on comprehension in 2019. This will enable us to
determine if, for example, interacting during video games/on social media has a
greater effect on the comprehension of regional accents than viewing YouTube
videos or watching films/series. In Figures 4 and 5, the participants (Grp1_19 and
Grp2_19) are grouped together and considered as one population of L2 learners.

Participants
There are two groups of learners of English: one group of 12 French
undergraduates (Grp.1_19) and a group of 8 French graduates (Grp2_19). None
reported having hearing impairments.
The average age for Grp1_19 was 21.2 years old; they had, on average, studied
English for 12.8 years. All had been to an English-speaking country (average 20.25
days). The questionnaire revealed that the average multimedia input in English
per week was 29.02 hours. This corresponds to an average, per week, of 9 hours
15 minutes watching films/series in English, 3 hours 16 minutes on YouTube and
16 hours 30 minutes playing video games or on social media.
For Grp2_19, the average age and time spent studying was 25.3 years old and
13.2 years, respectively. All had been to an English-speaking country (average
5.75 months). On average for this group, multimedia input in English totalled
11 hours 17 minutes per week. The amount of time spent (on average, weekly) on
each of the sub-categories was 5 hours 34 minutes watching films/series, 4 hours
38 minutes on YouTube and 1 hour 5 minutes on video games/social media.

Results
Grp1_19 correctly transcribed 61.70% of all words and Grp2_19 - 67.86%.
Figure 3 shows that comprehension levels are accent-dependent i.e., there is
much disparity between accents, some are easier to understand than others.

Figure 3: Percentage of words correctly transcribed in 2019 by Grp1_19 and Grp2_19

126 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

The Cardiff (W) accent was the best comprehended: in Grp1_19, 93.75% of
the words were correctly transcribed, 92.71% in Grp2_19. The second best
understood accent was Cambridge: Grp2_19 understood 89.63% and Grp1_19
(85.83%). The accent with the third highest comprehension score was Liverpool:
Grp1_19 (78%) and Grp2_19 (80.44%). As can be seen in Figure 3, the 2 groups
have similar comprehension levels.
Out of the 9 accents, only 2 (J and N) were understood less than 50%. When
listening to the Newcastle accent Grp2_19 comprehended slightly more words
(44.1%) than Grp1_19 (39.32), making it the least comprehensible.
The 9 accents are understood in exactly the same order: W, C, S, B, P, M, L, J,
N, but Grp2_19 generally transcribed more words correctly than Grp1_19.
In Figure 4, the impact on comprehension of 3 factors can be seen. For
this graph, the participants have been grouped together to determine possible
tendencies.

Figure 4: The impact of years of study, time abroad (English-speaking country) and
frequency of watching films or series on the comprehension of regional accent by all the
participants (Grp1_19 and Grp2_19).

It can be noted that the number of years spent studying (in green) has little effect
on comprehension, i.e., those who studied for the longest did not systematically
have higher comprehension. As for length of stay (in blue), the levels of
comprehension of those who spent little time abroad (<1 month) and those
who spent more than a month are comparable, signifying that this factor is not
duration dependent. However, the last factor in this graph, in orange (frequency
of input) has a positive effect but is duration dependent. Most participants who
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 127

watched ‘sometimes’ or more frequently, scored around 60% and comprehension

levels rose to 75% and above for roughly half of the participants who watched
‘systematically’. In 2009, participants generally had to watch media ‘often’ or
‘systematically’ to understand over 50% of the stimuli.

Figure 5: The impact of video games/social media, YouTube videos and films/TV series
on the comprehension of regional accent by all the participants.

In Figure 5, the impact of the multimedia sub-categories on comprehension can

be seen. These include the number of hours per week spent interacting on video
games and social media (in blue), viewing YouTube videos (orange) and watching
TV series or films (green). It indicates that watching films/TV series has the
greatest impact on comprehension levels. Comprehension is 60% or more when
participants watch, on average, 5 hours per week, rising up to 70% or more when
listeners watch 10 hours a week—which seems like an ideal amount for maximum
impact. It appears that most participants who watched at least 2.5 hours a week,
comprehended 50% or more. Comprehension is less impacted by video games/
social media input, i.e., there is not much difference between those who spent no
time and those who spent 20+ hours. As for watching YouTube videos, the impact
is small and may be duration dependent. It is possibly more difficult to determine
a tendency because the participants spent less time doing these activities. Overall,
there are more participants who spent time on the various activities and whose
comprehension levels are above 60% than there are under 50%.
128 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of this article is twofold: to assess non-native listeners’ capacity to
comprehend British and Irish accents, and to determine if multimedia input via
the Internet, influences comprehension.
Two experiments were carried out on 4 groups of French learners of English.
The first (2009), revealed that this type of variation in speech is difficult to
process and understand. The overall percentage of comprehension was 46.74%
for Grp1_09, and 60.90% for Grp2_09. The most successful were those who had
studied the longest and watched media in English systematically. The general
tendency indicates that of the 3 factors (length of stay in an English-speaking
country, number of years of study and frequency of media input in English),
years of study and media had the greatest impact, but were duration-sensitive
i.e., comprehension increased proportionally with the amount of time. However,
these results show that comprehension of regional accents was greatly impeded,
especially for Grp1_09 who globally comprehended less than 1 out of 2 words.
In comparison, the levels of comprehension in 2019 had significantly
improved: Grp1_19 understood 61.70% of the entire stimuli, 67.86% for Grp2_19.
This indicates that out of the 2 groups, the most proficient group comprehended
slightly better. This confirms the result found in 2009, albeit to a lesser extent,
that the number of years spent studying impacts comprehension, thus suggesting
that experience with a language (through years of study) can facilitate processing
variation in speech in an L2.
We noted that watching films/TV series has an impact on comprehension
and the other 2 factors (YouTube and video games) can be beneficial, but their
impact is less systematic. One of the current questions in research is the impact of
multisensorial input and the positive effect it can have on L2 learning. Our results
seem to confirm that watching and listening to media impacts comprehension.
Similarly, research on ubiquitous learning claims that we learn through all our
senses, from everything around us, during work and play. These 2 concepts may
partially explain our results on media. A simple explanation lies in multimedia
availability, increased L2 input leads to a more experienced L2 learner and
decreases L1 interference during L2 processing.
In both 2009 and 2019, the most comprehended accent (Cardiff) was not one
the participants were familiar with prior to the experiment. This is consistent
with previous results that used the same corpus (Ikeno and Hanson, 2007). The
selected speaker had quite slow and careful speech which means there are less
connected speech features, thus making it particularly clear and comprehensible.
We noted that Bond (2005) found that most slips of the ear are due to connected
speech phenomena causing listeners to compensate inaccurately, as we found
especially in 2009. Most French listeners misperceived the same segments and
words and proposed the same orthographic transcription. For example, and her
was perceived as under. This persisted to a lesser degree in 2019 and the increased
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 129

amount of authentic English input in 2019 had multiple beneficial effects, one of
which was the listeners’ capability to correctly segment the stream of speech and
comprehend weak forms. It remains clear that teachers must continue to focus
on teaching the schwa in order to decrease this sort of comprehension difficulty.
Another reason could be linked to rhythm—the Welsh accent in English, just
like the Welsh language, is said to be syllable-timed rather than stress-timed. For
L2 learners whose L1 is also syllable-timed this similarity in rhythm may explain
better comprehension. Research has shown that an L2 is processed in terms of
category prototypes of the L1. (Clarke and Garret, 2004, Larraza and Best, 2018,
Munro and Derwing, 1995), therefore making it easier for a listener to perceive
and comprehend a language which is rhythmically closer to their L1.
The Cambridge accent (near RP) was well understood in both experiments.
However, it was expected to be the most comprehensible, such as it is presented
in the EFL literature. Moreover, this is the reference accent taught in French
universities, making it the variety with which participants were thought to be the
most familiar.
Out of the 9 accents, Liverpudlian was the third most understood variety
by all participants. Many listeners correctly comprehended characteristic
pronunciations from the Liverpool accent, such as recognise [ˈɾɛxənaɪz], thus
showing that L2 learners can process certain elements of regional varieties. This is
the second time in this discussion that the factor of familiarity, or lack thereof, has
not accounted for comprehension levels of French learners of English. This result
is in contrast with research on accent adaptation which often claims that listeners
can process a familiar accent better than an unfamiliar one. For instance, when
dealing with non-native speech, if the accent is unfamiliar, processing is more
difficult and takes longer (processing cost). This highlights the fact that there is
still much to be learned about how variation is processed.
As for the other accents, the results from 2009 showed that speech processing
was incomplete, making it difficult to talk about comprehension, particularly with
less experienced learners. It appears that the listeners did not understand very
much and either missed out or guessed other words. This conclusion is consistent
with previous research which indicates that some listeners are more skilled than
others whereas some are unable to process this additional variation in speech. In
2019, comprehension levels increased and this impression no longer subsisted.
In 2009, there is a positive impact of watching media (systematically) on
comprehension, but because of reduced availability, the effect is not significant.
The effect of media on comprehension becomes clear in 2019 because global
comprehension levels increased by 14.96 percentage points in Grp1_19 and by
6.96 percentage points for Grp2_19. One cannot help but wonder if watching
specific TV shows where speech is predominantly spoken in regional accents (e.g.,
Game of Thrones and Peaky Blinders), can explain the improved understanding of
certain accents in 2019.
130 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

Regarding our final results, out of the 3 sub-categories, watching films/

TV series impacts comprehension levels the most, with many participants
understanding over 60%. A possible explanation lies in the fact that in films or TV
series input is more varied. Viewers choose for example, a theme, a period, even
an actor (with or without automatically generated suggestions), but as there are
normally several characters, the range of styles and accents is eclectic. This would
confirm that varied input helps the listener cope with variation in speech. Those
who watch on average 10 hours per week (roughly 5-6 films or 10-20 episodes
from a TV series) are more likely to be exposed to various types of speech and
therefore have more linguistic experience of the language. This is contrary to
video games/social media and YouTube—where interaction often takes place
either within the same group (video games/social media) or with the same
(suggested) YouTubers. Another element to consider is although interaction via
video games/social media can be spoken input, it is often written.
It is interesting to note that the participants processed the accents in a
comparable way. In 2009, the levels of intelligibility were the highest for the same
3 accents (W, C, S), and the lowest for the same 2 (L, N). In 2019, the 9 accents
are understood in the exact same order by both groups: W, C, S, B, P, M, L, J, N.
In short, the first 3 accents are in the same (W, C, S) and Newcastle is always the
least comprehensible.
There seems to be three levels of processing and comprehension:
In 2019:
– Comprehensible: Cardiff, Cambridge and Liverpool, Belfast;
– Comprehension with some difficulty: Bradford, Malahide and Leeds;
– Comprehension difficult to near impossible: London and Newcastle.
In 2009
– Comprehensible: Cardiff, Cambridge and Liverpool;
– Comprehension with some difficulty: Belfast, Bradford, Malahide and
London;
– Comprehension difficult to near impossible: Newcastle and Leeds.
The identical order of comprehension in 2019 and similar order in 2009 suggests
that these accents are being processed through the same mechanisms. This
confirms several findings. First it confirms that participants listened through
L1 ears. Second, that they all have the same interlanguage. The less proficient
participants did not understand as much as Grp2 because their interlanguage is
still perfectible. To test these results further it would be interesting to have other
non-natives from a different L1 do the experiments. If the results differ, it would
indicate that non-natives learners of English process and comprehend differently
because they have a different interlanguage. Another possibility would be to
replicate this experiment with one difference: the participants would hear the
stimuli in a randomized order, to see if comprehension is identical a third time,
despite hearing the utterances in a different order.
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 131

It is apparent that in 2009, regional accents are understood with difficulty

and that there is significant improvement in 2019. Connected speech features are
still difficult to understand in 2019, but to a lesser extent than in 2009. Through
this study we have shown that increased input improves a learner’s capacity
to comprehend regional accents in an L2. We believe that this improvement
is due to the large amount of input available via the Internet but also the fact
that learners now get more input of authentic speech inside and outside the
classroom. Watching or listening to multimedia in English has become second
nature to many. This leads us to question the way we teach L2 learners to listen
to authentic speech, to understand connected speech phenomena and also, how
to use it in speech. Teacherese must be used less in classrooms if we want to
improve the comprehension of connected speech features by L2 learners. This
study has shown that in 2019, the number of years of studying had less impact on
comprehension levels than in 2009. It seems clear that in 2009, the teacher was the
main source of input for most students compared to nowadays where L2 learners
get a large amount of their L2 input from multimedia. By varying our speech
rate, or talking with our regional accents during class, it gives the students the
opportunity to pinpoint aspects of speech that they didn’t understand and gives
teachers the opportunity to explain certain phenomena that will help listeners
segment speech. The more L2 learners are exposed to variation—of any type, the
better equipped they will be when dealing with speech outside the classroom, so
let’s venture into the jungle (Cauldwell, 2013) a little more often.

References

• ABERCROMBIE, D. (1956): Problems and Principles: Studies in the Teaching of

English as a Second Language, Longman, London.
• BENT, T., BRADLOW, A.R. (2003): “The interlanguage speech intelligibility
benefit”, JASA 114.3, p. 1600-1610.
• BOND, Z. S. (2005): “Slips of the ear”. In PISONI, D. & REMEZ, R.E. (eds.), The
Handbook of Speech Perception, Malden, Blackwell, p. 290-310.
• BONGAERTS, T. (1999): “Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case
of very advanced late L2 learners”, in BIRDSONG, D. (ed), Second language
acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, p. 133-159.
• BRADLOW R, PISONI D.B. (1998): “Recognition of spoken words by natives
and non-native listeners: talker, listener and item related factors”, Research on
Spoken Language Processing, (Progress Report 22), Indiana University, p. 73-95.
• BRUCE, B. C. (2008): “Ubiquitous learning, ubiquitous computing, and lived
experience”, in HODGSON, V., JONES, C., KARGIDIS, T., MCDONNELL, D.,
RETALIS, S., STAMATIS, D. & ZENIOS M. (eds.), Conference papers for the
Sixth International Conference on Networked Learning Halkidiki, Greece. http://
hdl.handle.net/2142/17085, p. 583-590.
132 Kizzi Edensor-Costille

• CAULDWELL, R.T. (2013): “Phonology for Listening: Teaching the stream of

speech. Birmingham: Speech in Action”, System 42, p. 296-297.
• CHUNG, K. (2017): “Teaching pronunciation to adult learners of English”, in
W. HANDOYO PUJI, A. WOOD, D. GUPTA, (eds.), Asian English Language
Classrooms: Where Theory and Practice Meet, London & New York, Routledge,
p. 131-149.
• CLARKE, C. M. & GARRETT, M. F. (2004): “Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented
English”, J Acoust Soc Am 116.6, p. 3647-3658. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815131.
• CUTLER, A. (2000): “Listening to a second language through the ears of a first”,
Interpreting 5, p. 1-23.
• DUPOUX, E., & GREEN, K.P. (1997): “Perceptual adjustment to highly
compressed speech: effects of talker and rate changes”, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23, p. 914-927.
• EDENSOR, K. (2010): L’influence des accents régionaux sur la compréhension
de l’anglais britannique contemporain chez les sujets francophones, doctoral
dissertation Université de Provence-Aix-Marseille I.
• ELLIS, R. (1994): The study of second language acquisition, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
• EVANS, B., IVERSON, P., (2004): “Vowel normalisation for accent: an
investigation of best exemplar locations in Northern and Southern British
English sentence”, JASA 115, p. 352-361.
• FLEGE, J. (2009): “Give input a chance!”, in T. PISKE & M. YOUNG-
SCHOLTEN (eds.), Input Matters in SLA, Bristol, Multilingual Matters, p. 175-
190.
• FLOCCIA, C., GOSLIN, J., GIRARD, F., & KONOPCZYNSKI, G. (2006):
“Does a regional accent perturb speech processing?”, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32, p. 1276-1293.
• FOULKES, P., DOCHERTY, G. (1999): Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the
British Isles, London, Arnold.
• FOUZ-GONZÁLEZ, J. (2015): “Trends and directions in Computer-Assisted
Pronunciation Training”, in J. A. MOMPEAN & J. FOUZ-GONZÁLEZ (eds.),
Investigating English Pronunciation: Trends and Directions, Basingstoke, UK/
New York, NY, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 314–342.
• FRASER GUPTA, A. (2005): “Inter-accent and inter-cultural intelligibility: a
study of listeners in Singapore and Britain”, in D. DETERDING, A. BROWN &
E.L. LOW (eds.), English in Singapore: Phonetic research on a corpus, Singapore,
McGraw-Hill Education, p. 138-152.
• GLAIN, O. (2020): Variations et changements en langue anglaise. Évènements
historiques, perspectives humaines et sociales, Presses universitaires de Saint-
Etienne, Saint-Etienne.
 The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English 133

• HÅKANSSON, G. (1987): Teacher Talk: How Teachers Modify their Speech

when Addressing Learners of Swedish as a Second Language, Lund, Sweden, Lund
University Press.
• IKENO, A., HANSEN, J. (2007): “The Effect of Listener Accent Background on
Accent Perception and Comprehension”, Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music
Processing, Https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/76030.
• IViE - Intonational variation in English (2008): [corpus] available online from
the University of Oxford: http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/files/apps/IViE/.
• JENKINS, J. (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• KING, J. (2002): “Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom”, Computer
Assisted Language Learning 15, p. 509-523.
• KRASHEN, S. (1985): The input hypothesis: Issues and complications, London;
New York, Longman.
• LANCELOT (in PERCEVAL), [computer software] available from Laboratoire
Parole et Langage, CNRS, http://www2.lpl-aix.fr/~lpldev/perceval/.
• LARRAZA, S., & BEST, C.T. (2018): “Differences in phonetic-to-lexical
perceptual mapping of L1 and L2 regional accents”, Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 21.4, p. 805-825. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000323.
• MAYER, R. (1997): “Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?”,
Educational Psychologist 32, p. 1-19.
• MAYOR, M.J.B. (2009): “CALL-Enhanced L2 Listening Skills—Aiming for
Automatization in a Multimedia Environment”, Indian Journal of Applied
Linguistics 35.1, p. 107-120.
• MIOCHE, A. (2015): “Concours : CAPES et CAFEP-CAPES externe, Section:
langues vivantes – anglais”, Concours du second degré – Rapport de jury. https://
saesfrance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/rapport-CAPES-anglais-2015.pdf.
• MUNRO, M., DERWING, T. (1995): “Foreign accent, comprehensibility and
intelligibility in the speech of second language learners”, Language Learning 45,
p. 73-97.
• PINET, M., GAN, Y., EVANS, B., & IVERSON, P. (2015): “Intelligibility of
British English accents in noise for second-language learners”, ICPhS.
• PISONI, D.B., REMEZ, R.E. (eds.), (2007): The Handbook of Speech Perception,
Malden, Blackwell Publications.
• REYNA, D.J., HANHAM, J., & MEIER, P. (2018): “The Internet explosion,
digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital
space”, E-Learning and Digital Media 15, p. 36-52.
• ROST, M. (1990): Listening in language learning, London, Longman.
• WELLS, J.C. (1982): Accents of English, 1&2. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
 English Phonology in
a Globalized World:
Challenging Native
Speakerism through Listener
Training in Universities in
Sweden and the US

HYESEUNG JEONG♦
STEPHANIE LINDEMANN♦♦
JULIA FORSBERG♦♦♦

E ducation in both first- (L1) and second-language (L2) English phonetics and
phonology has focused on ‘standard’ American and British pronunciations
known as ‘General American (GA)’ and ‘Received Pronunciation (RP)’, and
more recently ‘General British (GB)’ (e.g., Collins., Mees, & Carley, 2019;
Roach, 2009). In particular, L2 English phonetics and phonology present these
‘standard’ English sound systems as the target models for teaching pronunciation
to learners. Although widely accepted and adopted in university teaching, the
traditional focus of English phonetics and phonology on ‘standard’ American/
British English and its application to teaching English as a second language
exhibits native speakerism and standard language ideology, which we strive to
challenge in our teaching practices in Sweden and the US.
Native speakerism involves the idealization of those who are identified as
‘native speakers’ as models and teachers of the language (Holliday, 2018). Given
that ‘native speaker’ is often explicitly associated with whiteness (Von Esch,
Motha, & Kubota, 2020), e.g., in the US (Shuck, 2006) and South Korea (Ahn,

♦ Hyeseung Jeong, Department of Education Sciences and Languages, University West.

♦♦ Stephanie Lindemann, Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL, Georgia State
University.
♦♦♦ Julia Forsberg, Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism, Stockholm
University.

ranam n°55 /2022

136 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

Choi, & Kiaer, 2020), a ‘native speaker’ model for pronunciation may essentially
be a ‘white’ speaker model, a racist standard that has nothing to do with language
itself. Relatedly, standard language ideology (Lippi-Green, 2012: 67) can be
described as a “bias toward an abstracted, idealized, and homogenous spoken
language”. In fact, what passes for ‘standard’ is in actuality not homogenous,
with considerable variation in what passes for ‘GA’, for example (see Lindemann,
2017, for examples). L2 speakers are often ‘corrected’ for exhibiting this same
variation, such that they are ultimately held to a stricter standard than are ‘native
speakers’. Even where the actual pronunciation does differ, such differences
do not necessarily lead to difficulties in communication, yet standard language
ideology may use such variation as justification for language-trait-focused
discrimination (Lippi-Green, 2012).
With English as a lingua franca (ELF) phonology, Jenkins (2000) played a
foundational role in endeavoring to move away from standard language ideology
and native speakerism in L2 phonology and pronunciation teaching. She clearly
pointed out the irrelevance of native or native-like pronunciation to having
intelligibility in ELF communication, based on observations of interaction
among L2 speakers. Jenkins, some other ELF researchers (e.g., Deterding, 2013),
and several practitioners who have adopted her ELF phonology (e.g., Walker,
2010) suggested that realizing certain ‘standard’ English phonological features,
such as vowel length contrast, can be beneficial for ELF communication. They
referred to these features as the Lingua Franca Core (LFC), to be a guiding
syllabus for teaching pronunciation. Jenkins (2000) however also warned
against decontextualized application of the LFC, emphasizing the importance
of accommodation strategies, where mutual intelligibility is achieved through
negotiating the pronunciation of a given word, rather than appeal to a ‘standard’
pronunciation.
Meanwhile, in the context of teaching pronunciation to immigrants in
Anglophone countries, researchers like Levis (2005) and Munro and Derwing
(1995; 2015) likewise sought to eschew native speakerism, viewing it as an
unnecessary demand on L2 speakers. Instead, based on their extensive research,
they have suggested ways to help L2 speakers to have ‘comfortably understandable’
pronunciation while maintaining their ‘non-native’ accent features. Moreover,
in countries where English has been localized, such as India, Nigeria, Jamaica,
Singapore, and Malaysia (Jenkins, 2015), researchers have suggested that the
new varieties can establish their own phonological systems that safeguard both
international intelligibility and linguistic identity, not necessarily conforming
to the phonetics and phonology of ‘standard’ British or American English (e.g.,
Pillai, 2017).
One approach to resisting standard language ideology and native speakerism,
although not exactly within the fields of phonetics and phonology, investigates
the possibility of training native English listeners to better understand diverse
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 137

international speakers (e.g., Kubota, 2001; Lindemann et al., 2016). The idea
of training native speakers to be better listeners of diverse accents is not only
powerful for dismantling standard language ideology and native speakerism, but
has also led to the revelation that, for using English for global communication,
non-native speakers—as well as native speakers—need to train their listening
skills for diverse English pronunciations (Jeong et al., 2021). Traditionally, ‘non-
standard’ accents were supposed to be ‘corrected’, or to become ‘standard’, and
L2 listeners were instructed exclusively on comprehending ‘standard’ English
speakers, rather than helped to understand other accent varieties (Sung, 2016;
Tsang, 2019). Although nascent, studies on training L2 listeners to understand a
variety of English accents have begun to join the body of research on perceptual
training for accent variation (e.g., Hamada & Suzuki, 2021).
Our experiences of promoting listener abilities in universities in Sweden and
the US, shared in the following sections, are in line with the research on listener
training for processing diverse accents. Although the teaching contexts in the two
countries are very different, we equally witness the huge impact of globalization
on our students’ lives and their growing need to be competent listeners of speakers
with diverse accents, including non-Anglophone accents, both within their
own country and abroad. Central to Jeong’s practice in Sweden is the concept
of listener intelligibility, the ability to understand a speaker’s pronunciation
(Jeong et al., 2021). With the concept, her teaching emphasizes that phonetic
and phonological processing involves both speaker and listener, and thus
responsibility for intelligibility in international contexts is not only on the speaker
with speaker intelligibility—ability to make one’s pronunciation understandable
for a listener—but equally on the listener with listener intelligibility. Lindemann’s
phonetics and phonology courses in the US are theoretical courses, not focused
on English, and thus do not purport to teach pronunciation or listening skills
at all. However, she has offered listener intelligibility training in response to
requests to help improve speaker intelligibility, with the argument that when the
speaker is already highly intelligible, it makes sense to instead train their listeners
who complain of difficulty understanding. Following Jeong’s and Lindemann’s
discussion of their contexts, Forsberg discusses their practices from a Swedish
perspective, while reflecting on her own phonetics teaching in teacher education
and her research on standard language ideology.

Sweden: Listener-Focused Global Englishes

Phonetics
How It Started
Traditionally in Sweden, phonetics (fonetik) often refers to an overarching
subject including both phonetics and phonology (Thorén, 2014). When assigned
138 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

to teach phonetics courses to English majors and pre-service teachers, Jeong soon
discovered the incompatibility between herself as a phonetics lecturer and the
extant curriculum for the courses. The curriculum largely stood on the nativeness
principle that “holds it is both possible and desirable [for L2 speakers] to achieve
native-like pronunciation” (Levis, 2005: 370), using the Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis (CAH) (e.g., see Cunningham, 2015; Sylvén, 2013), which predicts
non-native speakers’ pronunciation features in view of their L1 phonological
systems and regards such features, when present, as ‘errors’ that should be
removed or corrected (see Munro, 2018 for a critical discussion of the CAH in
pronunciation teaching). By contrast, Jeong explicitly rejects native-speaker-
centric views (Jeong et al., 2017, 2020), instead relying on the intelligibility
principle that “holds that [speakers] simply need to be understandable” without
having to emulate ‘standard’ native speaker accents (Levis, 2005: 370).
Thus, developing a new curriculum was inevitable for Jeong. Initially, she
adopted ELF phonology with a focus on speaker intelligibility (Deterding, 2013;
Walker, 2010). This worked better than the previous CAH-based curriculum. The
intelligibility principle was new to most students, who nonetheless welcomed
it as making more sense than native speakerism with the reality of globalized
English. However, a phonetics course that mainly aimed to improve learners’
speaker intelligibility did not greatly benefit Swedish students, who are already
highly intelligible in international contexts (Jeong, 2019; Jeong et al., 2017,
2020). The fundamental question was, besides helping improve pronunciation,
what L2 phonetics could offer to English users and learners in Sweden. Inspired
by research on L1 listener training (Kubota, 2001; Lindemann et al., 2016;
Subtirelu & Lindemann, 2016), and seeing the needs for maximized listening
comprehension of Global Englishes (Melchers, Shaw, Sundqvist, 2019), the
emphasis of Jeong’s teaching has shifted to fostering listener intelligibility for
diverse English accents (Jeong, 2019).

How Teaching and Learning Has Proceeded

As noted by Lindemann in her US context (discussed below), helping students
become good listeners of diverse English accents requires not only training
listening skills and strategies but also critically addressing attitudes towards
different accents (Lindemann, 2002; Subtirelu & Lindemann, 2016). Through
their education (Forsberg et al., 2019) and exposure to the popular culture of
English-speaking countries, especially American pop culture, young Swedes
tend to have positive attitudes towards privileged native accents and somewhat
negative ones towards other English accents (Eriksson, 2019; Jeong et al., 2021),
which Jeong thought should be addressed in her phonetics courses. When time
allows, she organizes asynchronous written discussions on online learning
platforms for critically reflecting on attitudes towards different English accents.
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 139

Students first read articles about accent attitudes like Lindemann (2017), then
write a summary and reflection of the reading materials in group forums and
reply to each other’s posts, drawing on their own experiences of learning and
using English.
The main objective of Jeong’s phonetics teaching is to help students gain
knowledge of basic phonetic/phonological concepts and utilize these concepts
as tools to analyze their own speaker and listener intelligibility (Jeong, 2021).
The starting point of her teaching is not any ideal model but real speech sounds,
including students’ own and other diverse speakers’ pronunciations. Later on,
more speakers are introduced as a showcase of diverse pronunciation and as
ones that deploy effective pronunciation strategies. This approach was initially
inspired by Lindemann, who shared that in her phonetics course she begins from
her own vowels. This idea—beginning with sounds—was revolutionary, as most
phonetics/phonology textbooks introduce phonetic concepts through ‘RP’, ‘GA’
or other similar abstract sound systems despite the definition of phonetics as the
study of sounds. Another noteworthy pedagogical decision was to not involve the
concepts of phoneme and phone in teaching consonants and vowels. Besides the
fact that it is hard for most students to understand that phonemes are not actual
sounds but abstract ones, once symbols are used to represent phonemes, the
sound values the symbols represent are perceived as ‘ideal’ sounds to be emulated,
hence to some extent reinforcing the already entrenched standard language
ideology. In fact, the concept of phonemes, shared conceptions/abstractions of a
sound segment within a single speech community, may not fit Global Englishes
phonetics, which deals with diverse segmental variation in different speech
communities (O’Neal, 2020). As an alternative to involving the phoneme and
phone distinction, Jeong has adapted the idea behind Wells’ (1982) lexical set,
using English orthography to help students explore Global Englishes phonetic/
phonological varieties in a non-discriminatory way.
Thus, to teach speech sounds, Jeong draws on the global variation described
in Schneider (2004). For example, as seen in Figure 1, for the initial consonant of
the word group with members such as ‘tap’, three voiceless plosives are presented
as equally accepted pronunciations that appear frequently in different varieties.
Likewise, for the vowel of the word group that includes members like ‘face’, three
different diphthongs and one monophthong are all introduced as possible, equal
pronunciations. Through several activities, students listen to different alternatives
written in the IPA and select the ones close to their own pronunciations.
While doing so, they gradually become familiar with possible global vowel and
consonant variation and sound-symbol correspondences. After having practiced
enough to read and write their own consonants and vowels in the IPA, students
create their own consonant tables for place, manner and voicing, and vowel
charts for tongue positions and lip shapes.
140 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

Figure 1: Examples of presenting alternative segmental variation

For teaching supra-segmental features and prosody, some common notions like
‘English is stress-timed’ or ‘there are phonological patterns for word stress that
are universally followed by all English speakers’ are not taken for granted. Instead,
for example, it is discussed that, depending on varieties, an English pronunciation
can be either stress-timed or syllable-timed. To showcase a variety of supra-
segmental features among speakers with diverse accents, several speakers reading
the same words or sentences are presented with visualization of the speakers’
pronunciations using Praat (fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/), as seen in Figure 2. After
having learned essential prosodic/supra-segmental concepts through listening
to and ‘watching’ a variety of speakers’ pronunciations, students are guided
to record, visualize, and do some basic analysis of their own supra-segmental
features, such as vowel length, word stress, sentence stress, and intonation.

Figure 2: Praat spectrograms of five speakers’ pronunciations of ‘excellent’

For an examination task, students make an oral presentation about their

own speaker and listener intelligibility, focusing on the latter. They first briefly
discuss whether their own pronunciation would be intelligible in view of the
Lingua Franca Core (Jenkins, 2000, 2015). They then more extensively discuss
their own listener intelligibility of a speaker they choose, who they admire and
want to understand well. The discussion begins from sharing the experience of
training perception through listening repeatedly and thoroughly to a short sound
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 141

clip of the speaker until they can dictate every word correctly. This is followed
by analyzing their comprehension of the chosen speaker, focusing on listening
strategies developed during self-training, in what ways the training helped
understand the speaker better, and how it has impacted them as listeners of
diverse Global Englishes speakers.
Some challenges have been faced by students and Jeong. For students, it is
evidently hard to avoid being judgmental about ‘non-standard’ accents. Even
when the intention is not criticizing a speaker, finding positive or at least
neutral language to describe ‘non-standard’ accent features seems challenging.
For Jeong, occasional students have expressed strong resistance to her Global
Englishes approach, including expressing their wishes to learn ‘more standard’
pronunciation with a teacher with a ‘native’ or ‘near-native’ accent. Overall,
though, responses to listener-focused Global Englishes phonetics have been
positive. For example, three students, who selected the Indian Java instructor
Som Prakash Rai, the Spanish football player Adama Traoré, and the Jamaican
rapper/songwriter Mikayla Simpson for their own listening training, described
how they have improved their comprehension of the speakers:

– My own listener intelligibility has benefited from this [listening

to Som Prakash Rai] and I think that most troubles I have stem
from being unaccustomed to the rhythm, stress and intonation of
Indian English. The more I will listen to it, the more my listener
intelligibility will increase.

– I have gotten a deeper understanding of why some accents have

different features on English than others.

– I am understanding her [Mikayla Simpson] better and I can

listen to her other interviews without facing the same challenges as
before! I do believe this has helped me to understand others with
similar Englishes better.1

As Rindal and Iannuzzi (2020: 133) put it, “Reflection about pronunciation is
probably more relevant for many learners than for instance lectures in RP and
GA phonetics.” Although self-perception of improved listener intelligibility may
not always reflect real improvement, it can still signal increased confidence and
willingness to listen more to speakers with diverse accents. Listener-focused
phonetics overall seemed to help develop (more) positive attitudes towards
Global Englishes accents, particularly towards ‘non-standard’ ones. The student
who trained by listening to the football player Traoré concludes, “I have become

1 Extracts from three students’ presentations (informed consent obtained for all examples)
142 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

curious about how different accents sound in everyday life [and] … gained
interest in analyzing English accents of other romance languages and comparing
them to each other”. Another student, after analyzing his listener intelligibility of
the Scottish singer/songwriter Kris Drever, shares that he got “deeply interested
in” Swedish-accented and other L1-accented English pronunciations and gained
“deeper understanding and respect of different Englishes”. Speaking Swedish
as their L1 or most dominant L2, and largely influenced by American English,
students share similar phonetic inventories; the varieties introduced in the
teaching material are certainly limited. Nevertheless, learning phonetics based on
their own and a range of speakers’ pronunciations from different varieties seems
to help students critically reflect on standard language ideology and get ready for
real life communication with diverse Global Englishes speakers.

US: Training ‘Native’ Speakers

Training Applied Linguistics Students
An applied linguistics department in the US has traditionally been a less
obvious place for listener training or even speaker training, as students are
already expected to be highly proficient in spoken English, in most cases speaking
it from an early age and in many cases being monolingual in English. Courses
in phonetics or phonology are therefore likely to focus on the IPA or other
transcription systems and describing and transcribing sounds of non-stigmatized
American English (so-called ‘GA’). Teacher preparation courses may also focus
on how to teach such pronunciation, but any learning that benefits students’ own
production and comprehension is likely to be incidental.
The larger context supports this approach. In addition to standard language
ideology, discussed in the introduction, ideologies about native speakers as
having “complete and possibly innate competence in the language” (Pennycook,
2017: 175)—related to native speakerism—and about monolingualism as the
norm (Wiley & Lukes, 1996) would suggest that the mostly native-speaker
audience in the US would have no need for training to understand Global
Englishes. Specifically, native speaker ideology includes the assumption that
native speakers know their language perfectly, suggesting that further training
would be irrelevant. Monolingualist ideology further suggests that any languages
other than English are irrelevant in the US, and that anyone who speaks some
other language must thus speak English as if it is their only language, presumably
indistinguishably from other US native English speakers. In this context, applied
linguists are not asked or expected to provide training to people who have been
speaking English their entire life, because they are already considered to have the
necessary skills.
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 143

For Lindemann, starting from her own sounds in her phonetics classes was not
particularly revolutionary, given that her accent is generally unstigmatized in the
US and thus passes as ‘GA’. Students usually transcribe her or recordings of non-
stigmatized US English, so although the course is presented within a descriptive
rather than prescriptive approach, there is a de facto emphasis on ‘GA’, and in the
undergraduate class, no practice with speakers of Global Englishes is provided.
For some assignments, students do transcribe themselves, and anything that
is not a clear transcription error (e.g., using [y] for [j] or spelling-influenced
errors such as adding a vowel between the [k] and [t] of walked) is counted as
correct. Lindemann usually gives feedback on hyper-articulated (potentially
spelling-influenced) transcriptions, which can sometimes spur discussion about
whether the student really pronounces that sound or not. Even on assignments
where they are transcribing her speech, she gives feedback but does not deduct
points for instances in which their transcription suggests that they are filtering
her pronunciation through their own, as, after all, the goal is for them to learn
sound-symbol correspondences, not to pronounce things like she does. Having
learned about how Jeong has more completely based the class on the students’
own pronunciations, she is interested in trying something similar in hers, so that
her teaching does not privilege students as much for having a variety like her own.

Training Sstudents beyond Applied Linguistics

In fact, while the courses Lindemann teaches can sometimes raise awareness
of variation in non-stigmatized native varieties and challenge students to accept
a wider range of variation, students in her applied linguistics program usually are
familiar with a range of accents, or become so in the process of completing their
degree, as instructors and classmates come from varied language backgrounds
and they need to know or study at least one language beyond English. Those
students most in need of training to understand a wide range of accents are
unlikely to take applied linguistics courses. However, Lippi-Green’s (1994, 2012)
research on accent discrimination led to Lindemann’s interest in investigating
the ways that native English speakers contribute to poor communication with
non-native English speakers (Lindemann, 2002), and ultimately to the possibility
of working to address those native-speaker issues to improve communication
(Subtirelu & Lindemann, 2016).
An early attempt at training native speakers for better comprehension
of Korean accents (Lindemann et al., 2016) compared explicit instruction,
providing information on how Korean and English differ and how and why that
affects Korean accents in English, with implicit instruction, following previous
research that showed that practice listening to and writing down individual
sentences spoken by different speakers of a non-native variety could improve
comprehension of sentences spoken by a new speaker of that variety (Bradlow
& Bent, 2008; Sidaras, Alexander, & Nygaard, 2009). Both implicit and explicit
144 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

approaches improved comprehension of individual sentences spoken by a new

speaker. However, a drawback with the training was that its status as a laboratory
research study using volunteers recruited from the university psychology subject
pool meant that it was not accessible for wider use.
Interestingly, the first opportunity to offer such a training more broadly came
not through a request or even perceived need for such training, but rather from
a request for training for non-native-English-speaking instructors. A former
colleague, now at a different institution, had been asked by the computer science
department at that institution to provide support for international graduate
student instructors (commonly called International Teaching Assistants, or
ITAs, in the US) in response to student complaints about the instructors’
intelligibility. Since her university already had excellent training for ITAs, which
these instructors had already passed, she suspected that the issue was not with
the instructors, but with their students, who were new to the university, largely
from relatively homogenous English-speaking backgrounds, and relatively
inexperienced with linguistic diversity. Crucially, she presented evidence of the
importance of the listener’s role in successful communication (e.g., Lindemann,
2002) to suggest training for the students rather than their instructors, and the
department agreed. She then invited Lindemann and others to develop training
with her.
That training (described in detail in Subtirelu, Lindemann, Acheson, &
Campbell, 2022) included one hour online and one hour in class as part of a
seminar taken by nearly all first-year students in the department. It attempted
to address listener attitudes and strategies for successful communication with
instructors from varied linguistic backgrounds, in addition to the ability to
understand a range of accents. The online portion included brief video lectures
explaining why and how different languages influence accents in English and
was thus somewhat similar to the ‘explicit’ training in Lindemann et al. (2016)
discussed above, but without the specific focus on Korean accents. There was also
an ‘implicit’ training portion, in which recordings of individual sentences read
by four different speakers were presented, with the opportunity for the student
participant to type what they heard, get feedback on what the speaker actually
said, then hear the sentence again. This training was again based on that in
Lindemann et al. (2016), but with Chinese speakers rather than Korean speakers
and fewer sentences. An additional portion presented two one-minute lectures
by Indian English speakers, followed by comprehension questions. The choice of
Chinese and Indian English speakers in this case was based on the department’s
population of international instructors, which was dominated by instructors
from China and India.
A similar situation occurred at Lindemann’s own university, this time with
an instructor who taught a very large class with multiple breakout sections
taught by different teaching assistants, many of whom were ITAs. When students
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 145

complained to the instructor about the ITAs, the instructor requested help from
the university’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning to provide further
training to the ITAs. The contact at the Center was another colleague familiar with
Lindemann’s work and suggested that the problem was not with the instructor’s
ITAs, but with her students. The instructor agreed that the ITAs were in fact
highly proficient in English and accepted the offer to connect her to Lindemann
to develop training for her students. Because her course was both upper-level and
not related to international concerns, the instructor was concerned that students
would not see the relevance of listener intelligibility training. Additionally,
the ITAs were from a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds, so there was no
reason to focus on one particular language. In consultation with her, Lindemann
therefore shortened the previous version of the training to total approximately
one hour, online only, with a wider variety of speakers. The same videos with
explicit training were used as in the previous training, while the implicit training
featured individual sentences by speakers from China, India, Croatia, and Korea,
and mini-lectures by a different speaker from India and one from Senegal.
The training and data regarding training that specifically addressed
comprehension of Global Englishes from Subtirelu, Lindemann, Acheson,
and Campbell (2022) was based on just twenty sentences, too little to show an
improvement in actual comprehension. It is possible that reaction time might
increase even with so little practice (Clarke & Garrett, 2004), but given that the
students were typing the sentences that they heard, measuring reaction time
was not a viable option. While Lindemann had initially hoped to include more
practice sentences for the training at her own university, the version ultimately
offered to students again had only twenty sentences due to the course instructor’s
concern that it would be difficult to get students to do even an hour, especially
as the platform required them to do the training in one sitting. Interestingly,
in response to a question at the end of training asking for optional comments,
several students mentioned the sentence practice as a fun part of the training, as
they liked its interactive nature. In any case, a challenge of offering training for
undergraduates in response to their own complaints is this pressure to keep the
training extremely short.
These trainings at both universities were still limited to a single department
or even a single class, with just one contact who agreed to the training. In order
to make the training more widely available, online-only versions were developed,
somewhat independently at both universities, that could be integrated into their
online learning platforms. Both were funded and will be offered through the
centers originally contacted by instructors for help for ITAs and can be used
in a variety of courses, particularly for first-year students and/or classes with
international themes, with no additional work needed by the course instructors.
These trainings are also expandable, with additional modules providing more
in-depth practice with different accents as one option.
146 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

Even given that the current versions of the training are most likely insufficient
to actually train students to understand a wide variety of accents, they introduce
a different way of thinking about communication with speakers from different
linguistic backgrounds. They can also build the undergraduates’ confidence that
they can adapt to a variety of speakers. Perhaps most importantly, requiring such
training for all undergraduates (or at least all undergraduates in a particular class,
or major, or general area) starts to change the culture from one that is focused
only on non-native-speakers’ speaking proficiency to one that recognizes the
shared nature of responsibility for the success of communication across linguistic
difference.

What Can we Learn? A Reflection from a Swedish

Perspective
The accounts of listener-focused training above depict two widely different
contexts, suggesting that listener-focused approaches may be applicable to an
array of teaching and training situations. In view of globalized English, there
is a need to enable students (including pre-service teachers) to develop tools to
question standard language ideology and native speaker norms (see further in
Jansen, Mohr, & Forsberg, 2021). Derwing and Munro (2015: 172), concluding
their book about L2 pronunciation teaching, suggest implementing “listening
training for pre-service programming for teachers, social workers and others
whose future careers will bring them into regular contact with L2 users.”
Their message addressed to L1-speaking teachers is aligned with both Jeong’s
L2-speaking students and Lindemann’s L1-speaking students.
The listener trainings in Sweden and the US see language abilities in a specific
context and in relation to the interlocutor’s needs, contrasting to the approaches
that ask the learner to achieve decontextualized, ideal native speaker competences
(e.g., Wells, 2009). While acknowledging the intelligibility principle of Jenkins’s
Lingua Franca Core in international contexts, Wells (2009) poses the question of
who the learner aims to be able to speak to and suggests that setting ‘high’ goals
for pupils is beneficial. The question is followed by his own answer that, in aiming
‘high’, the highest of ideals entails sounding like a native speaker. In contrast to
such a native-speaker-centric view, Jeong’s and Lindemann’s practices resonate
more with changing perspectives among learners worldwide. For example,
Rindal and Iannuzzi (2020) found that Norwegian adolescents do not believe
they need to sound like native speakers in order to be proficient in English, as
spoken L2 “is related to identity, and teachers can take this into consideration
when teaching pronunciation” (129). The researchers thus argue that “it could be
problematic to ask students to imitate a native-speaker accent, and teachers can
instead encourage them to find an accent that allows them to be themselves in
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 147

English” (129). Kong and Kang (2020) report similar views among South Korean
adolescents in Malaysia. The Korean youths in the study invested in learning and
using English, but their sociocultural identities “were connected to their own
accents.” Specifically, they preferred accents that they were extensively exposed to
and thus felt familiar with, with nativism irrelevant for their accent preferences;
some of them even “found it hard to understand their [native speaker teachers’]
accents” (12).
Norton (2013: 55) argues:

[W]hile it is important for language learners to understand what

Hymes (1979) calls ‘the rules of use’ of the target language, it
is equally important for them to explore whose interests these
rules serve. What is considered appropriate usage is not self-
evident (Bourne, 1988), but must be understood with reference to
inequitable relations of power between interlocutors.

Thus, we have to consider not only the listener perspective and the responsibility
of the listener in the communicative situation, but also the difference in power
between those who define ‘standard’ and those who are supposed to conform to
it, e.g., between language teachers and learners in Sweden, between L1 students
and L2 ITAs in the US, and between a reference group of L1 speakers (cf.
“referees”, Bell, 1984: 161, 2001; Forsberg et al., 2021: 146 & 150) and L2 pre-
service teachers. The listener training practices in Sweden and the US address
such power differences by requiring native or more native-like interlocutors to
learn to adjust to different accents instead of the usual requirement for a one-
way adjustment by L2 speakers to approximate L1 speakers. The listener-focused
approach(es) suggested by Jeong and Lindemann as well as other strategies for
overcoming standard language ideology (Jansen et al., 2021) would benefit the
education of teachers of English.
Jeong’s practice in Sweden has a truly phonetic, descriptive focus on
individual students/pre-service teachers, and on the intelligibility principle.
Her approach is in line with the communicative focus of the syllabi for English
education in Sweden (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018a, 2018b;
Forsberg et al., 2019). Shifting the teaching goals from native speaker competence
to communicative skills, the Swedish National Agency for Education “explicitly
engages with (re)territorialisation, or locating English in settings beyond the
British and American centres that have historically dominated English teaching”
(Hult, 2017: 269). Given that all references to native-speaker English in these
syllabi were removed in 1994 (Modiano, 2009; Hult, 2017), it is clear that native
speaker norms have little or no place in the training of pre-service English
teachers in Sweden, and Jeong’s approach is a reasonable interpretation of the
148 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

syllabi that works towards minimizing the students’ standard language ideology
(cf. Jansen et al., 2021).
Something that might have jumped out at the reader: Jeong avoiding the
phoneme/phone distinction in order to minimize native speaker norms, and
because it is not strictly necessary for the student groups she teaches. Tradition
aside, this approach reduces the risk of intensifying students’ native speakerism
and standard language ideology. Results from Forsberg et al. (2019) and Mohr,
Jansen, and Forsberg (2021) indicate that English teachers in Sweden (as well as
in Germany) mainly aspire to use and teach British English, American English,
or something they consider a ‘neutral’ variety, while rejecting many other ‘native’
and ‘non-native’ varieties as viable options in the classroom. The preference to
teach these standard varieties is partially based on their desire to conform to native
speaker norms, but is also a shortcut to teaching and assessing their students by
using the English varieties that are most readily accessible to them. Having a set
of templates of acceptable varieties may make teaching pronunciation seem less
daunting. This is one reason why the phoneme—and indeed, phonetics teaching
that is model-based—can be convenient. However, it is also one way in which the
phoneme can be used to reinforce native speakerism. In order to benefit from the
phoneme/phone distinction and the surrounding theory without perpetuating
native speakerism and standard language ideology, teachers should strive to
convey the phoneme as a type and the phone as a token, rather than the phoneme
as a model and the phone as a variant of it.
Meanwhile, in Lindemann’s L1 listener training in the US, the shifting
of communicative responsibility from L2 instructors to L1 student listeners
challenges native speakerism and standard language ideology. It highlights that
the problem with communication difficulties may be insufficient comprehension
skills and strategies among students who otherwise perceive themselves as
unproblematic ‘standard native speakers’ and thus easily blame the international
instructors despite their high proficiency. This questioning of native-speaker-
centric ideologies through the responsibility shift from international speaker
to L1 listener can be highly relevant to European countries like Sweden, where
international communication in the host country’s language(s) is increasingly
common due to immigration and the Bologna Process. Thus, for example
Forsberg seeks to encourage pre- and in-service teachers in her L2 Swedish
phonetics class to reflect on two recurring questions: what is the goal of teaching
pronunciation to L2 speakers? and whose responsibility is intelligibility and
comprehension in communication between L1 and L2 speakers? Standard
language ideology and native speakerism are not specified as topics in the course
aims or requirements, but they nevertheless underline the perspectives put
forward by students, in course literature and throughout society. In order to
address these questions head-on, it is important to address these ideologies, and
ways to do so are suggested in Lindemann’s account.
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 149

Fundamentally, the listener training approaches in Sweden and the US

specifically frame students as listeners, to help them prepare for international
communication with Global Englishes speakers, an emerging practice in language
teaching (e.g., Hamada & Suzuki, 2021). This centrally involves challenging native
speakerism and standard language ideology: Jeong by overhauling an existing
module and approaching phonetics through students’ own pronunciation rather
than through models “to boldly go beyond ‘going native’” (Pillai, 2017: 7),
and Lindemann by providing listener training when she was initially asked for
speaker training. They have both found ways to problematize the ideologies
present in their own contexts, demonstrating that doing so is possible even when
course aims and requirements do not specify that students learn to question these
ideologies. Native speakerism and standard language ideology are problematic
not only in the teaching and research of L2 English phonology, phonetics, and
pronunciation, but also in the teaching of other linguistic subjects and other
languages, where the same mechanisms and types of norms are in place and
are further exacerbated by negative attitudes to and lack of familiarity with L2
speech (Subtirelu & Lindemann, 2016). We therefore suggest that it is crucial that
anyone involved in language education and research, including phonetics and
phonology, be aware of the implications of teaching a specific variety in order
to encourage their own students to question rather than perpetuate standard
language ideology and native speakerism.

References
• AHN, H., CHOI, N. & KIAER, J. (2020): “South Korean perceptions of “native”
speaker of English in social and news media via big data analytics”, Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca 9.1, p. 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2031.
• BELL, A. (1984): “Language Style as Audience Design”, Language in Society
13.2, p. 145-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X.
• BELL, A. (2001): “Back in style: reworking audience design”, in P. ECKERT
& J.R. RICKFORD (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, p. 139-169.
• BRADLOW, A. R. & BENT, T. (2008): “Perceptual adaptation to non-
native speech”, Cognition 106.2, p. 707-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.
2007.04.005.
• CLARKE, C. M. & GARRETT, M. F. (2004): “Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented
English”, J Acoust Soc Am, 116.6, p. 3647-3658. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815131.
• COLLINS, B., MEES, I. M. & CARLEY, P. (2019): Practical English phonetics
and phonology: A resource book for students (4th ed.), London, Routledge, 344 p.
150 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

• CUNNINGHAM, U. (2015): “Teaching English pronunciation online to

Swedish primary-school teachers”, in E. WANIEK-KLIMCZAK & M. PAWLAK
(eds.), Teaching and researching the pronunciation of English, Cham (ZG),
Switzerland, Springer, p. 63-76.
• DERWING, T. & MUNRO, M. (2015): Pronunciation Fundamentals: Evidence-
based Perspectives for L2 Teaching and Research, Amsterdam, John Benjamins,
224 p.
• DETERDING, D. (2013): Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An
analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 208 p.
• ERIKSSON, L.E. (2019): “Teachers’ and students’ attitudes and perceptions
toward varieties of English in Swedish upper secondary school”. Paper presented at
the ASLA-symposiet i Karlstad, 12-13 April, 2018, Karlstad. http://urn.kb.se/reso
lve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-72262.
• FORSBERG, J., MOHR, S. & JANSEN, S. (2019): ““The goal is to enable students
to communicate”: Communicative competence and target varieties in TEFL
practices in Sweden and Germany”, European Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.1,
p. 31-60. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2018-0006.
• FORSBERG, J., RIBBÅS, M.T. & GROSS, J. (2021): “Self-assessment and
standard language ideologies: bilingual adolescents in Sweden reflect on their
language proficiencies”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
42.2, p. 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1715988.
• HAMADA, Y. & SUZUKI, S. (2021): “Listening to Global Englishes: Script-
assisted shadowing”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 31.1, p. 31-47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12318.
• HOLLIDAY, A. (2018): “Native-Speakerism”, in A.F. SELVI (ed.), Non-
native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) (The TESOL encyclopedia of English
language teaching). New Jersey, Wiley, p. 1-7.
• HULT, F.M. (2017): “More than a lingua franca: Functions of English in a
globalised educational language policy”, Language, Culture and Curriculum 30.3,
p. 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1321008.
• JANSEN, S., MOHR, S. & FORSBERG, J. (2021): “Standard language ideology
in the English language classroom: Suggestions for EIL informed teacher
education”, in M. CALLIES, S. HEHNER, P. MEE, & M. WESTPHAL (eds.),
Glocalising Teaching English as an International Language: New Perspectives for
Teaching and Teacher Education in Germany. Oxon, Routledge, p. 63-82. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781003090106-6.
• JENKINS, J. (2000): The phonology of English as an International Language,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 272 p.
• JENKINS, J. (2015): Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, London,
England, Routledge, 280 p.
• JEONG, H. (2019): “Repositioning phonetics in teacher education in
Sweden from a global ELF perspective: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives”, in
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 151

M.HELDNER (ed.), Fonetik 2019: The XXXIth Swedish Phonetics Conference,

p. 37-42. Stockholm, Stockholm University.
• JEONG, H., ELGEMARK, A. & THORÉN, B. (2021): “Swedish youths as listeners
of Global Englishes speakers with diverse accents: Listener intelligibility, listener
comprehensibility, accentedness perception, and accentedness acceptance”,
Frontiers in Education 6.206. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.651908.
• JEONG, H., THORÉN, B. & OTHMAN, J. (2017): “Mutual intelligibility of
Malay- and Swedish-accented English: An experimental study”, Indonesian
Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.1, p. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.
• JEONG, H., THORÉN, B. & OTHMAN, J. (2020): “Effect of altering three
phonetic features on intelligibility of English as a lingua franca: a Malaysian
speaker and Swedish listeners”, Asian Englishes 22.1, p. 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1
080/13488678.2018.1536817.
• KONG, M.L.F. & KANG, H. (2020): “Identity and accents: Do students really
want to speak like native speakers of English?”, RELC Journal. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0033688220939246.
• KUBOTA, R. (2001): “Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English
in the USA”, World Englishes 20.1, p. 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
971X.00195.
• LEVIS, J. M. (2005): “Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation
teaching”, TESOL Quarterly 39.3, p. 369-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485.
• LINDEMANN, S. (2002): “Listening with an attitude: A model of native-
speaker comprehension of non-native speakers in the United States”, Language in
Society 31.3, p. 419-441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404502020286.
• LINDEMANN, S. (2017): “Variation or ‘Error’? Perception of pronunciation
variation and implication for assessment”, in T. ISAACS & P. TROFIMOVICH
(eds.), Second Language Pronunciation Assessment: Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Bristol, Multilingual Matters, p. 193-209.
• LINDEMANN, S., CAMPBELL, M.-A., LITZENBERG, J. & SUBTIRELU, N.C.
(2016): “Explicit and implicit training methods for improving native English
speakers’ comprehension of nonnative speech”, Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation 2.1, p. 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.2.1.04lin.
• LIPPI-GREEN, R. (1994): “Accent, standard language ideology, and
discriminatory pretext in the courts”, Language in Society 23.2, p. 163-198.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017826.
• LIPPI-GREEN, R. (2012): English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and
Discrimination in the United States, New York, Routledge, 384 p.
• MELCHERS, G., SHAW, P. & SUNDKVIST, P. (2019): World Englishes
(3rd ed.), London, Routledge, 246 p.
• MODIANO, M. (1999): “Standard English(es) and educational practices for
the world’s lingua franca”, English Today 15.4, p. 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0266078400011196.
152 Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg

• MOHR, S., JANSEN, S. & FORSBERG, J. (2021): “European English in

the EFL classroom?: Teacher attitudes towards target varieties of English in
Sweden and Germany”, English Today 37.2, p. 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0266078419000403.
• MUNRO, M. (2018): “How well can we predict second language learners’
pronunciation difficulties?”, CATESOL Journal 30.1, p. 267-281.
• MUNRO, M. & DERWING, T. (1995): “Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and
intelligibility in the speech of second language learners”, Language Learning 45.1,
p. 73-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x.
• NORTON, B. (2013): Identity and language learning: Extending the Conversation
(2nd ed.), Bristol, UK, Multilingual Matters, 218 p.
• O’NEAL, G. (2020): “Does an ELF phonology exist?”, Asian Englishes 22.3,
p. 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1706135.
• PENNYCOOK, A. (2017): The cultural Politics of English as an International
Language, London, Routledge, 390 p.
• PILLAI, S. (2017): “Local features of English pronunciation: To embrace or
ignore in the ELT classroom”, Journal of English Language, Literature, and
Teaching 1.1, p. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17977/um046v1i1p1-7.
• RINDAL, U. & IANNUZZI, M. (2020): “Pronunciation—accent, identity
and intelligibility”, in L. M. BREVIK & U. RINDAL (eds.), Teaching English in
Norwegian Classrooms: From Research to Practice, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget,
p. 117-136.
• ROACH, P. (2009): English Phonetics and Phonology: A practical Course
(4th ed.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 242 p.
• SCHNEIDER, E.W. (2004): “Global synopsis: phonetic and phonological
variation in English world-wide”, in B. KORTMANN & E.W. SCHNEIDER
(eds.), A handbook of Varieties of English 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, p. 1111-1137.
• SHUCK, G. (2006): “Racializing the Nonnative English Speaker”, Journal
of Language, Identity & Education 5.4, p. 259-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327701jlie0504_1.
• SIDARAS, S.K., ALEXANDER, J.E.D. & NYGAARD, L.C. (2009):
“Perceptual learning of systematic variation in Spanish-accented speech”,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125.5, p. 3306-3316. https://doi.
org/10.1121/1.3101452.
• SUBTIRELU, N.C. & LINDEMANN, S. (2016): “Teaching first language
speakers to communicate across linguistic difference: Addressing attitudes,
comprehension, and strategies”, Applied Linguistics 37.6, p. 765-783. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amu068.
• SUBTIRELU, N.C., LINDEMANN, S., ACHESON, K. & CAMPBELL, M.A.
(2022): “Sharing communicative responsibility: Training US students in
 English Phonology in a Globalized World 153

cooperative strategies for communicating across linguistic difference”,

Multilingua. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2021-0013.
• SUNG, C.C.M. (2016): “Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English
language teaching classroom: from second language learners’ perspectives”,
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 10.3, p. 190-205. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17501229.2014.936869.
• SWEDISH NATIONAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION. (2018a): Curriculum
for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-Age Educare (revised
2018), Swedish National Agency for Education. https://www.skolverket.se/
publikationer?id=3984.
• SWEDISH NATIONAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION. (2018b): Curriculum
for the upper Secondary School (revised 2018), Swedish National Agency for
Education. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2975.
• SYLVÉN, L.K. (2013): The Ins and Outs of English Pronunciation: An introduction
to Phonetics, Lund, Studentlitteratur, 108 p.
• THORÉN, B. (2014): Svensk Fonetik för Andraspråksundervisningen, Stockholm,
Vulkan, 116 p.
• TSANG, A. (2019): “Reconceptualizing speaking, listening, and pronunciation:
Glocalizing TESOL in the contexts of World Englishes and English as a lingua
franca”, TESOL Quarterly 53.2, p. 580-588. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.504.
• VON ESCH, K. S., MOTHA, S. & KUBOTA, R. (2020): “Race and language
teaching”, Language Teaching 53.4, p. 391-421. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444820000269.
• WALKER, R. (2010): Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca:
A User-Friendly Handbook which Explores the Benefits of an English as a Lingua
Franca Approach to Pronunciation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 223 p.
• WELLS, J.C. (1982): Accents of English I: An introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 673 p.
• WELLS, J.C. (2009): “Goals in teaching English pronunciation”, in
K. DZIUBALSKA-KOLACZYK & J. PRZEDLACKA (eds.), English pronunciation
models: A changing scene, Berlin, Peter Lang, p. 101-110.
• WILEY, T.G. & LUKES, M. (1996): “English-Only and Standard English
Ideologies in the US”, TESOL Quarterly 30.3, p. 511-535. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3587696.
 Evolving Teaching Practices
of Pre-service Language
Teachers in L2 Pronunciation:
A Case Study

TIM KOCHEM♦
JOHN LEVIS♦♦

T he role of pronunciation instruction in language learning has had a

tumultuous history, with alternating bouts of extremism and indifference.
For example, under the Audiolingual Method, pronunciation instruction had
an ultimate goal of developing language learners’ speech to match that of native
speech (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). After this, pronunciation instruction tumbled
from its peak of importance during the ascent of Communicative Language
Teaching in the 1970s and 1980s, with researchers and teachers claiming that
pronunciation instruction was unnecessary for communicative ability (Levis
& Sonsaat, 2017). Consequently, pronunciation also fell into neglect in teacher
education, and many teachers completed their teacher preparation programs
without adequate training in this area (Murphy, 1997). Today, due to increasing
research demonstrating that pronunciation instruction almost always leads
to improvement (e.g., Lee, Jang & Plonsky, 2015), and due to a focus on the
intelligibility of speech rather than native-like achievement, we are seeing a revival
of pronunciation instruction in language learning (Derwing & Munro: 2015;
Levis, 2005). Even though pronunciation is more visible today than perhaps ever
before (Derwing, 2019; Levis, 2019), we continue to find studies that report a lack
of teacher preparedness and confidence in providing pronunciation instruction
(e.g., Macdonald, 2002; Foote, Holtby & Derwing, 2011; Murphy, 2014).
Without formal training, teachers often report that they teach pronunciation
either as prescribed in the textbook, as they learned it when they were language
learners, or they forgo instruction altogether (Derwing, 2019). This has led some
researchers to consider the effects of formal training on a teacher’s preparedness

♦ Tim Kochem, Iowa State University, Applied Linguistics and Technology (ALT).
♦♦ John Levis, Iowa State University, Applied Linguistics and Technology (ALT).

ranam n°55 /2022

156 Tim Kochem, John Levis

for providing effective pronunciation instruction (e.g., Burri, 2016; Buss, 2017;
Kochem, 2022). The results from these studies show a positive correlation
between training and a teacher’s confidence in, and valuing of, pronunciation
instruction. However, limited research has been done to show what effects
training has on a teacher’s knowledge of pronunciation. As Burri and Baker
(2020: 3) comment, “[t]o what extent L2 teachers apply—in their classrooms—
knowledge and skills they acquired in a pronunciation teacher preparation
setting, and how their cognition and practices develop after completing a course
on pronunciation pedagogy remains largely unknown.” More specifically, it is
unclear how well teacher trainees understand (1) the phonetic and phonological
processes of spoken language, (2) learner errors and their detrimental effects,
and (3) the development of instructional materials and activities to target specific
pronunciation features. Because of this, the current study explores how practical
training influences the evolving practices of teacher trainees.

Importance of Pronunciation Instruction

For adult second language learners, pronunciation learning is essential for

increased intelligibility and communicative success (Derwing & Munro, 2015).
This need matches well with findings that pronunciation can and does improve
with both face-to-face and technology-based instruction (Lee et al., 2015). It
is also clear that such improvements in pronunciation can lead to increased
comprehensibility, especially when pronunciation instruction includes a focus
on suprasegmentals and global speech features (Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998;
Zhang & Yuan, 2020). However, pronunciation instruction is often neglected in
language classrooms for a variety of reasons. It may not be taught consistently
because:
1. it may be considered peripheral to a communicative approach to language
teaching (Levis & Sonsaat, 2017),
2. it is not adequately assessed in formal examinations required by the
educational system (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016),
3. it is not a prominent part of published materials (Derwing, Diepenbroek,
& Foote, 2012),
4. teachers do not feel prepared to teach it due to lack of training or lack of
confidence (Murphy 2014, 2017), or,
5. they do not believe that their own pronunciation is an appropriate model
for learners (Phuong, 2021).
However, when teachers have the opportunity to teach in their pronunciation
training, their teaching practices often develop in surprising ways as they respond
to the needs of the learners.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 157

Preparing Language Teachers

In 1969, L.G. Kelly stated that pronunciation had finally emerged from
its long role of being a Cinderella in language teaching, at that time being
considered of equal importance with grammar, morphology, and other central
aspects of linguistic description and grammatical (or linguistic) competence.
However, the advent of the communicative era changed the rules of the language
teaching world, and it became expected that L2 pronunciation would largely
take care of itself if teachers and learners focused on learning to communicate
(Levis & Sonsaat, 2017). As a result, pronunciation fell into a new neglect in
the language teaching world. The new focus on communicative competence
(Hymes, 1972; Canale & Swain, 1981), of which linguistic competence was only
a part, filled the language teaching world with needed new goals such as teaching
appropriate language (sociolinguistic competence), learning authentic language
that is cohesive and coherent (discourse competence), and learning how to
communicate when linguistic resources were inadequate (strategic competence).
A further consequence of these changes was that pronunciation, with its focus
on accuracy, was no longer consistently part of many teacher education programs
(Murphy, 1997), and many teachers did not receive adequate training on why and
how to teach pronunciation. As a result, many language teachers did not teach
pronunciation proactively because pronunciation was not part of their language
teaching toolbox. If pronunciation errors became too prominent to ignore,
teachers could always address them in an ad hoc fashion, correcting errors that
either affected clarity or that were otherwise irritating. This ad hoc approach did
not require systematic attention to pronunciation teaching and learning.
By the early 1980s, evidence was mounting that pronunciation did not take
care of itself in communicative language teaching, and that it was often necessary
to systematically address pronunciation for intelligibility to improve. Hinofotis
and Bailey (1981), studying international teaching assistants (ITAs), proposed
that there existed a threshold for intelligibility, and that unless L2 speakers met
the threshold, they could not be understood no matter how advanced they were
in other aspects of communicative competence. This groundbreaking research on
ITAs was followed up by other research demonstrating that ITA communicative
challenges included both the construction of discourse through grammatical
choices (Tyler, 1992; Williams, 1992) and pronunciation difficulties (Anderson-
Hsieh, 1992; Gallego, 1990). Additionally, although pronunciation was often
marginalized during this time, communicative language teaching contributed to
other changes in pronunciation instruction by the mid-1980s, when there was
a growing consensus on the importance of suprasegmentals for pronunciation
learning, leading to innovative exercises that had a better fit with the principles of
CLT (Kenworthy, 1987; McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1987; Wong, 1987).
158 Tim Kochem, John Levis

The importance of pronunciation instruction has continued to grow among

teachers, and with the growth of empirical research on pronunciation’s role in
evaluations of speech related to intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness
(Jenkins, 2000; Munro & Derwing, 1995) and studies of teacher beliefs about
pronunciation (Breitkreutz, Derwing & Rossiter, 2001; Burgess & Spencer, 2000;
Foote et al., 2011), pronunciation instruction once again has become a Belle of the
Ball in the language teaching world (Derwing, 2019). However, despite growth
in research about teacher beliefs, we still know very little about what teachers
actually do when teaching pronunciation.

Preparing Teachers to Use Technology

Studies in language teacher cognitions (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge)
continue to show that teachers lack confidence in their ability to teach
pronunciation (Baker, 2014; Couper, 2017; Henderson et al., 2015), so the idea
of incorporating technology into pronunciation instruction seems far-fetched
for many language teachers. However, a myriad of studies have shown that
incorporating technology into pronunciation instruction improves learning (e.g.,
Al-Qudah, 2012; McCrocklin, 2014; Neri, Cucchiarini, & Strik, 2003), which
leaves us with the question of how to prepare teachers to use technology when
teaching pronunciation. As researchers have stated for decades (e.g., Reinders,
2009; Torsani, 2016; Warschauer, 1997), the ability to use educational technology
does not directly translate into an ability to teach with technology. The connection
between pedagogy and technology led to the rise of techno-pedagogy (Guichon
& Hauck, 2011), which explores the dynamic nature in which the two fields (i.e.,
pedagogy and technology) interact. Even with the understanding that direct
instruction is needed for teachers to be able to incorporate technology effectively,
professional development opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills
needed are still somewhat limited (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017).

As the lowest benchmark, training teachers to use technology for teaching

pronunciation should include: (1) a dissemination of information, both empirical
research and pedagogical practices, (2) methods for keeping track of all the
new technologies, and (3) the importance of usable and accessible technology
(Kochem et al., 2020). However, there seems to be a dearth of research exploring
teachers’ knowledge and practices of incorporating technology in the teaching of
pronunciation, although some scholars have suggested best practices and useful
tools (e.g., Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019; Yoshida, 2018). Therefore,
understanding how training in pronunciation pedagogy and, more importantly,
how training in technology-enhanced pronunciation pedagogy leads to teacher
practices is needed.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 159

Current Study

The purpose of this multiple case study was to explore the evolving teaching
practices of teacher trainees enrolled in an L2 pronunciation pedagogy course.
Special attention was given to three elements of the course: (1) the trainees’
ability to analyze and categorize learner errors in a diagnostic assignment; (2) the
translation of coursework into actual teaching practices during a tutoring project;
and (3) the incorporation of technology (or lack thereof) into the trainees’
tutoring sessions. This study is of relevance to both teacher educators and student
teachers of L2 pronunciation pedagogy. First, it identifies how well student
teachers are able to identify and address learner errors after taking an explicit
course in pronunciation pedagogy. Second, it identifies what student teachers
found to be most difficult when teaching pronunciation in a one-on-one setting.
Finally, it reveals how technology was incorporated into the tutoring sessions.
The findings affirm the need for more specialized training in L2 pronunciation
pedagogy in teacher preparation programs (Murphy, 2014). In particular, this
study addresses the following questions:
1. What role does learning to do diagnostic pronunciation assessments play
in the development of pronunciation teaching skills?
2. How do teachers’ cognitions and practices evolve over a four-week
tutoring project in English pronunciation?
3. In what ways is technology incorporated into the teaching of English
pronunciation?

Methodology
Participants
Fifteen teacher trainees in a graduate-level L2 pronunciation pedagogy course
at a large university in the Midwest US participated in the study. Table 1 provides
demographic information related to their speaker status, teaching experience
(including languages and levels taught), and degree currently sought during the
course. The participants had varying backgrounds and teaching experience, which
was viewed as advantageous for the current exploratory study. Pseudonyms were
randomly selected for each participant.
160 Tim Kochem, John Levis

Speaker Years Teaching Language(s) Degree

Participant Level(s) Taught
Status1 Experience Taught Sought
Amy NNS 0 n/a n/a MA
Beginner and
Andrew NNS 6 English PhD
Intermediate
English; Beginner and
Autumn NS 2 PhD
Arabic Intermediate

Ben NS 3 Spanish Beginner MA

Chloe NS 0 n/a n/a BA

English; Intermediate and

Chris NNS 8 MA
Chinese Advanced

Eve NS 1.5 English n/a (tutoring) MA

Beginner and
Faith NNS 8 English PhD
Intermediate

Jacob NS 0 n/a n/a MA

Mason NNS 0 n/a n/a PhD

Mia NS 0 n/a n/a BA

Beginner,
English;
Sarah NS 10+ Intermediate, PhD
Turkish
and Advanced

Scarlett NS 0 n/a n/a BA

Beginner and
Sofia NNS 8 English MA
Intermediate

Zelda NS 1 English Intermediate PhD

Table 1: Demographic Information

Setting
The graduate course focused on the teaching and researching of L2
pronunciation with a particular focus on English pronunciation. The course
took place within a program that emphasizes the inclusion of technology in

1 NS = native speaker; NNS = non-native speaker

 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 161

applied linguistics and language teaching though there was no requirement in

this class to include technology in teaching. Some topics covered in the course
included segmentals, suprasegmentals, materials analysis and development, and
computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT). Table 2 provides an overview
of the course, including major topics and assignments. The textbook for the
course was Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book
and Reference Guide, which introduced the participants to the communicative
framework (p. 44-48), which outlines five types of exercises or activities that
language teachers can use when teaching pronunciation: description and
analysis, listening discrimination, controlled activities, guided activities, and
communicative activities.
Week Topic(s) Assignment(s)
1 Researching and Teaching Pronunciation
2 Consonants
3 Vowels Materials Analysis 1
4 Word Stress Materials Analysis 2
5 Rhythm Materials Analysis 3
6 Connected Speech Materials Analysis 4
7 Prominence / Intonation (1)
8 Intonation (2)
9 Assessment (1)/Materials Development (1) Materials Analysis 5 / Diagnostic
10 Assessment (2)/Materials Development (2) Lesson Plans Week 1-3 for Tutoring
11 Technology Week 1 Tutoring
12 Morphology / Orthography Week 2 Tutoring
13 Speaking / Fluency Week 3 Tutoring
14 Listening / Perception Week 4 Tutoring
15 Variation and Social Aspects/Ethics of Research Paper
Instruction
Table 2: Structure of the Graduate Course

Tutoring Project

As the capstone project for the course, each participant was given the task
of providing explicit instruction to a learner of English over four weeks (i.e., a
tutoring project). The learners were current students, both undergraduate and
graduate, at the same university and from a variety of disciplines and majors.
The purpose of the project was to allow the participants to put into practice
the knowledge they had gained throughout the course. By the time the tutoring
162 Tim Kochem, John Levis

project started, the participants had received training in the major features of
English pronunciation (see Table 2 for a complete list). The tutoring sessions took
place in a space determined by the participant and their learner, so long as the
space was quiet (e.g., empty classroom, office space, conference room).
Before tutoring, each participant received audio files of their learner’s
speech, which they then had to analyze for pronunciation errors. This diagnostic
assignment was meant to give the participants a chance to notice and categorize
learner errors. At the end of the diagnostic, each participant was to choose three
pronunciation features to work on with their learner. For these features, tutors
were encouraged to address the pronunciation errors that were most detrimental
to the learner’s comprehensibility and intelligibility. From there, the participant
developed a three-week lesson plan based on a template, in which the three
features selected should be targeted in each lesson. While the participants were
not required to follow their lesson plan exactly, they were required to address
each of the three features each week. This flexibility allowed participants to spend
more time on a particular feature if they thought it was necessary. For the lesson
plan for the fourth week, tutors were asked to create their own plan that did not
have to conform to the template plan of the first three weeks.

Data Collection Instruments

Four instruments were used to collect data in this study: diagnostic
assessments, oral reports, written reflections, and tutoring observations. The use
of multiple methods aided with methodological (between-methods) triangulation
(Denzin, 1989), as each instrument was used to provide another angle to analyze
the participants’ experiences and their evolving teacher practices. In addition to
the four instruments, there were a number of other data sources that were used
to further contextualize the findings, including unstructured interviews with the
participants and the course instructor, video recordings of the course, and the
lesson plans that were developed by the participants.

Diagnostic Assessment
Teachers in the study started the tutoring project by being assigned a student
for the tutoring project. Before the first tutoring session, the tutee recorded their
speech in both read-aloud and spontaneous tasks. Tutees were recruited through
university ESL classes or when they approached the course instructors for extra
help. Tutees were assigned to tutors by the instructors of the class based on what
we knew of the tutee’s needs and the tutors’ backgrounds. Our main intended
restriction in matching pairs was that we tried to avoid tutors and tutees sharing
the same language background to encourage the use of English throughout the
tutoring.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 163

The diagnostic assessment included a variety of tasks, each of which targeted

different pronunciation features. This was done to acquaint tutors with different
ways to elicit pronunciation targets, to make it easier to choose targets for tutoring,
and to make the diagnostic grading more transparent. Tutors were given a week
to complete the diagnosis before receiving feedback on their accuracy from the
instructors. The tasks and targets for diagnosis are listed in Table 3.

Task Target(s) and Number of items Comments

Reading tasks
Passage Consonants (not counted) Passage reading is a common way
reading -ed & -s endings (17) of diagnosing pronunciation. The
Word stress (28) passage is from Celce-Murcia et al.
Intonation (16) (2010). Consonant sounds were not
counted because of their quantity
Minimal pair Vowels (72) Potentially challenging vowel
reading minimal pairs were presented
together.
Short phrase Linking (11) Connected speech features such
reading as linking are advocated for
pronunciation teaching. These phases
highlight three types of linking: CV,
VV, and CC
Sentence Distinguishing full vowels (16) The production of schwa is critical
reading from reduced vowels (12) to English rhythm. These Sentences
include both full and reduced vowels
diagnosed during different listening
tasks.
Dialogue Prominence (28) Prominence (or sentence stress) is
reading important for marking contrasts and
new information. This task targets
final and non-final placement of
prominence.
Free speech tasks
Describe All targets Reading aloud is more efficient at
favorite eliciting target features, but less
holiday authentic as a task. This task asks
tutees to speak freely on a familiar
topic.
Video prompt All targets Picture and video retelling elicit
retelling speech that is less monitored for
pronunciation features by requiring
retelling. This video narration uses a
video without speech as a prompt.
Table 3: Structure of the diagnostic assessment

Besides the immediate purpose of the diagnostic, that is, as a needs analysis for
the tutoring, the diagnostic also was intended to help tutors learn to listen to
164 Tim Kochem, John Levis

pronunciation as part of controlled and free speech, to identify individual errors

and error patterns, and to make decisions about priorities. Tutors were required
to choose three errors to teach, at least one of which had to be a suprasegmental
(word stress, intonation, rhythm, or prominence). When the diagnostic was
graded, they were given feedback both on the accuracy of their listening and the
appropriateness of their choices.

Written Reflections
Written reflections were collected from the participants during weeks 1
and 4 of the tutoring project (weeks 11 and 14 of the course, respectively). The
participants were required to write two to three pages for each reflection, as they
answered the following questions:
1. Describe how your tutoring session went. Try to provide as much detail
as possible.
2. Reflect and evaluate your tutoring session. What was successful and what
was not successful? Why?
3. What changes, if any, do you think you would make if you had the chance
to do the tutoring session over?
4. How do you think your tutee responded to your instruction? Why?

Oral Reports
Oral reports were conducted during weeks 2 and 3 of the tutoring project
(weeks 12 and 13 of the course, respectively). Each oral report lasted roughly 60
minutes and was broken into two constituents: a semi-structured interview (SSI)
and a stimulated recall interview (SRI). The SSIs were used to gather general
information about the participants’ experiences with the tutoring project, while
the SRIs were used to have the participants interact with video footage of their
actual tutoring sessions.

Tutoring Observations
Video-recorded tutoring observations were conducted with each participant
in weeks 2 and 3 (approximately 110 minutes in total for each student teacher).
These weeks were decided in tandem with the course instructor as the ideal weeks
to observe the participants. Each observation was recorded and used as part of the
SRI and to provide further contextualization for any findings.

Data Analysis

First, data collected from the diagnostic assessment were analyzed for
frequency of errors. The frequencies were then entered into an Excel spreadsheet
for further comparison of the pronunciation errors that the participants made.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 165

Next, the oral reports were transcribed verbatim. These data, along with the
video-recorded tutoring observations, were entered into NVivo 12 (released
in March 2020) for coding purposes. The tutoring videos were segmented into
individual activities, which allowed for the coding of the activity types, and the
oral reports were segmented into their two constituents (i.e., SSI and SRI). This
step was done as soon as the authors realized that the data types provided separate
views about the participants’ teaching practices. Finally, the written reflections
were added.
A top-down approach to coding was adopted to analyze the SSIs, SRIs, and
written reflections using Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theoretical model of teachers’
seven categories of knowledge. For the current study, the authors emphasized
three of these categories: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,
and knowledge of the learner. These three categories were chosen to highlight
the student teachers’ knowledge of pronunciation and phonological features (i.e.,
content knowledge), their ability to translate content knowledge into practical
teaching applications (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge), and their ability to
analyze and categorize learner errors (i.e., knowledge of the learner). This coding
scheme was further adapted using the work of Baker (2014), Brown (2007),
Burri (2016), Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), and Couper (2017) to allow for a more
in-depth understanding of pronunciation pedagogy and practices.

Findings
Diagnostic
The pronunciation diagnostic was evaluated in two ways: for accuracy by
the second author before the initial tutoring sessions, and retrospectively by the
teachers in their reflective comments. The second author, who has several decades
of experience in supervising tutoring experiences and diagnostic assessment,
checked his impressions with the first author, who had previously taken the class
before serving as the teaching assistant and carrying out the primary research
reported in this paper.
The tutors had a week to complete the diagnostic assessment and to use their
findings to recommend targets for tutoring. They were asked to recommend
three targets and two alternative targets (in case some of the initial choices were
misguided or based on inaccurate listening). Tutors were generally accurate
in their choices, but in a minority of cases, tutors were asked to change their
targets because they had chosen a feature that they had not heard accurately. The
diagnostic assessment assignment, which was able to be listened to in about 25
minutes from beginning to end, took almost every tutor the full week to complete,
and most tutors turned it in but expressed a lack of confidence that they had
heard everything accurately. However, the tutors became very familiar with their
tutees’ speech patterns before their first meeting, and the diagnostic served to
make them more confident about meeting their tutees and getting started right
away with focused practice.
166 Tim Kochem, John Levis

Their expressed lack of confidence was in line with their overall accuracy on
the assessment and often showed that they did not hear pronunciation errors
consistently well (see Table 4 for error frequencies). This was true both for
features that they were already sensitive to (e.g., vowel contrasts) and those that
they were not used to identifying (e.g., differences between full and reduced
vowels, prominence). Sometimes their mishearings came from the influence of
their L1. For some vowels, for example, L2 English-speaking tutors admitted
they struggled to hear certain contrasts themselves and they were uncertain they
were classifying sounds correctly. For other features, such as prominence, tutors
would hear some aspects of prominent syllables well (pitch movement) but not
others (deaccenting syllables after the prominence). Often, the result of their
own struggles was that the tutors wanted to teach these features. If L2 English-
speaking teachers struggled to hear vowel contrasts (such as the difference
between bad and bed), they found models to use on the internet and took the
role of a co-learner. This strategy was almost always successful in connecting to
the tutee’s difficulties and in stepping back from the role of an infallible expert.

-ed/-s Word Reduced

Student Intonation Vowels Linking Full Vowels Prominence
Endings Stress Vowels
Teacher (16) (72) (11) (16) (28)
(17) (28) (12)
Amy 0 0 0 18 0 0 7 6
Andrew 0 0 0 12 1 2 8 1
Autumn 0 2 0 2 2 1 4 3
Ben 0 2 0 8 3 0 1 6
Chloe 1 0 0 4 1 1 6 4
Chris 0 3 1 13 1 3 5 3
Eve 0 0 0 7 0 1 3 3
Faith 0 5 1 15 4 3 3 5
Jacob 2 5 1 8 2 2 5 2
Mason 0 8 0 6 1 0 0 4
Mia 0 0 0 7 1 0 4 5
Sarah 0 0 3 2 3 5 4 3
Scarlett 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 3
Sofia 0 6 0 10 1 4 4 3
Zelda 0 3 1 16 0 6 4 5
Mean 0.19 2.38 0.44 8.94 1.38 1.81 3.94 3.75

Table 4: Error Frequencies of Student Teachers on Diagnostic Assessment

Tutoring
During the first week of tutoring, the student teachers reported that the
sessions went well overall, though a number mentioned pitfalls or hurdles that
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 167

they needed to overcome in future sessions. Two of these challenges, which

provide a good snapshot of the student teachers’ evolution as pronunciation
instructors, included (1) piloting, ordering, and executing activities and (2)
teaching and assessing suprasegmental features.
Piloting, ordering, and executing activities. Thirteen of the 15 student
teachers mentioned they would change their choice or execution of activities,
from simply having more activities on-hand in case they finished early to piloting
the activities beforehand. The first week’s reflections from the student teachers
revealed that time management was a factor that many misjudged. For example,
seven student teachers mentioned that listening activities were either significantly
longer or shorter than they had expected, which resulted in the timing of their
session to be off. As Ben noted after the first week:

I now have a better idea about which aspects of each feature we

can focus on [in each session] and how long various activity types
take […]. Therefore, I will simply try to be more realistic next week
with how long each activity might take and perhaps have extra
activities in the case that we progress more quickly than expected.
(Reflection #1)

Mia shared a similar hurdle with the timing of activities, noting that she “need[s]
to work on timing things out a bit better. The first two topics [received] sufficient
time, but the last [topic] was shortened considerably” (Reflection #1). This
hurdle—that each pronunciation feature did not receive equal attention—was
noted by over half of the student teachers.
To resolve this issue with time management, some student teachers mentioned
that piloting their activities beforehand could be a possible solution. In addition
to time management, piloting the activities would also ensure that the activity
would do what the student teacher wanted it to do, as Ben noted:

[…] I plan to do a mock run-through of my materials prior to the

[second] session in hopes of identifying any possible bugs in the
materials[…]. I realized that one of the /ʌ/-/ɑ/ activities didn’t
actually work as I had planned (I had initially thought that I could
restructure it on the fly to work differently than the activity was
intended for), and so I had to scrap the activity just minutes before
starting. (Reflection #1)

Teaching and assessing suprasegmental features. Studies have found that

teachers prefer to teach segmentals over suprasegmentals, as they are generally
perceived to be easier to teach (Foote et al., 2011; Foote, Trofimovich, Collins, &
Urzúa, 2016; Huensch, 2019). Even though some participants noted an increase
in confidence—“After this course, I feel more knowledgeable and confident with
168 Tim Kochem, John Levis

suprasegmentals” (Mia, Reflection #2)—eight participants painted a different

picture about suprasegmental instruction. Frequent unwanted pauses and missed
errors often were reported by participants while watching themselves teach
suprasegmental features, particularly intonation and prominence. The unwanted
pauses were typically the result of providing descriptions and examples, as Faith
remarked while reflecting on teaching intonation: “I’m just not confident about
that. I don’t know if I have the right intonation or not. Not describing, just
[producing intonation]” (SRI #1). Scarlett presented a similar reflection when
talking about prominence instruction as a NS:

I think prominence is harder than I thought it would be because

prominence is something that is—like production of a consonant or
a vowel, you know, you can think about where it is in your mouth,
you explain how to produce it—but prominence is something that
is just so intuitive. And […] I can be taught […] prominence is
what this means, and this is how we use it, and when I’m trying to
explain it to somebody, it’s a lot harder because it’s like explaining
how to walk. (SSI #1)

The ‘intuitive’ nature of prominence, as Scarlett refers to it, is likely the result of
acquiring this feature as a NS rather than learning it as an NNS.
While NS and NNS participants mentioned challenges with teaching
suprasegmental features, only NNS participants unequivocally mentioned having
a lack of confidence in their examples, with their L2 accent typically being the
underlying cause. Mason more explicitly stated this lack of confidence as an
obstacle for NNS teachers: “I don’t know but when it comes to actually explaining
what the pronunciation feature is, especially suprasegmentals, and I’m not
saying that [NS speakers] are better, I’m just saying that nonnative trainees
wouldn’t be as confident” (SSI #2). A lack of confidence by the teacher could
lead towards neglecting instruction in the future, as some suggest (e.g., Derwing,
2019), which is concerning because some writers have said that pronunciation
instruction “should focus first and foremost on suprasegmentals as they have the
greatest impact on the comprehensibility of the learner’s English” (McNerney &
Mendelsohn, 1992: 132).

Use of Technology
While not explicitly asked to use technology, six student teachers decided
to incorporate technology into their tutoring sessions. Among the six student
teachers, five used technology to show a video from YouTube, and one used
technological resources aside from YouTube. Autumn, Faith, Mia, Sarah,
and Scarlett used a laptop to show videos from YouTube. Faith incorporated
two types of videos, both an instructional video and short clips from the
sitcom Friends. Her motivation to use the instructional video was to provide
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 169

a description of the pronunciation feature that also gave a sagittal view of the
mouth and tongue, which she thought would be “more helpful” for her learner
than her description alone (SSI #1). After the instructional video, Faith provided
explicit activities to focus on her pronunciation features, such as intonation and
rhythm. Additionally, she introduced methods of improving pronunciation by
watching American sitcoms, which was her attempt to get her learner motivated,
stating, “It was not easy to keep her motivated for the whole class time. But
watching a video seemed to amuse her and it was also a new strategy for her to
learn” (Reflection #4).
Mia, Scarlett, and Autumn also used YouTube videos to show clips of
American movies or television shows. Mia and Autumn, while overall pleased
with how the activity progressed, mentioned they would have gotten input from
their learner before selecting the clips, as Mia expanded, “Yeah, I don’t think she
hated [the Disney clips], but she didn’t enjoy them as much as I did” (SSI #2).
Scarlett also used clips from YouTube, but she mentioned difficulty in preparing
for the activity during the tutoring session:

I had thought I had watched it over and over and had marked on
my paper where the [features] I wanted to talk about were and what
I want to talk about with him. But I didn’t really write out a whole
explanation for everything, and so I’m sitting there and I’m like,
“Oh, I know I wanted to bring this up there” but that was kind of
hard because I didn’t know how. (SRI #2)

One trainee, Eve, used technology beyond showing YouTube videos. She
incorporated listening exercises from EnglishAccentCoach into each of her
tutoring sessions to work on the /f-θ/ distinction. While this practice became
successful by the end of the tutoring project, Eve reported in the first week
that “one aspect of the session that was [least] successful was [her] use of
EnglishAccentCoach” (Reflection #1). Her learner found this tool to be frustrating
because it focused solely on sounds, while the learner was trying to understand
them as words. Eve found a quick and effective solution for this hurdle in the next
session: “I began with other listening activities first in which I provided her with
real words with the target sounds, and then I gave her the EnglishAccentCoach.
com activity” (SSI #1). In this order, Eve found that her student had been
“primed” for hearing the specific sound after hearing it in context first.

Implications
This article used three separate lenses to look at how student teachers evolved
in their knowledge and practice of teaching pronunciation in a one-on-one
setting: (1) diagnosing and evaluating learner errors; (2) teaching pronunciation
in a one-on-one setting; and (3) incorporating technological tools to enhance
170 Tim Kochem, John Levis

pronunciation instruction. The diagnostic was an essential first step, both to focus
the tutors’ listening and to prioritize their teaching targets as they decided what
was most important. Second, although working with one learner is different from
working with a full class, it focused the tutors’ attention in a way that a full class
would not. Tutors were faced with success or lack of success because they had
to concentrate on one person who was constantly providing feedback on how
well they were doing. Tutors could not put learners into pairs or groups, and
thus tutors had to be constantly engaged. Tutors also found that they needed to
improvise and adjust as they saw the success (or failure) of their teaching plans
and activities. Finally, although tutors were not required to use technology, they
often did. Experienced pronunciation tutors often act as communicators, models,
and feedback providers at the same time. These multiple roles can be exhausting
for teachers, and the use of technology, especially in providing a reliable model,
allowed tutors to concentrate on communicating and making decisions about
feedback. Because these tutors were also digital natives, they often used technology
in ways that the teacher of the class had not thought of, indicating that they were
connecting their teaching goals to other sources of input that they knew of before
learning to teach pronunciation. For example, Eve used her computer’s webcam
as a mirror. In this way, the tutee could watch Eve’s mouth and then mimic her
own facial movements when trying to distinguish two sounds. This was further
utilized when Eve made recordings of herself making the sounds, which the tutee
could use later to continue practicing by having the recording on one side of the
computer screen and the webcam video on the other side.

Conclusion
Even though pronunciation is becoming more visible than ever in language
teaching and in applied research contexts (Levis, 2015), teacher training in
pronunciation pedagogy remains neglected in most language teacher preparation
programs. It is highly desirable to have classes devoted to the teaching of
pronunciation, and content knowledge about pronunciation teaching and
learning must be the backbone of such a class. Teachers’ growth, however, is not
likely to develop deeply without putting content knowledge into practice. The
tutoring project reported on in this paper shows how different practical tasks
provide the context for tutors to put their knowledge to work with a learner with
specific challenges. There are other ways of putting theory into practice, but the
tutoring project reported here is both flexible and effective in helping students
experience how content knowledge works in practice.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 171

References
• AL-QUDAH, F.Z.M. (2012): “Improving English pronunciation through
computer-assisted programs in Jordanian universities”, Journal of College
Teaching & Learning 9.3, p. 201-208.
• ANDERSON-HSIEH, J. (1992): “Using electronic visual feedback to teach
suprasegmentals”, System 20.1, p. 51-62.
• BAKER, A. (2014): “Exploring teachers’ knowledge of L2 pronunciation
techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices and student
perceptions”, TESOL Quarterly 48.1, p. 136-163.
• BREITKREUTZ, J., DERWING, T. & ROSSITER, M. (2002): “Pronunciation
teaching practices in Canada”, TESL Canada Journal 19.1, p. 51-61.
• BROWN, H. D. (2007): Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to
language pedagogy (3rd ed.), White Plains, NY, Pearson Education.
• BURGESS, J. & SPENCER, S. (2000): “Phonology and pronunciation in
integrated language teaching and teacher education”, System 28.2, p. 191-215.
• BURRI, M. (2016): “‘It’s been a real eye opener’: Learning to teach English
pronunciation from a teacher cognition perspective” (doctoral dissertation),
University of Wollongong, NSW.
• BURRI, M. & BAKER, A. (2020): “‘A big influence on my teaching career and
my life’: A longitudinal study of learning to teach English pronunciation”, TESL-
EJ 23.4, p. 1-24.
• BUSS, L. (2017): “The role of training in shaping pre-service teacher cognition
related to L2 pronunciation”, Ilha do Desterro 70, p. 201-226.
• CANALE, M. & SWAIN, M. (1981): “A theoretical framework for communicative
competence”, in PALMER, A., GROOT, P. & TROPER, G. (eds.), The Construct
Validation of Tests of Communicative Competence, Washington, D.C., TESOL,
p. 31-36.
• CELCE-MURCIA, M., BRINTON, D., GOODWIN, J. & GRINER, B. (2010):
Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.), New York,
NY, Cambridge University Press.
• COUPER, G. (2017): “Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: Teachers’
concerns and issues”, TESOL Quarterly 51.4, p. 820-839.
• DENZIN, N. K. (1989): The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice
Hall.
• DERWING, T. (2019): “Utopian goals for pronunciation research revisited”, in
LEVIS, J., NAGLE, C. & TODEY, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pronunciation
in Second Language Learning and Teaching conference, ISSN 2380-9566, Iowa
State University, September 2018, Ames, IA, Iowa State University, p. 27-35.
• DERWING, T.M., DIEPENBROEK, L.G. & FOOTE, J.A. (2012): “How well do
general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation?”, TESL Canada Journal 30.1,
p. 22-44.
172 Tim Kochem, John Levis

• DERWING, T.M. & MUNRO, M.J. (2015): Pronunciation fundamentals:

Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research, Amsterdam, Benjamins.
• DERWING, T.M., MUNRO, M.J. & WIEBE, G. (1998): “Evidence in favor
of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction”, Language Learning 48.3,
p. 393-410.
• FOOTE, J., HOLTBY, A. AND DERWING, T. (2011): “Survey of the teaching
pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada”, TESL Canada Journal 29.1,
p. 1-22.
• FOOTE, J.A., TROFIMOVICH, P., COLLINS, L. & URZÚA, F. (2016):
“Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes”,
The Language Learning Journal 44.2, p. 181-196.
• GALLEGO, J. (1990): “The intelligibility of three nonnative English-speaking
teaching assistants: an analysis of student reported communication breakdown”,
Issues in Applied Linguistics 1, p. 219–237.
• GUICHON, N. & HAUCK, M. (2011): “Teacher education research in CALL
and CMC: More in demand than ever”, ReCALL 23.3, p. 187–199.
• HENDERSON, A., CURNICK, L., FROST, D., KAUTZSCH, A., KIRKOVA-
NASKOVA, A., LEVEY, D., TERGUJEFF, E. & WANIEK-KLIMCZAK, E.
(2015): “The English pronunciation teaching in Europe survey: Factors inside
and outside the classroom”, in MOMPEAN, J. & FOUZ-GONZÁLEZ, J. (eds.),
Investigating English Pronunciation: Current Trends and Directions, Palgrave
Macmillan, p. 260-291.
• HINOFOTIS, F. & BAILEY, K. (1981): “American undergraduates’ reactions to
the communication skills of foreign teaching assistants”, in TESOL 80, Building
Bridges: Research and practice in teaching English as a second language, p. 120-130.
• HUENSCH, A. (2019): “The pronunciation teaching practices of university‐
level graduate teaching assistants of French and Spanish introductory language
courses”, Foreign Language Annals 52.1, p. 13-31.
• HYMES, D. (1972): “On communicative competence”, in PRIDE, J. and
HOLMES, J., (eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, Penguin, p. 269–293.
• JENKINS, J. (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• KELLY, L. G. (1969): 25 centuries of language teaching, Rowley, MA, Newbury
House.
• KENWORTHY, J. (1987): The teaching of English pronunciation, New York,
NY, Longman.
• KESSLER, G. & HUBBARD, P. (2017): “Language teacher education and
technology”, in CHAPPELLE, C. & SAURO, S. (eds.), The Handbook of Technology
and Second Language Teaching and Learning, John Wiley & Sons, p. 278–292.
• KOCHEM, T. (2022): “Exploring the connection between teacher training and
teacher cognitions related to L2 pronunciation instruction”, TESOL Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3095.
 Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language 173

• KOCHEM, T., MUHAMMAD, A.A., KARATAY, Y., JIN, H. & HEGELHEIMER,

V. (2020): “Considerations for future technology development based on EFL
teachers’ integration of technology”, in KRUK, M. & PETERSON, M. (eds.),
New Technological Applications for Foreign and Second Language Learning and
Teaching, IGI Global, p. 239-260.
• LEE, J., JANG, J. AND PLONSKY, L. (2015): “The effectiveness of second
language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis”, Applied Linguistics 36.3,
p. 345-366.
• LEVIS, J. (2005): “Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation
teaching”, TESOL Quarterly 39.3, p. 369-377.
• LEVIS, J. (2015): “Pronunciation trends across journals and the journal of
second language pronunciation”, Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 1.2,
p. 129–134.
• LEVIS, J. M. (2019): “Pronunciation research in recent dissertations”, Journal of
Second Language Pronunciation 5.2, p. 181-194.
• LEVIS, J., & SONSAAT, S. (2017): “Pronunciation teaching in the early CLT
era”, in KANG, O., THOMSON, R. I. & MURPHY, J. M. (eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of Contemporary English Pronunciation, Routledge, p. 267-283.
• MACDONALD, S. (2002): “Pronunciation—views and practices of reluctant
teachers”, Prospect 17.3, p. 3–18.
• MCCROCKLIN, S. M. (2014): “The potential of Automatic Speech Recognition
for fostering pronunciation learners’ autonomy” (Doctoral dissertation), Ames,
IA, Iowa State University.
• MCNERNEY, M. & MENDELSOHN, D. (1992): “Suprasegmentals in the
pronunciation class: Setting priorities”, in AVERY, P. & EHRLICH, S. (eds.),
Teaching American English Pronunciation, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
p. 185-196.
• MUNRO, M.J. & DERWING, T.M. (1995): “Foreign accent, comprehensibility
and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners”, Language Learning
45, p. 73-97.
• MUNRO, M.J., & DERWING, T.M. (2015): “A prospectus for pronunciation
research in the 21st century: A point of view”, Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation 1.1, p. 11-42.
• MURPHY, J. (1997): “Phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs in the
US”, TESOL Quarterly 31.4, p. 741-764.
• MURPHY, J. (2014): “Teacher training programs provide adequate preparation
in how to teach pronunciation”, in GRANT, L. (ed.), Pronunciation Myths:
Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, Ann Arbor, MI, The
University of Michigan Press, p. 188–224.
• MURPHY, J. (2017): Teaching the Pronunciation of English: Focus on Whole
Courses. Ann Arbor, MI, The University of Michigan Press.
174 Tim Kochem, John Levis

• NERI, A., CUCCHIARINI, C. & STRIK, H. (2003): “Automatic speech

recognition for second language learning: How and why it actually works”, in
Proc. ICPhS, p. 1157-1160.
• PENNINGTON, M. C. & ROGERSON-REVELL, P. (2019): “Using technology
for pronunciation teaching, learning, and assessment”, in English Pronunciation
Teaching and Research, London, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 235-285.
• PHUONG, T. T. H. (2021): “Who should teach English pronunciation?–Voices of
Vietnamese EFL learners and teachers”, The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 18.1, p. 125-141.
• QSR INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD. (2020): NVivo (released in March 2020),
https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/
home
• REINDERS, H. (2009): “Teaching (with) technology: The scope and practice of
teacher education for technology”, Prospect 24.3, p. 15–23.
• SAITO, K. & PLONSKY, L. (2019): “Effects of second language pronunciation
teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta‐analysis”,
Language Learning 69.3, p. 652-708.
• SHULMAN, L. (1986): “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching”,
Educational Researcher 15.2, p. 4-14.
• SHULMAN, L. (1987): “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform”, Harvard Educational Review 57.1, p. 1-23.
• THOMSON, R. & DERWING, T. (2015): “The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation
instruction: A narrative review”, Applied Linguistics 36.3, p. 326-344.
• TORSANI, S. (2016): CALL Teacher Education: Language Teachers and
Technology Integration, The Netherlands, Sense Publishers.
• TROFIMOVICH, P. & ISAACS, T. (2016): “Second language pronunciation
assessment: A look at the present and the future”, in ISAACS, T. & TROFIMOVICH,
P. (eds.), Second Language Pronunciation Assessment, Blue Ridge Summit, PA,
Multilingual Matters, p. 259-271.
• TYLER, A. (1992): “Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence
in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse”, TESOL Quarterly 26.4,
p. 713–729.
• WARSCHAUER, M. (1997): “From the editor”, Language Learning & Technology
1.1, p. 1.
• WILLIAMS, J. (1992): “Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility
of international teaching assistants”, TESOL Quarterly 26.4, p. 693–711.
• WONG, R. (1987): Teaching Pronunciation: Focus on English Rhythm and
Intonation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall Regents.
• YOSHIDA, M. T. (2018): “Choosing technology tools to meet pronunciation
teaching and learning goals”, CATESOL Journal, 30.1, p. 195-212.
• ZHANG, R. & YUAN, Z. M. (2020): “Examining the effects of explicit
pronunciation instruction on the development of L2 pronunciation”, Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 42.4, p. 905-918.
 English Pronunciation and the
Spelling-Sound Code: What
Priorities for Teachers of EFL?

SUSAN MOORE MAUROUX♦

O ne of the paradoxes of mastering spoken English is that in the learning

environment, even when the main objective is speaking, teachers rely
to some extent on written sources: oral task-based activities usually involve
written instructions as do tests, and the written mode is the one used for
reference purposes like, for instance, memorizing the lexicon (Duchet, 2018:
5). As Schottman (2012: 77) reminds us: “For the foreign language learner, the
question is […] how to pronounce [a word] knowing how it is spelled.” Yet this
is far from easy and written English is itself often identified as being a source
of error for spoken English because learners tend to use their own L1 code to
decode L2 (Aslam Sipra, 2013: 1211; Bouvet, 2021; Fournier, 2010: ix; Howe &
Moore Mauroux, 2021: 1; Moore Mauroux, 2010: 20). However, English has a
very different system and learners need to understand its specificities to be able
to interpret it.
This approach implies a degree of theoretical knowledge, which begs two
related but distinct questions that are central to this article: what do English
teachers need to know as specialists of the field; and what do teachers need to
know to teach L2 English? These questions lead us to a third one: how far do the
theoretical principles acquired during higher education relate to learner priorities
in the classroom?
I will first identify the challenges that spoken English presents for L1 French
learners, particularly regarding the spelling-to-sound system, and discuss how
far an understanding of this code may help them with both perception and
production. I will then analyse how spelling-sound issues are addressed in a

♦ Susan Moore Mauroux, Université de Limoges, EA3648, CeReS, Centre de recherches en

sémiotique.
1 Aslam Sipra explains that confusion is triggered because the relationship between
English spelling and pronunciation is not direct, unlike in Urdu, the basis for his study.

ranam n°55 /2022

176 Susan Moore Mauroux

teacher recruitment exam, the agrégation externe d’anglais (AEA)2, looking at

the phonology subsection of the linguistics papers from 2000 to 2020, together
with the jury reports, considering how far this theoretical knowledge relates to
specialists and/or to learners.

The English Spelling-Sound Code: Identifying

the Challenges
English Rhythm and the Spelling-Sound Code
Many researchers consider that the rhythm of English is the key to spoken
English (Fournier, 2010; Howe & Moore, 2021; Huart, 2010; Moore Mauroux,
2010; Schottman, 2012) and spelling-sound issues can only be addressed once
this is understood. Indeed, rules for spelling-sound correspondences only apply
to stressed syllables; unstressed syllables, as well as grammatical words, frequently
undergo vowel reduction, thus erasing any spelling-sound connection. This is
the first challenge for L2 learners to appreciate: what they hear will not always be
what they expect from written English.
If English spelling still appears to be somewhat unpredictable3, researchers
today generally agree that there is a coherent, if complex, system of rules that
enables speakers to predict pronunciation. From Guierre (1987) to Duchet
(2018) whose Code de l’anglais oral was first published in 1993, on to works that
appeared soon after phonology was introduced in the AEA (Deschamps et al.,
2004; Viel, 2003), they all give a very comprehensive overview of the English
spelling-sound system, including detailed information regarding rules, subrules
and exceptions. They address a specialist readership, especially candidates for
teaching exams, where extensive knowledge of the system is required from
a theoretical perspective but also with regard to their mastery of the spoken
language, which is a prerequisite for teaching.
These issues are referred to in recent official instructions for education
(Bulletin Officiel, 2019, annexe I:4; annexe II: 4) which specify that teachers
should highlight regularities and spelling-sound correspondences in class. I shall
now consider which appear to be most relevant for French L1 learners of English.

2 The Agrégation externe d’anglais, hereafter referred to as AEA, is a French recruitment

exam for teachers that has tested phonological theory since 2000. The CAPES, another
secondary education recruitment exam, is to include questions on phonology from 2022.
3 Many of its idiosyncrasies are rooted in the history of the language (Viel, 2003;
Schottman, 2012).
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 177

The Sounds of English: Sound Similarities, Spelling

Correspondences and Sources of Confusion
Some sounds of English represent articulatory challenges. As Flege (1987:
48) explains: “Languages differ both in terms of the number of contrastive sound
units they possess, and according to how those units are realized articulatorily.”
He identifies three categories of phonemes: those that are identical in L1 and L2,
those that are similar which are generally articulated according to L1 articulatory
principles, and those that are new.
There are several consonant phonemes that are either similar (but different)
or entirely new. Most represent only slight comprehension or intelligibility
issues. Nonetheless, producing the English /r/ sound as a French uvular [ʁ] will
inevitably identify the speaker as French, as will inappropriate /h/ insertion
(Moore Mauroux, 2010: 3) or h-dropping (which may affect communication).
Highly proficient users (C2) will aim to master slight phonetic differences
between French and English (for example, /t/ and /d/ articulated as alveolars in
English and dentals in French).
The new sounds /θ/ and /ð/ are a challenge for French learners even if
mispronouncing them will not greatly affect intelligibility4. They represent a
specificity of spoken English in both Southern British English and General
American (henceforth SBE and GA), the two reference varieties5 for teaching
exams, but French learners tend to pronounce them /s/ and /z/ which, like
uvular [ʁ], indicates the speaker’s origin. There is, however, a direct spelling-
sound correspondence in SBE and GA as /θ/ and /ð/ are always spelt with the
digraph <th>6, unlike French where it is pronounced /t/ so knowing the code
means learners should know how to pronounce them. I shall concentrate on how
the code works for SBE and GA as standard references, but learners will hear
different realisations and significant differences need to be highlighted if they
affect comprehension.
The vowel system of English functions very differently from French as it uses
a lax/tense (or short/long) distinction that is unfamiliar to L1 French speakers

4 The CEFRL defines production objectives as follows: intelligibility for A2-B1 learners,
expressivity for B2, fluidity from C1, complete mastery at C2. French official instructions
insist that intelligibility, rather than the native speaker model, is the aim at A2-B2
level (Bulletin Officiel, 2019), but learners are still expected to produce phonemes with
progressively more accuracy.
5 These two varieties are the articulatory reference models for teachers. However, see also
Schottman (2012: vi) who provides a number of different models for the exercises in her
book. Indeed, if reports from all teaching exams (CAPES, agrégation interne, AEA) insist
on the importance for teachers of having a coherent model of English, it need not be one
of the reference models.
6 The correspondence does not work from spelling to sound as <th> can be pronounced
/t/ in both SBE and GA but this concerns only a small number of words, often proper
names like Thomas or Thames.
178 Susan Moore Mauroux

resulting in both production and perception issues. The vowel system also
includes diphthongs, which, although unfamiliar to L1 French speakers, do not
all present the same articulatory challenges. However, once learners have a few
simple keys to the spelling-sound code7, the distinction between lax vowels and
tense vowels (or diphthongs) is often predictable from the spelling. I shall now
consider the pairs or groups of vowels that appear to be most problematic for
French learners, using examples inspired from Huart (2010: 85-6) and Moore
Mauroux (2010: 5).

/ɪ/ (ship, sit); /i:/ (sheep); /aɪ/ (site)

Differentiating these sounds relies on the lax/tense (diphthong) distinction which

French learners have difficulty perceiving and producing, corroborating Flege’s
findings (1987: 48) which show a clear correlation between perceiving sounds and
being able to produce them8. Yet there are regular correspondences between the
type of vowel and its spelling. Providing learners are aware of these distinctions,
contextual spelling-sound rules, such as the examples given below, should enable
them to predict the type of vowel they need to produce and allow them to decode
what they hear. This is particularly relevant for lax (short) vowels where there are
few irregularities.
a) Checked vowel contexts <’VC#>, <’VC2> correspond to lax vowels (ship,
sit, sitting).
b) Free vowel contexts <’V#>, <’VCe> (silent <e>, also known as “magic
E”) (site), and digraphs, <VV> (sheep) correspond to tense vowels or
diphthongs.
NB. The following conventions are used: <…>: orthographic transcription
(spelling); ‘: stress mark; V: graphic vowel; C: graphic consonant; #:
morphological boundary.
Unlike /ɪ/, the diphthong /aɪ/ presents little articulatory difficulty, except that it
is a new sound, but words spelt <i> will be mispronounced if learners use their
L1 spelling-sound code. The sound produced by many French learners for both
of these words is close to /i:/, so sit and site then rhyme with the French word
gite. Yet the same reading rule applies here to distinguish sit (lax) from site (a
diphthong9). Errors like this often occur on transparent words and obviously
affect intelligibility.

7 For a detailed analysis of the spelling-sound code, see especially Deschamps et al., 2004;
Duchet, 2018; Fournier, 2010; Guierre, 1987; Schottman, 2012; Viel, 2003.
8 Even if there seem to be limits to this theory in terms of age and/or exposure to the
model (Isbell, 2016), it still provides a useful framework for work on both articulation and
sound perception.
9 The basic checked value for <i> is /ɪ/, the free value is /aɪ/.
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 179

/e/ and /eɪ/ (sells/sales)

This pair is equally problematic but the confusion between the two sounds is due
to syllable structure rather than any real difficulty in articulation. As most French
speakers have an allophonic alternation between the sound in an open syllable
(‘V#, as in French thé) and the sound in the checked context of a following
consonant (‘VC#, as in French thème), they are likely to transfer this allophonic
rule to English, thus producing a sound similar to /e/ instead of the required
English diphthong which frequently occurs in the sound context /VC#/. Yet the
vowel sound can easily be predicted from the spelling: a lax vowel /e/ for sells
(<’VC2>), a diphthong in sales <’VCe>.

/æ/ and /ʌ/ (ran/run)

Vowel sounds in minimal pairs like ran/run or sang/sung differentiate grammatical

categories10 as well as lexical items like hat/hut or bag/bug and as such, are very
relevant issues. Both are lax vowels but seem difficult for French learners to
differentiate and to articulate, probably because there are no equivalent vowels
in French. Huart (2010: 85) suggests that learners approximate /æ/ to the French
open vowel in words like patte, all spelt with the letter <a> but this sound is in
fact closer to /ʌ/ (which is never spelt <a>). The interference between the two
sound systems as well as the spelling-sound codes is confusing for French learners
and requires work on sound perception. However, once learners have learnt to
differentiate them, the direct correspondence between letter and sound (/æ/ <a>;
/ʌ/ <u>) should make their pronunciation easy to predict.

/ɒ/ and /əʊ/ and /ɔ:/ (cod, code, cord)

These three vowel phonemes are probably the most complicated ones in the
English vowel system, presenting both articulatory and perception challenges for
L1 French speakers. Moreover, like the letter <i>, the letter <o> confuses French
learners as it corresponds in French to other sounds and so, as Huart (2010: 86)
explains, interaction with the French system is a source of error. There is a real
issue in terms of intelligibility and understanding, whatever the native variety,
since there is an opposition between different types of vowels (but not the same
ones).
Spelling is a reliable indication of pronunciation for pairs corresponding to
/ɒ/ and /əʊ/ in SBE, like hop/hoping (derived from hope) or cod/code, and can
also be used to distinguish /əʊ/ and /ɔ:/ in code/cord, although this requires

10 See Huart’s work (2010: 99-105) on irregular verbs and pronunciation, including not
only vowel alternation but geminate consonants as in write/written that correspond to
distinctive sounds.
180 Susan Moore Mauroux

an understanding of the effect of post-vocalic r (r-modification). But if the /ɔ:/

<o+r> correspondence is a regular value, /ɔ:/ also corresponds to the spellings
<au> and <aw>. A further source of confusion is that the letter <o> corresponds
to a number of other pronunciations, most significantly a large subclass of often
very common words pronounced /ʌ/ (mother, son, money), but it also appears in
a number of common digraphs, as for example <ou> and <ow> pronounced /aʊ/
and the very exceptional <-ough> which has a number of pronunciations.
Having provided a diagnostic analysis of particularly relevant learner
challenges that an understanding of the spelling-sound code should help resolve,
I will now turn to the way these issues are addressed in the phonology subsection
of the linguistics paper of the AEA. Reference will be made both to the papers
themselves and to the jury reports that provide valuable insight into the way
candidates have coped with the various questions over the years. I shall consider
what challenges are addressed, how far the focus is on regularities, and whether
the questions have evolved over the years as regards the approach to spelling-
sound issues. I shall also discuss how far the questions relate to the challenges
identified in the first section and which are relevant for EFL teachers at all levels.

The AEA Teaching Exam and Phonology

A recruitment exam sets out to test that candidates are sufficiently competent
in their field; it also needs to be selective as the number of places is limited. This
is particularly true of the very competitive AEA which aims to recruit highly
competent specialists of English. Since the introduction of phonology in a distinct
linguistics paper in 2000, candidates have had to master spoken English as well
as to understand and be able to explain the theory behind it. These two objectives
are interdependent (Gardelle, 2012: 66) as understanding the system should
enable candidates to improve their own pronunciation11; it should also allow
them, as teachers, to address the pronunciation difficulties of their students more
efficiently.
Based on a written paper, the questions have always revolved around a few
crucial issues: IPA transcription, word stress patterns and stress hierarchy, the
spelling-sound code, intonation, and connected speech processes. Candidates
need to master certain codes, all of which are relevant for spelling-sound
questions: IPA symbols to represent pronunciation in written form, a graphic
code to demonstrate spelling-sound correspondences, a numeric code for stress
patterns showing both stressed and unstressed syllables.

11 AEA Expression orale reports point to recurrent problems such as rising intonation
(giving the impression of incertitude), misplaced stress especially on pseudo-prefixes, and
difficulties with certain vowels (such as the ones reviewed in the first part of this article).
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 181

The present study focuses on questions referring to three aspects of the

system: word stress12, phonetic variation (including GA/SBE variation, strong/
weak forms, phonetic processes, both word internally and in discourse) and
IPA spelling-sound issues. In all, 597 items were analysed, excluding the text
for IPA transcription (question 1) which will nonetheless be included in the
discussion. Some 30 items correspond to short phrases concerning connected
speech processes across word boundaries. The chart in Figure 1 shows the balance
between them.

Fig. 1: Distribution of AEA question categories: 2000-2020.

For each of these categories, the study aims to determine how far explanations
focus on the regularities or irregularities of the system, and to what extent the
questions are relevant for teaching L2 from both production and perception
perspectives13. Note that some items overlap, testing more than one aspect in the
same question (word stress and IPA spelling-sound issues, for example).

Word Stress: Morphophonology and Vowel Quality

Word stress and sound prediction are interconnected since vowel
correspondences only apply to stressed syllables. This was explicit in the
earlier papers where questions involved a combination of IPA transcription,
explanations for word stress placement and comments on the quality of the
stressed vowel. Today questions on word stress are distinct from spelling-sound

12 Specific word stress questions, however, will not be studied in detail here.
13 If traditionally phonology has been mainly associated with the speaking competence,
it also involves comprehension issues. Reports have for many years insisted on the
importance of listening to spoken English in various media to prepare for the phonology
paper (which is also useful for the oral compréhension-restitution exam).
182 Susan Moore Mauroux

questions and there are fewer of them14 but knowledge of word stress placement
is an implicit requirement for IPA transcription15—and correct pronunciation.
Indeed, candidates need to identify the status of syllables as stressed (where rules
apply) or unstressed (potentially with a reduced vowel) and several papers from
2008 onwards have included questions where the underlined vowel is indeed
unstressed and reduced16 thereby highlighting a major challenge for learners.
An understanding of morphophonology helps predict both stress placement
and the quality of the stressed vowel. The following chart in Figure 2 below shows
the proportion of explanations for vowel quality that rely on rules involving word
endings17 (e.g. ION, -iC, Luick, -ate).

Fig. 2: Morphophonology/other explanations for vowel quality.

These rules will clearly help candidates improve their own capacity to predict
pronunciation but they involve quite advanced theoretical knowledge, which will
be less easily transferrable to secondary school learners, depending on their level.
Likewise, the distinction between separable and inseparable prefixes needs
to be made as the pronunciation of the “prefix” with a full or a reduced vowel
depends largely on its stressed/ unstressed18 status. Such words frequently
appear in the phonology paper, either in specific questions or within the text for

14 Until 2007, two questions per paper were devoted to word stress, with a minimum
of six words per paper, some proposing as many as fourteen! Since 2010, there has been
a specific word stress question focusing on just three to five words for which candidates
need to indicate the stress patterns (now systematically given in numeric form) and give
detailed explanations.
15 It is also significant when discussing intonation patterns and connected speech
phenomena.
16 <a> 6 times, <e>, <i> and <u> once each.
17 See Deschamps et al. for details (2004: 198-203).
18 For inseparable prefixes, stress can also mark the category with nouns stressed on the
“prefix”, verbs on the stem with reduction on the “prefix”. See Duchet (2018: 24-35).
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 183

transcription (question 1), and are regularly cited as problematic in reports. Yet
there has only been one paper where explanations for the pronunciation of the
“prefix” was required and the report (Moore Mauroux, 2018: 79) confirms how
tricky candidates found it. Perhaps this is an area where a greater awareness of
theoretical considerations would be beneficial.

IPA Transcription and Spelling → Sound

Vowels
The IPA spelling-sound category (in Figure 1 above) represents 312 items of
which 290 are vowels. Figure 3 recapitulates the distribution between the vowel
letters that appear in the stressed syllable and/or as an underlined letter for
analysis.

Fig. 3: IPA transcription and explanations for vowel quality:

number of items per vowel letter.

The questions set out to test candidates’ knowledge of spelling-sound regularities

and exceptions. The following illustration (Figure 4 below) shows the distribution
for monographic vowels for the types of justifications required. Reduced vowels
correspond to unstressed vowels; regular rules refer to predictions based on
checked/free vowel contexts (modified or not by <r>); morphophonology to
word ending rules (as specified in Figure 2) which are particularly efficient
for <e> and <i> accounting for, respectively, 48% and 35% of “regular” items.
Subrules refer to regular exceptions to predictions based on checked/free vowel
contexts; and finally, a few items are exceptional.
184 Susan Moore Mauroux

Fig. 4: Rules and subrules for vowel quality of monographic vowels.

Between 75% and 87% of words spelt <e>, <i>, <u> can be predicted from regular
rules or depend on word ending rules. Over 50% of words spelt <a> and <o>,
tested in almost every paper, can be explained by the same rules. For the others,
knowledge of sometimes quite complex subrules is required: the effect of post-
vocalic <l> or of prevocalic <w> before <a>, or “ASK” words, representing one of
the major differences between GA and SBE, for example. The <w+a> subrule (21
items) predicts that the vowel is pronounced with the sound /ɒ/ (SBE). It applies
to many common words (what, want, watch) and as such is clearly significant for
teaching, not just as specialist knowledge; some are rarer words such as squalor
and swath.
As previously stated, the letter <o> is potentially misleading with a large
subclass of words spelt <o> and pronounced /ʌ/. Papers include many items (17)
corresponding to this subclass thereby raising awareness of this potential pitfall;
they also include a number of items corresponding to exceptional pronunciations
of this spelling for some very common words: don’t, won’t, gone, woman, women,
again significant for teaching as learners understandably tend to mispronounce
them.
Vowel digraphs appear less often in the papers except for <ou> which appears
at regular intervals testing candidates on individual items and even on series of
words spelt <ou> (in 2003 and 2008). Questions focus on items corresponding to
irregular and even exceptional pronunciations which generally concern common
words (could, should, young, country) including some spelt <ough19> (enough,
though, through). This contrasts with the digraph <ea>, for example, which has
appeared just 5 times, three of which testing several items (2003, 2005 and again
in 2016). The required justifications are very varied, including r-modification, but

19 Reports remind candidates that they should learn pronunciations corresponding to

this very unpredictable spelling.
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 185

there has been little specific reference to the significant subclass corresponding to
many common words (bread, head…) where <ea> is pronounced /e/.
If the papers promote an understanding of rules corresponding to regularities
especially for monographic vowels, the treatment of digraphs is less systematic.
Yet, digraphs are clearly a source of confusion for learners, as for example the
<ea> → /e/ subclass and the high-frequency digraphs <aw>, <au> (Deschamps et
al., 2004: 175). Likewise, questions tend to focus on regularities or on exceptional
pronunciations of common words, but there is rarely any specific reference to
their regular/ exceptional status (with the exception of the 2016 paper). Raising
awareness of their status would be helpful for teachers who, according to
official instructions for phonology objectives, are required to draw attention to
regularities (Bulletin Officiel, 2019).

Consonants
Questions related to consonants often involve IPA traps where the spelling
does not correspond to the symbol. Apart from words spelt <VV+gh>, questions
include misleading spellings such as doubt or plumber including silent letters.
Other questions involve words where different pronunciations of letters
distinguish syntactic categories, as in abuse where <s> pronounced /s/ is a noun,
/z/ a verb, thereby linking phonology and syntax. Likewise, questions on <n>
may require reference to prefix status and to syllable structure (whether or not to
pronounce the following <g>). Yet questions on the pronunciation of <n> or <s>
also involve the phonetic process of assimilation which is one aspect of phonetic
variation.

Phonetic Variation
Interest in phonetic variation has increased over the years as shown in the
graph in Figure 5 below that represents the three categories in Figure 1 year by
year.

Fig. 5: AEA questions from 2000-2020 by category.

186 Susan Moore Mauroux

Phonetic variation affects spelling-sound questions which can be seen from

a different perspective when analyzed in context. Pronunciation is influenced in
connected speech (across word boundaries) but also within words, it can vary
according to different varieties of English, and words can take on different forms
(weak or strong) in discourse. This is clearly an issue for comprehension.
Reports insist that connected speech processes which have appeared in
papers from 200020 are important for both candidates and teachers. The
papers have regularly included specific questions, sometimes requiring an
analysis of several words with the flexional ending <-ed> (2009 and 2014).
Explanations for the pronunciation of this ending require an understanding
of how progressive assimilation of voicing functions. It is often incorrectly
transcribed by candidates—and mispronounced by learners—on account of the
spelling which encourages them to insert a syllable systematically. Like <-s>,
these endings are almost always present in the text for transcription.
Exercises on <-ed> in secondary education often dwell on the voiced/voiceless
distinction (a significant theoretical consideration) rather than the addition—or
not—of a syllable, which is the main problem for communication. The same
approach can be applied to the flexional ending <-s> (tested in the 2020 paper).
However, the problem for learners is different, as they will tend not to pronounce
it at all leading to potential grammatical errors. Yet, as Huart points out (2010:
127), in connected speech, it is quite tricky to distinguish between these different
realisations in many phonetic contexts.
Connected speech phenomena were also tested in the very first papers21 and
have been the object of a specific question since 2012. Some processes involve
articulatory distinctions (aspiration of initial consonants) which are relevant for
production for advanced learners, others involve processes like assimilation and
elision, which can affect comprehension at any level, and understanding them
should enable teachers to predict some of their students’ issues.
Variation between GA and SBE, first introduced in 2008, has appeared in all
papers since 2017. Candidates are expected to know the significant differences
between these reference varieties for two reasons: to improve coherence in their
chosen variety22, and to have greater awareness of potential comprehension and
production issues for their students who are exposed to many varieties of English.
As regards weak/strong forms, reducing grammatical words where
appropriate will enable advanced learners, a fortiori, teachers, to acquire fluidity
and authenticity, but comprehension is the main issue for A2-B2 learners. AEA

20 Questions on <n> requiring an understanding of assimilation appeared in several

of the first papers. Recently, questions have involved a variety of phonetic processes
recapitulated in an AEA report (Glain, 2019: 100).
21 They concerned linking phenomena such as linking-r but also /w/ or /j/ insertion and
/h/ elision.
22 According to AEA Expression orale reports, coherence is a real issue for many
candidates.
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 187

papers have always tested an understanding of this aspect of English rhythm

in the text for transcription, requiring candidates to “use weak forms where
appropriate” but reports state that it still represents a major challenge and recent
papers have required explanations in specific questions.
If teaching recruitment exams can focus on learner difficulties such as this
one, this will have a positive impact on how well future teachers are prepared to
deal with the difficulties of learners in the classroom because it raises awareness of
the issues at stake. And indeed, if some items require quite advanced knowledge,
my analysis of AEA papers shows that spelling-sound questions tend to test
regularities or exceptional correspondences on high-frequency words, ensuring
candidates have a solid understanding of the spoken English system as a whole.

Phonology: From Teaching Exams to Continuing

Education
Teaching exams so far have tested speaking competence and theoretical
knowledge of the system which are acquired in higher education and while
preparing for the teaching exam. Transferring this competence to the classroom
is one of the objectives of continuing education and raises two main questions:
first, what is most relevant for learners (these priorities were discussed in the first
section); second, how can theoretical principles be used to help learners improve
their spoken English?
Devised for a continuing education training session in the Académie de
Limoges, Howe proposes a methodological approach and suggests a number of
strategies that may be used together with possible activities for the class, adaptable
to all levels, as shown in the following recapitulative table (Howe: 2021).
Teaching strategies Possible activities
– l guide students so Pronounce it like a pro Use IPA flashcards
– l encourage students they produce sounds Select 2 or 3 sounds Link sounds to simple
to observe written- correctly that you want to work and familiar words
sound regularities – l propose exercises on in the module and that will be used as
that link sound and get the class to repeat the sound model
sense them all together. throughout the year.
– l identify potential Create sound bags
– l use your body as sources of confusion Spot the odd one out
Create word lists Create a series of 3
well as your voice or ambiguity in with the selected
– l analyse students’ documents words related to the
sound to work on module with one that
errors and understand – l encourage students sound perception and
the source of error to consult dictionaries is different (sound or
discrimination as well as spelling, depending on
and other useful memorisation.
references the level).
Focus on minimal pairs Tongue twisters
Link sound and sense. Chainspeaking or
speaking with a
different tempo.
Fig. 6: Working on sounds: strategies and activities from Howe, 2021 (My translation).
188 Susan Moore Mauroux

The methodological framework proposed includes recurrent activities, some

of which involve the whole class (chainspeaking and “all together now”
repetition), others to be done individually or in groups (listening, observation,
classification). Key concepts are systematically associated with gestures or
graphic representations to help learners assimilate them. For example, to show
that reduced vowels correspond to loss of identity, the vowel can be coloured
grey. A retracting hand movement towards the body (open to closing) indicates
a reduced vowel whereas the prominence of a stressed syllable can be shown by
an opening movement of the hand towards the class. Sounds can be represented
by showing the sound model on a flashcard with a large pictogram and the
corresponding IPA symbol. The flashcards (Howe: 2021) do not include spellings,
just pictures or symbols which were chosen because they were familiar: a picture
of a cake is the sound model for for /eɪ/; the number 4 is the sound model for /ɔ:/.
A number of principles underlie the strategies. Like all linguistic objectives,
phonology activities should help learners with the intermediary or final tasks
that are set. Likewise, as the system is interconnected, phonology can usefully
be linked to lexical or syntactic considerations or to pragmatic objectives. For
sounds for example, activities can include words that are selected according to
the lexical field of the module and which include the sound (or spelling) to be
worked on. The objectives of activities is first to ensure that the key words for the
module are understood and pronounced correctly, avoiding potential confusion
or ambiguity, whether they appear in documents or are just useful to talk about
the subject. The choice of words may also involve other objectives23, depending
on students’ levels:
– Drawing attention to regularities in spelling-sound correspondences (the
L2 code) which can then be reused later when working on other sounds/
spellings;
– Ensuring that the pronunciation of frequently used words is assimilated,
whether they are regular (paid, glad), belong to a subclass (nothing, what)
or are exceptional (country, women, said);
– Raising awareness of spelling-sound traps, especially on transparent
words or words borrowed from English and used in French (identity,
cottage).
Sorting activities like “sound bags” and “odd one out” can be linked to both
perception and production competences and will enable students to observe
regularities as well as potentially surprising pronunciations (particularly in high-
frequency words). Activities of this type, if proposed on a regular basis, can also
be worked on at home and should enable learners to improve both their spoken
English and their listening competence.

23 See Howe & Moore (2021) for a discussion of how concepts regarding prosody may
be integrated.
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 189

Continuing education training sessions aim to bridge the gap between

phonological theory and practical applications, and help qualified teachers
transfer their theoretical competence to the classroom, using their experience
with learners at various levels to develop appropriate tools and activities and help
their students improve oral skills.

Conclusion

The central premise of this article is that understanding the spoken English
system enables teachers to address students’ pronunciation difficulties more
efficiently because it helps them predict and understand potential errors and so
focus on the most relevant challenges. Indeed, setting up activities such as the
ones suggested in Howe (2021) requires a degree of theoretical knowledge which
can be acquired in higher education, whilst preparing for teaching exams, and
beyond, in continuing education sessions.
Yet, there is often a gap between theory and the practical needs of the
classroom since specialists and learners have different perspectives. Specialists
of English learn rules, subrules and lists of exceptions to help them master
pronunciation issues, irrespective of the frequency of the words, their complexity
and their (ir)regularities, aiming as far as possible to reproduce a near-native
model. For learners from A2-B2 level, as official instructions state (Bulletin
Officiel, 2019), intelligibility is the main objective. For them, spelling-sound issues
are elsewhere: they first need to perceive sounds and to produce them so as to be
understood; focus will be on simpler words, high-frequency words and on regular
spelling-sound correspondences for English, especially where these enable them
to avoid the errors triggered by using their L1 code.
From 2022, phonology questions will be included in the other national teaching
examination, the “CAPES”, including both segmental and suprasegmental
aspects of the system that are relevant for teaching. Like AEA, this will surely
encourage candidates to develop their knowledge of the spoken English system
and improve their own speaking competence. Moreover, the way future teachers
are tested will influence not only the candidates’ preparation for the exam but
also how prepared they are to help their future students. Indeed, as well as
testing theoretical competence, raising awareness of the most significant learner
challenges seems to be particularly relevant for candidates who often lack
experience in the classroom.
190 Susan Moore Mauroux

References
• ASLAM SIPRA, M. (2013): “Impact of English orthography on L2 acquisition”,
English Language Teaching 6.3, p. 116-124.
• BOUVET, P. (2021): La Phonologie de l’anglais : à l’école, au collège, au lycée,
Paris, Belin Éducation, 504 p.
• Bulletin Officiel spécial n° 1 du 22 janvier 2019, annexe I, https://www.education.
gouv.fr/bo/19/Special1/MENE1901585A.htm (accessed 20 December 2021).
• Bulletin Officiel spécial n° 1 du 22 janvier 2019, annexe II, https://www.
education.gouv.fr/bo/19/Special1/MENE1901585A.htm (accessed 20 December
2021).
• Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner,
évaluer. Volume complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, février 2018,
• CAPES, sujets zéro (2021): https://saesfrance.org/capes-externe-2022-sujets-
zero (accessed 26 July 2021).
• Conseil de l’Europe, https://eduscol.education.fr/langues-vivantes/actualites/
actualites/article/volume-complementaire-du-cecr-avec-de-nouveaux-
descripteurs.html (accessed 25 May 2021).
• DESCHAMPS, A., DUCHET, J.-L., FOURNIER, J-M. & O’NEIL, M. (2004):
English phonology and graphophonemics, Paris, Ophrys, 225 p.
• DUCHET, J.-L. (2018): Code de l’anglais oral, 3e édition, Paris, Ophrys, 144 p.
• FLEGE, J.E. (1987): “The production of new and similar phones in a foreign
language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification”, Journal of
Phonetics 15, p. 47-65.
• FOURNIER, J.-M. (2010): Manuel d’anglais oral, Paris, Ophrys, 251 p.
• GARDELLE, L. (2012): “Phonologie”, in CHARLOT, C., Rapport du jury de
l’agrégation externe d’anglais, session 2018, p. 62-67.
• GLAIN, O. (2019): “Phonologie”, in BORT, F., Rapport du jury de l’agrégation
externe d’anglais, session 2018, p. 87-106.
• GUIERRE, L. (1987): Règles et exercices de prononciation anglaise, Paris,
A. Colin-Longman, 128 p.
• HOWE, L. (2021): Padlet : Les compétences phonologiques des élèves : https://
padlet.com/lila123howe1/phonologie (accessed 4 August 2021).
• HOWE, L. & MOORE MAUROUX, S. (2021): “Les mots du système : la prosodie
de l’anglais chez l’apprenant francophone”, Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques
en langues de spécialité, 40.1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.8557.
• HUART, R. (2010): Nouvelle Grammaire de l’anglais oral, Paris, Ophrys, 258 p.
ISBELL, D. (2016): “The Perception-Production Link in L2 Phonology”, MSU
Working Papers in SLS 7, p. 57-67.
• MOORE MAUROUX, S. (2018): “Phonologie”, in BORT, F., Rapport du jury de
l’agrégation externe d’anglais, session 2018, p. 70-86.
 English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code 191

• MOORE MAUROUX, S. (2010): “Quelques outils méthodologiques pour aider

l’étudiant francophone face à la prononciation de l’anglais”, Cahiers de l’APLIUT
29.3, p. 36-49. https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.595.
• Rapports des jurys de l’agrégation externe d’anglais, sessions 2000-202024,
https://saesfrance.org/concours/agregations/agregation-externe/agregation-
externe/rapports-du-jury-de-lagregation-externe/ (accessed 25 May 2021).
• SCHOTTMAN, W. (2012): Advanced English Pronunciation, Paris, Ophrys,
162 p.
• VIEL, M. (2003): Manuel de Phonologie, Paris, A. Colin, 138 p.

24 The SAES archives start in 2010. My thanks to the colleagues who provided me with
earlier papers and reports.
 Abstracts / Résumés

Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback:

Pedagogical Considerations for the Use of Ultrasound in the Classroom
Barbara Kühnert & Claire Pillot-Loiseau, CNRS et Université Sorbonne
Nouvelle, UMR 7018, Laboratoire de phonétique et phonologie.
Keywords: ultrasound imaging, L2 learning, pronunciation training, vowel production,
biofeedback, pedagogical practice
Mots-clés : imagerie par ultrasons, apprentissage L2, entraînement à la prononciation,
production de voyelles, rétroaction biologique, pratique pédagogique
Ultrasound imaging of tongue movements has L’échographie des mouvements de la
only recently been introduced as a novel tool langue n’a été introduite que récemment
for pronunciation training and instruction. comme un nouvel outil pour l’entraînement
In this contribution we will briefly present et l’enseignement de la prononciation.
the principles of using ultrasound as a visual Dans cette contribution, nous présentons
feedback method for language learners and brièvement les principes de l’utilisation
then report the results of an exploratory de l’ultrason lingual comme méthode de
pilot study which was carried out over one rétrocontrôle visuel pour les apprenants en
semester at the Sorbonne Nouvelle University langues, puis nous rapportons les résultats
with the aim to evaluate whether ultrasound d’une étude exploratoire initiale menée
imaging could be a feasible and effective pendant un semestre à l’Université Sorbonne
pronunciation teaching method when used Nouvelle pour évaluer si l’échographie
in a regular classroom setting where learners linguale pouvait être une méthode
only receive a series of short-time training d’enseignement de la prononciation faisable
interventions. The participants were seven et efficace lorsqu’elle est utilisée dans un
French learners of English and the training cadre de classe ordinaire où les apprenants
focused on the production of two English ne reçoivent qu’une série d’interventions de
vowel contrasts, the distinction between tense formation de courte durée. Les participants
/iː/ and lax /ɪ/, and the distinction between étaient sept apprenants français d’anglais
the vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/. The results showed et l’entraînement s’est concentré sur la
some improvement in the differentiation production de deux contrastes vocaliques
between the two high front vowels for certain de l’anglais : la distinction entre le /iː/ tendu
learners, but little effects for an increased et le /ɪ/ relâché, et la distinction entre les
distinction between the two open vowels. voyelles /æ/ et /ʌ/. Les résultats ont montré
We will discuss the general usefulness une amélioration de la différenciation entre
and limitations of using ultrasound-based les deux voyelles antérieures hautes pour
instructions in the classroom, as well as its certains apprenants, mais peu d’effets pour
pedagogical implications. améliorer la distinction entre les deux
voyelles ouvertes. Nous discutons de l’utilité
générale et des limites de l’utilisation des
instructions basées sur l’ultrason lingual
en classe, ainsi que de ses implications
pédagogiques.

ranam n°55/2022
194 Abstracts / Résumés

Doing Pronunciation Online: An Embodied and Cognitive Approach,

Which Puts Prosody First
Dan Frost, Université Grenoble Alpes, Lidilem.
Keywords: comprehension, distance learning, online learning path, oral production,
pronunciation, prosody, videos
Mots-clés : compréhension, apprentissage à distance, parcours d’apprentissage en ligne,
production orale, prononciation, prosodie, vidéos
The content of pronunciation teaching is Le contenu de l'enseignement de la pro-
increasingly based on solid research and nonciation s'appuie de plus en plus sur des
pragmatic goals, and the aim for many recherches solides et sur des objectifs prag-
teachers today is no longer to modify their matiques, et l'objectif de nombreux ensei-
students’ accents to achieve perfect Received gnants aujourd'hui n'est plus de modifier
Pronunciation/Standard British English l'accent de leurs élèves pour atteindre un RP/
(RP/SBE) or General American (GA), but SBE ou un GA parfait, mais d’atteindre le
the more pragmatic goal of intelligibility. but plus pragmatique de l'intelligibilité. Les
The many constraints often associated with nombreuses contraintes souvent associées à
learning languages in French universities l'apprentissage des langues dans les universi-
encourage stakeholders to seek innovative tés françaises incitent les acteurs à chercher
solutions, and online learning is often des solutions innovantes, et l'apprentissage
viewed as a solution. This paper will present en ligne est souvent considéré comme une
a pilot study being carried out at Grenoble solution. Cette communication présen-
Alpes University which seeks to measure the tera une étude pilote menée à l'Université
progress of students using an online learning Grenoble-Alpes qui vise à mesurer les pro-
path targeting pronunciation and listening grès d'étudiants utilisant un parcours d'ap-
skills. The learning path is one of several prentissage en ligne qui propose un travail
created with an Initiative d’excellence, a sur la prononciation et sur la compréhension
French government scheme which awards de l’oral. Ce parcours est l'un des parcours
grants for innovative pedagogical projects créés grâce à une subvention de l'Idex, et qui
(IDEX) grant, and which can be used by peut être utilisé aussi bien par des étudiants
specialist English students and non- spécialisés en anglais que par des non-spécia-
specialists alike. The course integrates short listes. Il intègre de courtes vidéos sous-titrées
subtitled videos and interactive activities, et des activités interactives, et se fonde sur
and is based on an articulatory approach to une approche articulatoire de l'apprentissage
learning pronunciation which puts prosody de la prononciation qui met la prosodie au
front and centre. More specifically, this premier plan. Plus spécifiquement, cet article
article will explore the problems of learning explorera les problèmes d'apprentissage de la
pronunciation, especially for French speakers, prononciation, notamment pour les franco-
before presenting our pedagogical approach phones, avant de présenter notre approche
and the technological solutions we propose. pédagogique et les solutions technologiques
que nous proposons.

Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project

Thomas Jauriberry, Université de Haute-Alsace, UR 4363 ILLE.
Keywords: sociophonetics, EFL, project-based pedagogy, skills, pronunciation
Mots-clés : sociophonétique, anglais langue étrangère, apprentissage par projet, compétences,
prononciation
Project-based pedagogy, a pedagogical La pédagogie de projet, une innovation
innovation still rare in language studies, is pédagogique encore rare dans les études de
a relevant approach for the acquisition of langue, est une approche pertinente pour
 Abstracts / Résumés 195

disciplinary and transversal skills. This article l’acquisition de compétences disciplinaires

presents the case of a tutored linguistics et transversales. Cet article présente le cas
project that was implemented with third- d’un projet tutoré de linguistique qui a été
year undergraduate English students at the mis en œuvre avec des étudiants de troisième
University of Upper Alsace. Through this année de la licence d’anglais à l’Université
project, students were able to re-mobilize de Haute-Alsace. A travers ce projet, les
and consolidate their knowledge and étudiants ont pu remobiliser et consolider
practice of social and geographic variation leurs connaissances et leur pratique de
in the pronunciation of English. la variation sociale et géographique de la
prononciation de l’anglais.

Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English Phonology

and Pronunciation Teaching
Mahdi Amazouz & Franck Zumstein, Université Paris cité, CLILLAC-
ARP, EA 3967.
Keywords: L2 phonology, serious games, language acquisition, learner corpora, phonemic
transcription, international phonetic alphabet (IPA)
Mots-clés : phonologie de la L2, jeux sérieux, acquisition des langues, corpus d’apprenants,
transcription phonémique, alphabet phonétique international (API)
Game-based learning reflects a pedagogical L’apprentissage basé sur le jeu reflète un
shift in learning and teaching practices, virage pédagogique dans les pratiques
moving from the traditional transmissive d’apprentissage et d’enseignement, passant
model towards a learner-centered approach du modèle transmissif traditionnel à une
(Reinhardt and Thorne 2020). The use of approche centrée sur l’apprenant (Reinhardt
serious games promotes engagement, goal et Thorne 2020). L’utilisation de jeux sérieux
orientation, and metacognition. They allow favorise l’engagement, l’orientation et la
learners greater autonomy and spatial métacognition. Ils permettent aux appre-
mobility when learning a second language nants une plus grande autonomie et mobilité
(Reinhardt et al, 2020; Gee 2003; Bogost spatiale lors de l’apprentissage d’une langue
2007). This study investigates the concept seconde (Reinhardt et al, 2020 ; Gee 2003 ;
of “serious games” and illustrates the design Bogost 2007). Cette étude explore le concept
process of a digital game for L2 phonology de « serious games » et illustre le processus de
geared towards undergraduates in English conception d’un jeu sérieux pour l’appren-
at the University of Paris. When it comes tissage de la phonologie d’une L2 destiné
to learning the pronunciation of English, aux étudiants de premier cycle en licence
phonemic transcription is one accessible and d’anglais à l’Université de Paris. Lors de l’ap-
quantifiable form of its acquisition so that it is prentissage de la prononciation de l’anglais,
necessary to analyze the form it takes (De Cock la transcription phonémique est une forme
Tyne 2014). In this regard, the constitution accessible et quantifiable de son acquisition
of a corpus of phonemic transcriptions de sorte qu’il est nécessaire d’analyser la
carried out by students allowed us to explore forme qu’elle prend (De Cock et al. 2014).
specific aspects of the process of learning À cet égard, la constitution d’un corpus de
the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). transcriptions phonémiques réalisées par des
The results of our analyses provide a review étudiants nous a permis d’explorer certains
of learners’ most recurring transcription aspects spécifiques du processus d’apprentis-
mistakes and accordingly helped us define sage de l’Alphabet Phonétique International
their specific needs when learning English (API). Les résultats de nos analyses per-
phonetics and phonology. Our analyses show, mettent d’identifier les erreurs de transcrip-
196 Abstracts / Résumés

notably, that the majority of errors relate tion les plus récurrentes des apprenants et
to the transcription of the reduced vowel leurs besoins spécifiques lors de l’apprentis-
schwa /ə/. This study considers the extent sage de la phonétique et de la phonologie de
to which serious games have an impact on l’anglais. Nos analyses montrent par exemple
student engagement and efficiency in the que la majorité des erreurs portent sur cer-
acquisition of L2 phonology. More broadly taines voyelles souvent confondues et sur la
in the field of second language acquisition, transcription de la voyelle réduite schwa /ə/.
the overarching purpose of this study is Cette étude examine dans quelle mesure les
to offer new perspectives in teaching L2 jeux sérieux ont un impact sur l’engagement
phonology inside and outside the classroom. et l’efficacité des étudiants dans l’acquisition
de la phonologie d’une L2. Plus largement
dans le domaine de l’acquisition d’une langue
seconde, le principal objectif de cette étude
est d’ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives dans
l’enseignement de la phonologie en classe et
en dehors.

Une image vaut mille prononciations: Using Twitter to Support the

Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words in L2 French
Amanda Dalola, University of South Carolina, Department of
Languages, Literatures & Cultures, Linguistics Program.
Keywords: pronunciation, French, Twitter, L2 French, digital media
Mots-clés : prononciation, français, Twitter, français L2, médias numériques
The present inquiry examines the effectiveness La présente enquête examine l’efficacité de
of Twitter in teaching the pronunciation of Twitter dans l’enseignement de la pronon-
different types of commonly mispronounced ciation de différents types de mots français
French words to intermediate L2 learners. typiquement mal prononcés par les appre-
Twelve L1-American English L2-French nants de niveau intermédiaire de L2. Douze
learners enrolled in a third-year oral French natifs de L1-anglais américain apprenants
class participated in an oral naming pretest: de L2-français inscrits à un cours de français
24 of the collectively mispronounced langue orale en troisième année ont participé
items were divided into six categories, à un pré-test de dénomination orale à haute
based on the nature of the difficulty voix: 24 des éléments collectivement mal
they presented for learners, and selected prononcés ont été divisés en six catégories,
to serve as the experimental testset. For en fonction de la nature de la difficulté qu’ils
24 days, participants received one tweet présentaient pour les apprenants, et sélection-
containing overt pronunciation instruction nés pour servir d’ensemble de tests expéri-
targeting a single testword, half of which mentaux. Pendant 24 jours, les participants
contained an attached image illustrating ont reçu un tweet contenant des instructions
the testword, the other half a link to an de prononciation explicites, ciblant un seul
external video showcasing the testword. mot du test. La moitié des tweets envoyés
A week later, participants completed an contenait une image jointe illustrant le mot
oral naming posttest. Results revealed that cible, l’autre moitié un lien vers une vidéo
learners exhibited significantly higher rates présentant le mot cible. Une semaine plus
of correct pronunciation for words that had tard, les participants ont complété un post-
been presented with images/gifs than for test de dénomination orale à haute voix. Les
those that had been presented with links to résultats ont révélé que les apprenants présen-
 Abstracts / Résumés 197

videos, in all but one category: words with taient des taux significativement plus élevés
silent non-final consonants. No differences de prononciation correcte pour les mots
were found for categorical measures of qui avaient été présentés avec des images/
lexical frequency. The implications suggest gifs que pour ceux qui avaient été présentés
that while Twitter is generally a useful tool avec des liens vers des vidéos, dans toutes les
for delivering bite-sized pronunciation catégories sauf une : les mots avec consonnes
instruction in L2 language classes, a tweet’s muettes non-finales. Aucune différence n’a
supporting media may make or break its été trouvée entre les mesures catégorielles
effectiveness. de la fréquence lexicale. Les implications
suggèrent que si Twitter est généralement
un outil utile pour fournir des instructions
de prononciation apprêtées dans les cours
de langue L2, les supports médias d’un tweet
peuvent renforcer ou altérer son efficacité.

Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the

Classroom: Some Considerations on the Value of an Interdisciplinary
Embodied Methodology for French Learners of English
Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet &Anne Przewozny-Desriaux, CNRS et
Université de Toulouse, UMR 5263, Cognition, Langues, Langage,
Ergonomie.
Keywords: embodied cognition, corpus phonology, interphonology, motivation, teaching/
learning of English as a second language, learner corpora
Mots-clés : cognition incarnée, phonologie de corpus, interphonologie, motivation,
enseignement/apprentissage de l’anglais langue seconde, corpus d’apprenants
This paper presents the preliminary results of Cet article présente les résultats prélimi-
a four-year applied research project named naires d’un projet de recherche appliquée
PICL!. French learners may have difficulty in longitudinal dénommé PICL!. Les appre-
discriminating a native phonological system, nants français peuvent avoir des difficultés à
in taking it up as a learning target and discriminer un système phonologique natif
in developing oral production skills in the de l’anglais, à l’adopter comme cible d’ap-
classroom. From the perspective of cognitive prentissage et à développer des compétences
psychology, numerous studies show that a de production orale en classe. Du point de
learner’s performance and commitment to vue de la psychologie cognitive, de nom-
tasks depend on their self-efficacy beliefs breuses études montrent que la performance
and the perceived usefulness of the tasks. et l’engagement d’un apprenant dans une
After exposing some salient arguments of tâche dépendent du sentiment d’auto-effica-
the two theoretical paradigms which sustain cité (SAE) et de l’utilité perçue de l’expression
our interdisciplinary dynamics (corpus orale en anglais. Après avoir exposé quelques
phonology and embodied cognition), we arguments saillants des deux paradigmes
present our corpus-based experiment théoriques qui soutiennent notre dynamique
(secondary school, key stages 3 and 4, interdisciplinaire (entre phonologie de cor-
years 7 to 10) and the step-by-step joint pus et cognition incarnée), nous exposons
work canvassed with the team of English notre expérimentation (collège, cycles 3 et 4)
teachers. The interphonological system of et le travail conjoint mené avec l’équipe de
198 Abstracts / Résumés

our group of learners is provided, along with professeurs d’anglais. Le système interpho-
a description of the educational modules nologique des apprenants est présenté, ainsi
(in-class and asynchronous on-line videos) qu’une description des modules pédagogiques
which have been elaborated so far. The main (séance de phonologie incarnée en classe et
finding from our measurements is that, unlike vidéos en ligne). L’un des principaux résultats
the control group which expresses a lower de nos mesures est que, contrairement au
English self-efficacy belief, the experimental groupe témoin qui exprime un SAE en anglais
group which benefits from the embodied plus faible, le groupe expérimental qui béné-
phonological method does not change their ficie de la méthode phonologique incarnée
English self-efficacy beliefs over time both for ne change pas son SAE en anglais au fil du
general English and English pronunciation. temps, tant pour l’anglais général que pour la
prononciation anglaise.

The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English

on the Comprehension of Regional Varieties
Kizzi Edensor-Costille, Université de Caen Normandie, EA 4255
CRISCO.
Keywords: L2 learners of English, regional accents, RP, oral comprehension, multimedia
Mots-clés : Apprenants L2 d’anglais, accents régionaux, RP, compréhension orale, multimédia
Changing attitudes towards Received L’évolution des attitudes à l’égard de la
Pronunciation (RP) and the increase in Received Pronunciation (RP) et l’augmen-
widely available authentic English via the tation de la quantité d’anglais authentique
Internet are among some of the major disponible sur Internet font partie des chan-
changes in second language acquisition gements majeurs dans l’acquisition d’une
(SLA). For a long time, RP was generally seconde langue (ALS). Pendant longtemps,
accepted as the easiest British accent to la RP était généralement acceptée comme
understand. However, with the recent étant l’accent britannique le plus facile à
evaluation of the intelligibility of RP by both comprendre. Cependant, avec l’évaluation
natives (L1s) and non-natives (L2s) (Fraser récente de l’intelligibilité du RP par les natifs
Gupta, 2005, Ikeno and Hansen, 2007), this (L1) et les non-natifs (L2) (Fraser Gupta,
assumption is being increasingly questioned. 2005, Ikeno and Hansen, 2007), cette hypo-
In 2009, before multimedia was omnipresent thèse est de plus en plus remise en ques-
in our everyday lives, an experiment carried tion. En 2009, avant que le multimédia ne
out on 2 groups of French learners of English soit omniprésent dans notre quotidien, une
showed that understanding nine British and expérience menée sur 2 groupes d’appre-
Irish accents is difficult for L2 learners of nants français de l’anglais a montré que
English (Edensor, 2010). Ten years later, the comprendre neuf accents britanniques et
experiment was replicated to determine the irlandais s’avère difficile pour les apprenants
impact of the Internet and multimedia boom d’une L2 (Edensor, 2010). Dix ans plus tard,
on comprehension of the same regional l’expérience a été reproduite pour évaluer
accents and to find out if comprehension l’impact de l’explosion d’Internet et du mul-
had improved. The results show that the timédia sur la compréhension de ces mêmes
Cardiff accent is still the most intelligible accents régionaux. Les résultats montrent
in 2019 and that regular use of multimedia que l’accent de Cardiff est toujours le plus
has impacted and improved comprehension intelligible en 2019 et que l’utilisation régu-
levels, but some accents remain difficult to lière du multimédia a impacté et amélioré
process and understand. les niveaux de compréhension, mais que
certains accents restent difficiles à traiter et
à comprendre.
 Abstracts / Résumés 199

English Phonology in a Globalized World: Challenging Native

Speakerism through Listener Training in Universities in Sweden and
the US
Hyeseung Jeong, Department of Education Sciences and Languages,
University West.
Stephanie Lindemann, Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL,
Georgia State University.
Julia Forsberg, Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism,
Stockholm University.
Keywords: training listeners for diverse accents, global Englishes phonology, challenging native
speakerism, challenging standard language ideology, teaching phonetics
Mots-clés : entraînement d’auditeurs à l’écoute d’accents variés, phonologie de l’anglais global,
défier le locuteur natif, défier l’idéologie d’une langue standard, enseignement de la phonétique
English phonetics and phonology often La phonétique et la phonologie anglaises
focus on improving learners’ pronunciation. portent souvent l’accent sur l’amélioration de
However, phonological processing is la prononciation des apprenants. Toutefois,
‘a two-way street’ involving both speaker l’enseignement de la prononciation doit
and listener. Thus, pronunciation être complété par des moyens qui aident les
instruction in this globalized time needs auditeurs à comprendre un large éventail
to be complemented with ways to help d’accents – remettant alors en question le
listeners understand a wide range of accents, locuteur natif et l’idéologie d’une langue
thereby challenging the native speakerism standard dans l’enseignement de l’anglais
and standard language ideology of more traditionnel. Dans cet article, nous parta-
traditional English teaching. In this paper, we geons nos expériences d’encouragement aux
share our experiences of promoting listener capacités d’écoute dans des cours universi-
abilities in university courses in Sweden taires en Suède et aux Etats-Unis. En Suède,
and the US, two very different teaching Jeong adopte une approche fondamenta-
contexts. In Sweden, Jeong takes a truly lement phonétique, en partant des propres
phonetic approach, starting from students’ prononciations des étudiants plutôt que d’un
own pronunciations rather than a ‘standard’ modèle « standard », et met l’accent sur leur
model, and focuses on ability to comprehend capacité à comprendre des accents variés.
diverse accents. In the US, Lindemann uses Aux États-Unis, Lindemann s’appuie sur des
native-speaking students’ complaints about plaintes d’étudiants de langue maternelle à
supposedly incomprehensible instructors, propos d’instructeurs qu’ils jugent incom-
not as justification for further training of préhensibles, ceci non pas pour justifier une
instructors who are already proficient English formation plus poussée des instructeurs qui
users, but as an opportunity to offer listener sont déjà de compétents utilisateurs de l’an-
training to the students. Put together, these glais, mais bien pour offrir aux étudiants
experiences provide a basis for Forsberg’s un entrainement à l’écoute. Ensemble, ces
reflection on the teaching of L2 phonetics expériences fournissent à Forsberg une base
and pronunciation in other languages such de réflexion sur l’enseignement de la phoné-
as Swedish, and the benefits of shifting some tique et de la prononciation d’autres langues,
of the focus from speaker to listener in order et sur les avantages de déplacer une partie de
to begin to overcome native speakerism and l’attention du locuteur vers l’auditeur afin
standard language ideology. de surmonter les difficultés d’une locution
native et de l’idéologie d’une langue standard.
200 Abstracts / Résumés

Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-Service Language Teachers in L2

Pronunciation: A Case Study
Tim Kochem, John Levis, Iowa State University, Applied Linguistics
and Technology (ALT).
Keywords: pronunciation pedagogy, language teacher education, teachers’ knowledge,
pronunciation tutoring
Mots-clés : pédagogie de la prononciation, formation des enseignants en langues, connaissances
des enseignants, tutorat en prononciation
Pronunciation is increasingly recognized as La prononciation est de plus en plus reconnue
an essential skill that learners must command comme une compétence essentielle que
for effective communication (Munro & les apprenants doivent maîtriser pour une
Derwing, 2015). Nevertheless, for decades we communication efficace (Munro & Derwing,
have seen that training in L2 pronunciation 2015). Néanmoins, depuis des décennies,
is often missing in teacher training programs nous avons constaté que la formation à
(Murphy, 2014, 2017). A lack of teacher la prononciation de la L2 fait souvent
training has led to a gap within the literature, défaut dans les programmes de formation
in that we know very little about how novice des enseignants (Murphy, 2014, 2017). Un
teachers provide pronunciation instruction manque de formation des enseignants a
after receiving training. This paper addresses conduit à une lacune dans la littérature, en ce
this topic by exploring the evolving teaching sens que nous en savons très peu sur la façon
practices of pre-service teachers enrolled dont les enseignants novices dispensent
in an L2 pronunciation pedagogy course. un enseignement de la prononciation
Using completed assignments, reflections, après avoir reçu une formation. Cet article
interviews, and a tutoring project, we aborde ce sujet en explorant l’évolution des
examine their translation of content pratiques d’enseignement des enseignants en
knowledge (i.e., understanding of phonetic formation initiale inscrits dans un cours de
and phonological systems) into pedagogical pédagogie de la prononciation L2. À l’aide de
content knowledge (i.e., their ability to travaux terminés, de réflexions, d’entretiens
teach said content knowledge to language et d’un projet de tutorat, nous examinons
learners). Likewise, we also address the leur traduction de la connaissance du
trainees’ ability to analyze learner speech contenu (i.e. compréhension des systèmes
for pronunciation errors. Finally, we look phonétiques et phonologiques) dans la
at the trainees’ incorporation of technology connaissance du contenu pédagogique (i.e.
into their instruction. Through this leur capacité à enseigner ladite connaissance
investigation, we make recommendations du contenu aux apprenants en langues). Nous
for creating successful L2 pronunciation abordons également la capacité des stagiaires
pedagogy courses, developing activity à analyser le discours des apprenants afin
types that promote comprehensibility and d’y identifier les erreurs de prononciation.
intelligibility, and using technology in a way Enfin, nous examinons l’intégration de
that allows language learners to continue la technologie par les stagiaires dans leur
their learning both inside and outside the enseignement. Grâce à cette enquête, nous
classroom. formulons des recommandations pour créer
des cours de pédagogie de la prononciation
efficaces en L2, développer des types
d’activités qui favorisent la compréhension
et l’intelligibilité, et utiliser la technologie
de manière à permettre aux apprenants en
langues de poursuivre leur apprentissage à
l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de la classe.
 Abstracts / Résumés 201

English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code: What Priorities

for Teachers of EFL?
Susan Moore Mauroux, Université de Limoges, EA3648, CeReS,
Centre de recherches en sémiotique.
Keywords: phonology, secondary education, spelling-sound, spoken English, teaching exam
Mots-clés : phonologie, enseignement du second degré, écrit-oral, anglais oral, concours
d’enseignement
The article aims first to identify significant Cet article vise à identifier les défis
learner challenges regarding the relationship posés par la relation écrit-oral où une
between written-spoken English which can conscientisation du code propre à l’anglais,
be usefully addressed by raising awareness avec ses spécificités et ses régularités, peut
of the specificities – and regularities – of aider l’apprenant francophone. Le rôle
the English spelling-sound code. The role of des concours de recrutement est étudié en
teaching exams is then discussed, analyzing identifiant les connaissances de spécialité qui
how specialist competence is tested and how y sont évaluées et leur degré de pertinence
far this relates to learner issues, and a few pour la classe; quelques stratégies destinées à
strategies to bridge the theory-application relier théorie et application sont esquissées.
gap are outlined. Priorities identified Les priorités qui se dégagent sont de deux
concern vowel reduction where the absence ordres : d’une part, la réduction vocalique
of any letter-sound correspondence is an où l’absence de correspondance entre lettre
issue, and the articulation and/or perception et son pose problème ; d’autre part, certains
of sounds, especially certain vowels (/ɪ/, /i:/ sons, notamment des voyelles (/ɪ/, /i:/ et
and /aɪ/; /ɒ/, /əʊ/ and /ɔ:/), often associated / aɪ/; /ɒ/, /əʊ/ et /ɔ:/), souvent associées à
with confusing spellings (<i> and <o>). For des graphies qui prêtent à confusion (<i>
these, it is argued that awareness of how the et <o>). Ces sons présentent des difficultés
English spelling-sound code works should de discrimination et/ou d’articulation mais
enable learners to improve both production une connaissance du code pourrait en
and comprehension. The detailed analysis of améliorer la perception et la production.
the phonology papers of the French teaching L’analyse détaillée des sujets et des rapports
exam (agrégation externe d’anglais) based on des jurys de l’agrégation externe d’anglais
papers and reports from 2000 to 2020 focuses (2000-2020) porte sur trois éléments: la
on three elements: morphophonology where morphophonologie où la qualité vocalique
vowel quality is determined by certain est déterminée par certaines terminaisons ;
endings; IPA transcription/spelling-sound la transcription API et la relation écrit-oral
which tests pronunciation and knowledge of évaluant la prononciation des candidats et
the code; and phonetic variation involving leur maîtrise du code graphophonématique;
connected speech. The study shows that et la variation phonétique, y compris les
questions regularly focus on aspects of the phénomènes de chaîne parlée. L’étude
system which could be usefully transferred montre que les questions portent
to learners. régulièrement sur des aspects du système
pertinents pour les apprenants.
 Contents / Sommaire

Preface
Monika Pukli ................................................................................................................. 5
Teaching Pronunciation with Direct Visual Articulatory Feedback:
Pedagogical Considerations for the Use of Ultrasound in the Classroom
Barbara Kühnert, Claire Pillot-Loiseau ...................................................................... 9
Doing Pronunciation Online: An Embodied and Cognitive Approach
Which Puts Prosody First
Dan Frost ....................................................................................................................... 25
Teaching English Sociophonetics through a Tutored Project
Thomas Jauriberry........................................................................................................ 43
Using Learner Corpora in Serious Game Design for English Phonology
and Pronunciation Teaching
Mahdi Amazouz, Franck Zumstein........................................................................... 55
Une image vaut mille prononciations: Using Twitter to Support
the Acquisition of Hard-to-Pronounce Words in L2 French
Amanda Dalola ............................................................................................................ 71
Assessing Spoken English Performance and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the
Classroom: Some Considerations on the Value of an Interdisciplinary
Embodied Methodology for French Learners of English
Julie Rouaud, Nathalie Huet, Anne Przewozny ..................................................... 87
The Impact of Day-to-Day Use of Multimedia by L2 Learners of English
on the Comprehension of Regional Varieties
Kizzi Edensor-Costille ...............................................................................................115
English Phonology in a Globalized World: Challenging Native Speakerism
through Listener Training in Universities in Sweden and the US
Hyeseung Jeong, Stephanie Lindemann, Julia Forsberg .....................................135
Evolving Teaching Practices of Pre-service Language Teachers in L2
Pronunciation: A Case Study
Tim Kochem, John Levis .........................................................................................155
English Pronunciation and the Spelling-Sound Code: What Priorities
for Teachers of EFL?
Susan Moore Mauroux .............................................................................................175
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................193
 Numéros récents / Previous Issues

ranam n° 40/2007

Culture savante culture populaire en Ecosse

Introduction
Christian Auer ................................................................................................................................. 5
“Recreations to refresh the spirits of his followers”: Walter Bower’s revelations
on cultural pursuits at James I of Scotland’s court
Katie Stevenson ............................................................................................................................... 9
The Scottish covenanters and the drive for a godly society 1639-1651
John R. Young ............................................................................................................................... 25
Fabricating nobility? Genealogy and social mobility among
franco-scottish families in the early modern period
Steve Murdoch...............................................................................................................................37
“From the dominions of learning to those of conversation” :
philosophie savante et philosophie populaire dans les Essais de David Hume
Gilles Robel ....................................................................................................................................53
High and low culture : Robert Burns and the case of the fornicator
Karyn Wilson-Costa .....................................................................................................................69
Robert Burns nomothète
Yann Tholoniat ..............................................................................................................................79
Sporting Scott : Sir Walter, the Waverley Novels and British sports fiction
Julian Meldon D’Arcy ..................................................................................................................95
Le People’s Journal de Dundee (1858-1867), vecteur d’enrichissement
culturel ou propagateur d’un discours idéologique normatif ?
Christian Auer .............................................................................................................................103
Écrivains et raconteurs de l’Écosse septentrionale au XXe siècle
Jean Berton ...................................................................................................................................115
The works philosopher : contesting cultural taxonomies
in contemporary Scottish literature
David Leishman...........................................................................................................................127
La culture des défilés politico-religieux en Écosse :
une forme de « culture populaire sectaire » ?
Nathalie Duclos ........................................................................................................................... 137
Intimate strangers:Clubs, pubs and the forging of Glasgow’s corporate identity
Bill Findlay ...................................................................................................................................149
Stratégies populaires et savantes dans le cinéma écossais des années 80 et 90
Véronique Charriau ....................................................................................................................163
Le piobaireachd, musique savante de cornemuse écossaise
Jean-François Allain ...................................................................................................................177
 ranam n° 41/2008
Variability and change in language and discourse
Introduction
Albert Hamm & Lyndon Higgs .................................................................................................. 5
Some implications of thematic structure in the scientific journal article, 1700-1980
David Banks .................................................................................................................................... 9
Is Dublin English losing its specificity? A study of the have-en
aspect in Ballyfermot English
Anne-Sophie Ritter ...................................................................................................................... 25
Personal pronouns in Keats’s Ode to a nightingale
Stéphane Kostantzer .................................................................................................................... 43
Aspects of the ‘fait divers’ as a journalistic genre
Albert Hamm ................................................................................................................................ 57
Quotations and their co(n)texts:
Corpus-based insights into discoursing with Hamlet
Sixta Quassdorf & Regula Hohl Trillini .................................................................................... 75
Topic negotiation in intercultural discourse: a case study on a series of three interviews
between a Himba oral historian and a German ethnographer
Anna Voegeli ................................................................................................................................ 91
A critical discourse analysis of Swiss tourist slogans and logos
Katja Sommerhalder ................................................................................................................. 107
Extracting collocations in context : the case of verb-noun constructions
in English and Romanian
Amalia Todirascu & Christopher Gledhill .............................................................................. 127
Metaphors we live by or conceive by?
A cross-linguistic case study on boredom and Langeweile
Nicole Weber .............................................................................................................................. 143
Discourse styles in spoken British English: a corpus-based study
Nicole Höhn ................................................................................................................................ 161
Semantic and discourse factors in complement choice after begin and start
Tünde Nagy ................................................................................................................................. 187
Abstracts ...................................................................................................................................197

ranam n° 42/2009
Multiculturalisme, modernité et citoyenneté au Canada /
Multiculturalism, modernity and citizenship in Canada
In memoriam André Bleikasten
Albert Hamm ................................................................................................................................. 5
Préface
Gwendolyne Cressman ................................................................................................................ 9
Multiculturalisme et citoyenneté
Multiculturalisme, citoyenneté et conflit : une approche sociologique
Hélène Bertheleu ......................................................................................................................... 19
La « diversité profonde » selon Charles Taylor :
quelle pertinence pour l’Union européenne ?
Janie Pélabay ................................................................................................................................ 39
Entre unité et diversité, la citoyenneté multiculturelle
comme esquisse d’un nouveau visage pour le Canada
Nadia Azzimani ........................................................................................................................... 55
Les expériences du multiculturalisme
Une identité à trait d’union ? Les Germano-Canadiens
et la nation-mosaïque multiculturelle
Patrick Farges .............................................................................................................................. 71
Canadian Multiculturalism:
Imagined / Experiential Narratives of Canadian Citizens
Khalida Tanvir Syed ................................................................................................................... 87
Integrating Aboriginals into the Saskatchewan Labour Force (2001-2007)
Florence Cartigny ........................................................................................................................ 99
Multilinguisme et multiculturalisme
Representations of Multilingualism and Conceptions of Citizenship
in an urban, globalized world
Julie Byrd Clark ......................................................................................................................... 113
Multiculturalisme canadien vs interculturalisme québécois : les défis pour l’immigration
et la nouvelle francophonie au Québec
Jürgen Erfurt .............................................................................................................................. 131
Implementing the American bilingual tradition:
an assessment of the last four decades
Ghislain Potriquet ...................................................................................................................... 149
Pluralisme culturel, plurilinguisme et citoyenneté. Quelques perspectives
comparées sur l’enseignement des langues en Europe et au Canada
Gwendolyne Cressman ............................................................................................................ 163
Langues et immigrations en Europe
Claude Truchot ......................................................................................................................... 177
André Bleikasten : principales publications .......................................................................... 197
Abstracts ..................................................................................................................................... 209

ranam n° 43/2010
Culture savante-culture populaire :
reprises, recyclages, récupération
In memoriam Claude Laurence Lacassagne
Albert Hamm ................................................................................................................................... 5
Avant-propos
Jean-Jacques Chardin ..................................................................................................................... 9
Sterne recyclé : allers-retours entre culture savante et culture populaire
Anne Bandry-Scubbi .................................................................................................................... 13
Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine comme outil de transmission culturelle en Écosse : 1832-1850
Odile Boucher-Rivalain ................................................................................................................ 25
“It is a bloody crime : the things we’re doing to Shakespeare” :
Anthony Burgess, Enderby et Shakespeare travesti
Aude Haffen ................................................................................................................................... 35
New Jerseys from Old Wool: cultural blending in Aotearoa New Zealand
Rognvald Leask ............................................................................................................................. 49
Le cinéma populaire à l’épreuve de ses représentations –
les visages d’Hollywood au fil du siècle
Emmmanuelle Delanoë-Brun ..................................................................................................... 65
Poems and recipes: what do these two magpie modes have in common?
Nathalie Cooke ............................................................................................................................. 83
Ekphrasis in reverse: the use and abuse of poetry in popular films
Bent Sørensen ................................................................................................................................ 95
Mellow Mélange: Marge and Blanche – The Simpsonsvs Tennessee Williams
Camelia Elias ............................................................................................................................... 103
Textual subversion and elitist recuperation in Jeanette Winterson’s Sexing the Cherry
Monica Latham ........................................................................................................................... 111
I’ve got the Judas complex and the recycling blues: Bob Dylan as cultural theft
Christophe Lebold....................................................................................................................... 127
Robert Burns et les Romantiques ou le poète et ses ménades
Yann Tholoniat ........................................................................................................................... 137
Jack Cade de Shakespeare à Edwin Forrest : le héros dans le théâtre populaire américain
du xixe siècle à l’épreuve de ses paradoxes
Ronan Ludot-Vlasak .................................................................................................................. 157
Culture savante et culture populaire dans les romans de Nathaniel Hawthorne
Stéphanie Lorrain ....................................................................................................................... 169
Lisibidinalité et texte littéraire : du réel irreprésentable à la fonction de la lettre
Claude Maisonnat ...................................................................................................................... 181
Abstracts ..................................................................................................................................... 199

ranam hors série 2010

Jean Paira-Pemberton – Selected poems

ranam n° 44/2011
Language, speech, discourse
Preface
Maryvonne Boisseau et Stéphane Kostantzer .......................................................................... 11
What’s the point of that double genitive of yours?
Lyndon Higgs ............................................................................................................................... 15
Salience and lexical semantics
Antoine Consigny ........................................................................................................................ 29
Infinitival to as a cohesion marker
Geneviève Girard-Gillet .............................................................................................................. 47
“Commence + to - infinitives” in G. Stein’s discourse
Claude Delmas .............................................................................................................................. 67
Hesperides
Jean Paira-Pemberton................................................................................................................... 81
Language change in action – Variation in Scottish English
Monika Pukli et Thomas Jauriberry .......................................................................................... 83
Phonetic contrasts and miscommunication in Northern Ireland English
Nuzha Moritz .............................................................................................................................. 101
1564
Jean Paira-Pemberton................................................................................................................. 111
Photography into language: “Shorelines” by Derek Mahon
Maryvonne Boisseau .................................................................................................................. 113
The circle, the line and the dot: rhythm in the boat-stealing episode from Wordsworth’s
“The Prelude”
Stéphane Kostantzer .................................................................................................................. 125
La fin de la linguistique
Pierre Frath ................................................................................................................................. 139
Abstracts ....................................................................................................................................... 153

ranam hors série 2011

De la perception à la compréhension d’une langue étrangère /

From perception to comprehension of a foreign language
Préface
Albert Hamm .................................................................................................................................. 5
Foreword
Rudolph Sock, Nuzha Moritz, Albert Hamm ............................................................................ 7
Mémorisation de la parole étrangère et intégration sensorielle spécifique de la prosodie
Isabelle Hesling ............................................................................................................................. 11
Guidage perceptif de la production en L2 : tendances générales et variabilité individuelle
Myriam Piccaluga, Sandrine Clairet, Véronique Delvaux,
Kathy Huet, Bernard Harmegnies ............................................................................................. 25
Perception in bilingual children learning English as a foreign language. A pilot study
Monika Pukli ................................................................................................................................. 45
Perception of synthesised high back vocoids: effect of the lip configuration and of the
tongue position on French-speaking and Japanese-speaking listeners
Takeki Kamiyama ........................................................................................................................ 59
Sous-titrages phonétiquement corrects. Méthode d’écoute avec support d’écriture phonétique
Bernard Gautheron ...................................................................................................................... 67
Discrimination des tons lexicaux du twi par des locuteurs français
Kofi Adu Manyah ......................................................................................................................... 83
Abstracts ......................................................................................................................................91

ranam n° 45/2012
Reprise, Recycling, Recuperating:
Modes of Construction of Anglophone Culture
Preface
Jean-Jacques Chardin ..................................................................................................................... 5
Reprise recycling, recuperating in the postcolonial context
Chutnification : the recycling of canonical texts in the Indian English novel
Geetha Ganapathy-Doré ............................................................................................................. 11
Memory, nostalgia and identity in narratives of India’s Partition
Bodh Prakash ................................................................................................................................ 21
Canadian popular classics: Recycling Homer’s Odyssey in novels by Frederick Philip Grove,
Robert Kroetsch and Margaret Atwood
Wolfram R. Keller ........................................................................................................................ 37
Les reprises du surréalisme français dans la revue américaine d’exil transition (1927-1938)
Céline Mansanti ............................................................................................................................ 51
Romulus en Amérique : recyclage et récupération des modèles antiques
par John Howard Payne
Ronan Ludot-Vlasak .................................................................................................................... 65
Recuperating: a political gesture
Appropriating the roguery pamphlet genre: Greene’s narrative and authorial strategies
Pascale Drouet ............................................................................................................................... 85
Reprise de l’Égalité des deux sexes (1673) de Poulain de la Barre
dans les brochures de [Sophia] (1739-1740)
Guyonne Leduc ............................................................................................................................ 97
Milton’s hypotextual presence in James Thomson’s Summer (1727)
Kwinten Van De Walle ............................................................................................................. 115
Ezra Pound, Basil Bunting and the Roman Classics: translating the reference to myth
Charlotte Estrade ....................................................................................................................... 129
Marx et l’Angleterre
Bernard Cottret .......................................................................................................................... 141
Recycling and recuperating: shifting stances
Tintin and the Scottish colourists: how to recycle without a bike
Laurence Grove ........................................................................................................................... 151
Le street art selon Banksy : jeu, récupération et palimpseste
Hélène Ibata ................................................................................................................................. 159
Les intermittences du visible : reprises de vue dans le cinéma expérimental américain
Livio Belloï .................................................................................................................................. 173
Seàn Hillen’s Irelantis: the second life of parody
Valérie Morisson ........................................................................................................................ 183
Reprise, altération, réinsertion : le recyclage au service de l’éducation
du lecteur dans Les Versets sataniques de Salman Rushdie
Michael Federspiel ..................................................................................................................... 203
Abstracts ....................................................................................................................................... 219

ranam n° 46/2013

Imagined, Communities, Recuperated Homelands

Introduction
Monica Manolescu & Charlotte Sturgess ................................................................................... 5
How to do “You”: Methods of Asian / indigenous relation
Larissa Lai ....................................................................................................................................... 11
The rhetoric of double allegiance: Imagined communities
in North American diasporic Chinese literatures
Deborah L. Madsen....................................................................................................................... 29
Communities and margins
Imagined communities and the lures of hypermodernity:
The case of the South Asian diaspora
Françoise Král ................................................................................................................................ 47
Flights to Canada: Promised lands and imaginary homelands in Jacob Lawrence,
Ishmael Reed and Lawrence Hill
Hans Bak ........................................................................................................................................ 57
Unsettling cartographies
Geographies of the Caribbean in Cristina Garcia’s The Agüero Sisters
Ada Savin........................................................................................................................................ 77
From the universal to the particular: Ludwig Lewisohn’s imagined community
Virginia Ricard .............................................................................................................................. 89
Contesting home and native land: Tessa McWatt’s Out of My Skin and
Drew Hayden Taylor’s “A Blurry Image on the Six O’clock News”
Lianne Moyes ................................................................................................................................. 99
Borders, borderlands, homelands
No tierra firme: Retrieving Loss in Helena Maria Viramontes’s
Their Dogs Came with Them
Yves-Charles Grandjeat.............................................................................................................. 111
Intertextual homelands, reimagined communities in two Southwestern novels
by Louis Owens
Michel Feith ................................................................................................................................. 121
“[A]cross America picking up ghosts”:
Home and the Unheimlich in Shawn Wong’s novel Homebase
Marie-Agnès Gay ........................................................................................................................ 135
Immigration, ethnicity and multiculturalism
Pop culture and the construction of ethnicity in Richard Van Camp’s
The Lesser Blessed and Miriam Toews’s A Complicated Kindness
Claire Omhovère ......................................................................................................................... 151
Jamaica Kincaid’s regressive writing
Marie-Claude Perrin-Chenour ................................................................................................. 163
Book reviews ................................................................................................................................ 175
Abstracts ...................................................................................................................................... 181

ranam n° 47/2014

The déjà vu and the authentic in anglophone culture:

contacts, frictions, clashes
Avant-propos
Anne Bandry-Scubbi ...................................................................................................................... 5
Frictions in the Visual
Surrealism in Britain: from the subversion of the déjà vu
to the impossible authentic
Michel Remy .................................................................................................................................. 13
Frottements d’images : les films tardifs de Paul Sharits
Livio Belloï ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Bill Viola’s “The Passions” and Aby Warburg’s “Survival” theory:
Post-modernism, empathy and déjà vu
Magdalena Nowak ........................................................................................................................ 31
From déjà vu to déjà peint: Rewriting, re-imaging devolutionary and
post-devolutionary Scotland
Camille Manfredi .......................................................................................................................... 47
Déjà vu in British nineteenth-century travel book illustrations on Egypt: continuity and
change
Caroline Lehni ............................................................................................................................... 59
Authenticity?
Normalcy, discrepancy, and alternatives: some representations of the American woman
from the postwar years to the sixties
Elodie Chazalon............................................................................................................................. 77
Amerikang byutiPhilippine Mimicry and “American Mana”
Jean-Noël Sanchez ........................................................................................................................ 89
Le mouvement d’Oxford : entre continuité et réforme
Frédéric Libaud ........................................................................................................................... 101
William the Conqueror, Henry III, Richard II et al., or English history recycled
by seventeenth-century republican newsbooks
Laurent Curelly............................................................................................................................ 115
Dissonance, distortion and détournement: reinterpreting
“The Star-Spangled Banner”
Elsa Grassy ................................................................................................................................... 129
“Déjà vu / déjà entendu”? Handel’s opere serie on the London Stage
Pierre Degott ................................................................................................................................ 147
“Breaking the pentameter”: speech rhythms, “stress clash,” and authenticity in modern
english-language poetry
Andrew Eastman ......................................................................................................................... 159
Textual encounters by dissonance
“The musical confusion of hounds and echoes in conjunction”:
Intertextual friction in Elizabethan rewritings of the myth of Actæon
Rémi Vuillemin ........................................................................................................................... 175
P. B. Shelley’s Mercury vs. Aeschylus’s Hermes: A transtextual clash of the Titans
Fabien Desset ............................................................................................................................... 189
Struggling to resist prior interpellation:the nursery rhyme characters
in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass
Virginie Iché ................................................................................................................................ 207
Clans and clashes: Heritage and authenticity in
Alistair MacLeod’s No Great Mischief
André Dodeman.......................................................................................................................... 219
Linguistic dissonance and the quest for a Caribbean voice in the poetry of
Edward Kamau Brathwaite
Cyril Vettorato............................................................................................................................. 233
Shakespeare and literary Africa: Encounters by dissonance in Coetzee, Soyinka, Gordimer
Anna Maria Cimitile ................................................................................................................... 245
Recencions..................................................................................................................................... 265
Abstracts ....................................................................................................................................... 271
 ranam n° 48/2015
Accents, variation(s), representation
Foreword / Avant-propos
Maryvonne Boisseau ...................................................................................................................... 5
Presentation
Julie Nimtz ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Consonant Variation and Change: Towards a Socio-Cognitive Model
Olivier Glain ................................................................................................................................. 13
Non-Standard Features of Asian Englishes in Comment Forums of Social News Websites
Michael Percillier ......................................................................................................................... 31
Toronto Haitian English: a Preliminary Account
Véronique Lacoste ....................................................................................................................... 51
The Constructionalization of Formulaic Sequences Called “Snowclones”
Julien Rentz ................................................................................................................................... 65
Towards a Metalinguistic Representation of the Lexeme SHY
Philippe Muller ............................................................................................................................. 79
The Gricean Cooperative Principle at Work in Fictional Narratives:
the Case of Reporting Clauses
Aurélie Ceccaldi ........................................................................................................................... 97
The Effects and Functions of Mentioning or Distorting Proverbs in Oscar Wilde’s
The Importance of Being Earnest
Stéphane Kostantzer .................................................................................................................. 113
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................... 131
Abstracts / Résumés ..................................................................................................................... 141

ranam n° 49/2016
Contacts, Frictions, Clashes:
Modes of Construction of Anglophone Culture
In memoriam Danielle Bruckmuller-Genlot
Hélène Ibata ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Foreword
Anne Bandry-Scubbi ...................................................................................................................... 7
Theoretical Frictions
Clashes or Frictions? Approaches to Linguistic Contact in Medieval Britain
Fanny Moghaddassi ..................................................................................................................... 15
Spenser, Donne, I. A. Richards and the Limitations of Practical Criticism
J. B. Lethbridge .............................................................................................................................. 29
Some Reflections on the Place of Aesthetics and Politics in American Studies
Philipp Schweighauser ................................................................................................................ 43
 Frictions and Clashes in History
The Strange Case of John Martin’s Dinosaurs
Muriel Adrien ............................................................................................................................... 57
The Impossible Prison? Crime, Penal Policy and Society in Nineteenth–Century England
Neil Davie ...................................................................................................................................... 73
Contact, Friction, Exclusion: Australia’s “Utopian” Federation
Marilyne Brun .............................................................................................................................. 87
“Superhuman inhumanities” : paradigmes et paradoxes de la Première Guerre mondiale
dans la poésie britannique
Yann Tholoniat ........................................................................................................................... 101
« Sourire quand même » : La reconstruction des Gueules Cassées de la Grande Guerre en
France et en Grande-Bretagne
Marjorie Gehrhardt ................................................................................................................... 119
Contacts, Frictions and Clashes in British Musicians’ Opposition to
the Thatcher Governments, 1979–1990
Jeremy Tranmer ......................................................................................................................... 131
Nature en ville et conflits urbains
Sandrine Baudry ......................................................................................................................... 143
Twenty-first Century Frictions and Clashes
Femmes et hommes migrants en provenance des nouveaux États membres de l’UE
dans le monde de l’emploi en Irlande : réalités rugueuses
Marie-Jeanne Da Col Richert ................................................................................................... 157
Upsetting the Body Politic(s): Witches as Enemy Agents in Rupert Goold’s Macbeth (2010)
Artur Skweres ............................................................................................................................. 173
“They want more conflict? I’ll see what I can do…”: Reality TV and the Transfiguration
of the Commonplace Image in Reality Show (Showtime, 2012)
Sébastien Lefait ........................................................................................................................... 189
Book Reviews / Recensions ........................................................................................................ 201
Abstracts / Résumés .................................................................................................................... 207

ranam n° 50/2017
Discourse, Boundaries and Genres in English Studies:
an Assessment
The 50th anniversary of RANAM and the history of English Studies
at the University of Strasbourg and beyond
Albert Hamm .................................................................................................................. 5
Les études anglaises aux Presses universitaires de Strasbourg (1920-1970)
Isabelle Laboulais ...........................................................................................................................9
Presentation
Jean-Jacques Chardin ..................................................................................................................13
The Essay in Early Modern and Late Modern English Medical Writing
Irma Taavistainen ........................................................................................................................15
Establishing the Boundaries and Creating the Genre
of the Scientific Research Article in the late Seventeenth Century
David Banks ..................................................................................................................................31
Shakespeare’s Infernal Rivers:
Topological Space and Dramatic Descensus ad Inferos
Monica Matei-Chesnoiu .............................................................................................................43
Techne, the Visual Arts and Literary Genres:
Fractal Epic of the Twenty-first Century
Anna Maria Cimitile ....................................................................................................................57
Linguistic Creativity: Rule-Governed or Rule-Breaking?
Jean-Jacques Lecercle...................................................................................................................69
The Linguistic Function of the Marker Steady in African American English
Patrice Larroque ...........................................................................................................................81
Representation of Conversational Style in the Oral Components of the BNC
and the COCA: Towards the Description of a Mixed Genre
François Maniez ...........................................................................................................................91
Playing Seriously with Genres: Sapir’s ‘Nootka’ Texts and Mead’s Balinese Anthropology
Philipp Schweighauser...............................................................................................................107
Genre, Where-Relatives and (Inter)Subjectivity
Claude Delmas............................................................................................................................123
The Second-person Pronoun Across Genres
Sandrine Sorlin ...........................................................................................................................135
First-Person Plural Fiction and Its Challenges
Monika Fludernik ......................................................................................................................149
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................163
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................................167

ranam n° 51/2018
The Representation of Emotions across Discourse Genres
Presentation
Catherine Paulin.............................................................................................................................5
At the Crossroads of Cognition and Emotion: Wonder, a Multifunctional and Polysemous
Marker
Christelle Lacassain-Lagoin ..........................................................................................................7
HAPPY as a Mark of Exceptionality
Philippe Muller .............................................................................................................................31
Coding Emotion in Computer-Mediated Communication:
The Example of YouTube Comments
Célia Schneebeli............................................................................................................................45
“Tired, emotional and very very happy. Fantastic day #AFC.” The Expression of Emotions
on Twitter during the 2014 European Elections
Elena Albu .....................................................................................................................................57
An Enunciative Approach to Pathos in British General Election Manifestos
Julie Nimtz ....................................................................................................................................71
Expressing Emotion in Romance Fiction: How Readers Like Their Heroes and Heroines to
Communicate Passion
Ellen Carter ...................................................................................................................................87
The Expression and Triggering of Surprise in Joseph Jacobs’s Tales
Héloïse Perbet, Catherine Paulin ...............................................................................................97
“Screamin’ and Shoutin’!”
A Cultural and Lexicographic Study of Exultation in Jazz
Jean Szlamowicz .........................................................................................................................113
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................129
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................................139

ranam n° 52/2019
Borders and Spaces in the English-Speaking World
Preface
Jean-Jacques Chardin ....................................................................................................................5
Borders as Habits of Vision
Border Environments: Theorising Media and Culture in the Windsor-Detroit Borderlands,
1943–1946
Michael Darroch ..........................................................................................................................11
Sites of Dissensus: Sensing Borders and Affective States
Lee Rodney ....................................................................................................................................33
Dacian Lands on the Very Frontier of Modern Civilization. British Travellers Crossing the
Borders of the Nineteenth Century Romanian Principalities
Virginia Petrica Fazakas ..............................................................................................................47
Revisiting Aesthetic Borders
National Literatures, Borders and Arab–American Diaspora Fiction
Jumana Bayeh ...............................................................................................................................59
Walter Scott’s Portable Borderland: The Example of Anne of Geierstein (1829)
Céline Sabiron ..............................................................................................................................77
Transcending Borders and Crossing the Sea: Indigenous Cinema in the Pacific Islands
Jennifer Gauthier..........................................................................................................................91
At Home with Borders
Re–imagining the National Community. The Afghanistan War (2001–2014) and the
Precarious Borders of Britishness
Béatrice Blanchet ........................................................................................................................105
When God Comes to Visit: Domestic Space and Devotions in the Late–Medieval Mind
Hollie Morgan ............................................................................................................................121
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................135
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................................143

ranam n° 53/2020
Internal Variation. A Special Focus on Diamesic Variation
Preface
Catherine Paulin.............................................................................................................................5
 External and /or Internal Variation
The Internal and External Dichotomy Again. Teasing Apart Motives for Language Change
Raymond Hickey ..........................................................................................................................11
A Variationist Approach to the Spread of Emergent Features in Middle English
Michael Percillier .........................................................................................................................23
Diachronic and Synchronic Variability of the English Phoneme /h/
Christelle Exare.............................................................................................................................37
Orality and Literacy, Phonostylistics
“Dis poem is still not written.” A Study of Diamesic Variation in Jamaican Dub Poetry
David Bousquet ............................................................................................................................57
Paralinguistic Phenomena and Their Vocalisations When Reading Aloud in Winnie-the-
Pooh
Manuel Jobert ...............................................................................................................................69
Literary Modes of Representation of Reported Speech
Reporting Clauses as Quilt Metaphors in Margaret Atwood’s Alias Grace: The Visible
Stitches of a Split Character
Aurélie Ceccaldi ...........................................................................................................................87
Diamesic Variation in Direct Reported Speech: Representing Orality in Fiction
Grégoire Lacaze ...........................................................................................................................99
Variation and Alterity
Ajustement, affordance : l’altérité comme clé pour la variation
Sarah de Vogüé ...........................................................................................................................117
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................139
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................................147

ranam n° 54/2021
Landscapes and Aesthetic Spatialities in the Anthropocene
In Memoriam. Christian Auer 1956-2020
Jean-Jacques Chardin ....................................................................................................................5
Introduction
Sandrine Baudry, Hélène Ibata, Monica Manolescu ................................................................7
Keeping Humans Out of the Picture: The (Almost) Pristine Wilderness of The Last of the
Mohicans
Mark Niemeyer.............................................................................................................................19
A Landscape for Early 20th-Century Poetry: Pastorals of the Little-Magazine Avant-Garde
Elin Käck .......................................................................................................................................39
A Questionable “Pleasure”: Ruins in John Piper’s and Paul Nash’s Wartime Landscape
Paintings
Hélène Ibata ..................................................................................................................................55
Peter Blume’s The Rock (1944–48) and the Post-war Landscape
Cécile Whiting ..............................................................................................................................73
Imagining the Lagoon in Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison’s
The Lagoon Cycle
Monica Manolescu .......................................................................................................................89
Picturing Oil: A Tour of the Canadian Petroscape in Words and Images
Claire Omhovère ........................................................................................................................111
“We are all healers”: Romantic Curanderismo in the Poems
of Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera—The New Mestiza
Pascale Guibert ...........................................................................................................................131
Indigenous Cinemas and Futurisms: How Indigenous Visual Arts
Are Shifting the Narratives and Offering a New Relationship to Space and Landscapes
Sophie Gergaud ..........................................................................................................................151
Book Reviews / Recensions .......................................................................................................171
Abstracts / Résumés ...................................................................................................................175

Imprimerie et reprographie
Direction des affaires logistiques intérieures
Université de Strasbourg
Dépôt légal : juillet 2022