Laver, John (1994) Principles of Phonetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 269.
Crystal, David (2005) A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics (Fifth Edition), Maldern, MA/Oxford: Blackwell, p. 494.
According to Peter Ladefoged, traditional articulatory descriptions such as height and backness "are not entirely satisfactory", and when phoneticians describe a vowel as high or low, they are in fact describing an acoustic quality rather than the actual position of the tongue. Ladefoged, Peter (2006) A Course in Phonetics (Fifth Edition), Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth, p. 189.
Ladefoged, Peter (1993) A Course in Phonetics (Third Edition), Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p. 197.
Ladefoged, Peter (2001) A Course in Phonetics (Fourth Edition), Fort Worth: Harcourt, p. 177.
Ladefoged, Peter (2006) A Course in Phonetics (Fifth Edition), Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, p. 189.
Hayward, Katrina (2000) Experimental Phonetics, Harlow, UK: Pearson, p. 160.
Deterding, David (1997) The formants of monophthong vowels in Standard Southern British English Pronunciation, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 27, 47-55.
Hawkins, Sarah and Jonathan Midgley (2005) Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 183-199.
Harrington, Jonathan, Sallyanne Palethorpe and Catherine Watson (2005) Deepening or lessening the divide between diphthongs: an analysis of the Queen's annual Christmas broadcasts. In William J. Hardcastle and Janet Mackenzie Beck (eds.) A Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 227-261.
Flemming, Edward and Stephanie Johnson (2007) Rosa's roses: reduced vowels in American English, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37, 83-96.
|
|
Deterding, David (2003) An instrumental study of the monophthong vowels of Singapore English, English World-Wide, 24, 1–16
Salbrina, Sharbawi (2006) The vowels of Brunei English: an acoustic investigation. English World-Wide, 27, 247-264.
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (2004) How to organize a fairly large vowel inventory: the vowels of Fering (North Frisian), Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 161-173.
Gordon, Matthew and Ayla Applebaum (2006) Phonetic structures of Turkish Kabardian, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36, 159-186.
Fletcher, Janet (2006) Exploring the phonetics of spoken narratives in Australian indigenous languages. In William J. Hardcastle and Janet Mackenzie Beck (eds.) A Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 201-226.
Teaching norms of English pronunciation
This paper reports the priorities in English pronunciation
teaching in Indonesian EFL classrooms focusing on the English varieties,
components of pronunciation, and techniques for pronunciation teaching.
The results indicated that (1) international English was valued as a more
appropriate variety for Indonesian learners, (2) and that while depending
on a limited range of rather traditional techniques of pronunciation
instruction, Indonesian EFL teachers valued segmental features more
than suprasegmentalfeatures.
Key words: international English, pronunciation priorities, techniques
for pronunciationteaching
In the two last decades there have been significant changes in the
worldwide political, social, and commercial developments. These changes
have partially influenced the status and roles of English which
consequently need to be re-examined. The
fact that English is regarded as the world’s principal international language
results in the increment of inter-speaker interaction: between native
speakers and non-native speakers and between non-native speakers
The pedagogical implication of this situation is that there is a need to
revise the goals of teaching English for ESL/EFL learners. In pronunciation
teaching, the goal is neither to help learners to attain native-like accents nor
to promote comfortable intelligibility to native speakers, but to ensure
mutual intelligibility among non-native speakers of English. Therefore, in designing a pronunciation teaching model we
should try to identify those phonological and phonetic features that will
affect mutual intelligibility for EIL (English as an International Language)
listeners and subsequently to revise pedagogic measures to facilitate the
accurate production of these features by EIL speakers.
In the context of English language education in Indonesia, however,
pronunciation has not received enough attention. As a result, there is no
|
|
systematic clear guideline of pronunciation teaching although English is
one of the important compulsory subjects at secondary schools. Many
Indonesian teachers of English do not know what aspects of English
pronunciation to teach and how to teach them. They are fundamentally not
sure which English variety they should introduce to students in their
classrooms because several English varieties (e.g., American English,
British English, and Australian English) exist throughout Indonesia.
Numerous applied linguists assert that pronunciation teaching
basically includes both segmental and suprasegmental features although
they have set up the priorities differently. In the case of comfortable
intelligibility, for example, pronunciation teaching covers the nature of
speech sound (consonants and vowels), stress, rhythm, intonation, and
connected speech Unlike these
pays more attention to interaction between non-
native speakers of English by formulating Lingua Franca Core (LFC)—
which is crucial to intelligible pronunciation in EIL context—on the basis
of her empirical research. Jenkins argues that the core features of
pronunciation should be (1) consonant inventory with the provisos such as
some substitutions of /θ/ and /ð/ and rhotic ‘r’; (2) additional phonetic
requirements such as aspiration of word-initial voiceless stops /p/, /t/, and
/k/, and shortening of vowel sounds before fortis consonants and
maintaining the length before lenis consonants; (3) consonants clusters
with consideration of omission and addition; (4) vowel sounds; and (5)
production and placement of nuclear stress. Jenkins is also concerned with
certain holistic factors involved in the production of sounds because
“problems in all these articulatory areas have the potential to lead to
pronunciation errors at both segmental and suprasegmental levels, and thus
to affect intelligibility” (p. 157).
Like the priorities of pronunciation, how to teach pronunciation is also
one of the debatable areas in pronunciation teaching. It is accepted as
axiomatic by language teachers that good pronunciation is necessary for
the mastery of a new language. However, exactly how they translate this
idea into the methodologies and techniques for teaching pronunciation is a
question which admits much less clarity and consensus. This situation
makes teachers and researchers investigate better techniques for teaching
pronunciation. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M.
(1996), for example, recommend numerous techniques for teaching
English pronunciation such as (1) listen and imitate, (2) phonetic training,
(3) minimal pair drills, (4) contextualised minimal pairs, (5) visual aids, (6)
tongue twister, (7) practice of vowels shifts and stress shifts related to
affixation, (8) developmental approximation drills, (9) reading
aloud/recitation, and (10) recordings of learners’ production. These
techniques, of course, have their own strengths and weaknesses. A certain
technique may be worthwhile in a specific situation but cannot be
implemented in other situations. It is unquestionably the teacher is the one
who decides which techniques are more appropriate to learners because
he/she is the only person who knows what is happening in his/her language
classroom.
Apart from what to teach and how to teach, the issue of English variety
has recently emerged in the framework of pronunciation teaching. The
global development of the world has shifted the roles of English and has
subsequently created a new English variety, namely English as an
international language (EIL) (Jenkins, 2000; McKay, 2002). In that way,
not only is English widely spoken by its native speakers, but also by those
whose native language is not English. Such being a case, EIL can exist at
any interactions between the speakers of English who come from different
nationalities or linguistic backgrounds. As insisted by Jenkins (2000), the
main concern should be about non-native speakers of English (NNSs) or
non-bilingual English speakers (NBESs) because these speakers are
regarded as the “most international” group of English speakers. According
to Smith (McKay, 2002), the framework of EIL should be understood in
terms of the relationship between an international language and its culture.
Smith’s assertions are valid for the use of EIL in a global sense (McKay,
2002) on the following conditions: (1) its learners do not need to internalise
the cultural norms of native speakers of that language; (2) the ownership of
an international language becomes ‘de-nationalized’; and (3) the
educational goal of learning that language is to enable learners to
communicate their ideas and cultures to others.
The development of language teaching on other sides of the globe has
a significant influence on English language teaching in Indonesia; as a
result, English curricula have been reformed for better outcomes in the last
three decades. However, many applied linguists and practitioners (e.g.,
Basir, 2002; Soenjono, 2001; Sudiyana, 2005) still claim that not only are
students’ achievement and the results of the national examination at
secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) unsatisfactory, but also
the ability of oral communication is insufficient after completing six-year
instruction of English at junior and senior high schools. In the case of
pronunciation teaching, one of the reasons for this failure is because of the
curriculum itself.
Regarding the philosophical values of the 2004 curriculum, the
adoption of the communicative approach also ends with some complicated
problems, especially related to the main objective of language teaching and
learning. In Indonesia, the main objective of English language education is
to promote discourse competence (i.e., students’ communicative ability,
both in oral and written language in any communicative events). In order to
effectuate the goal, learners also have to learn other competences: actional
competence, linguistic competence, socio-linguistic competence, and
strategic competence. Thus, discourse competence is the final goal of
language learning while the other competences are treated as the supportive
competences but should be firstly acquired (Depdiknas, 2004). However,
practically the treatment of the four competences is not equal. A great
attention is only directed to the actional competence which is promptly
realised into four language skills whereas the other competences are not
|
|
sufficiently elaborated. In the case of linguistic competence, for example,
the curriculum just provides its outline—phonology is just divided into
segmental and suprasegmental features—without any further explanation
what to teach and how to deal with these features. This narrow
understanding of communicative ability and lack of real guidelines will
result in ignorance of language components, particularly pronunciation
which is one of the essential keys for retaining Indonesian EFL learners’
intelligibility in oral communication.
Despite uncertain guideline of pronunciation teaching, the school-
based educational system has been implemented in Indonesia so that
teachers of English at school level are able to develop their own teaching
material based on the designated core curriculum. English teachers also
have an opportunity of articulating their own beliefs and assumptions
because they are the only ones who know what happens in their
classrooms. Teachers are definitely positioned not only as the doers of
denominated curriculum but also as decision makers of what they are
doing in language classrooms. This makes a balance of a technology of
language teaching and an ecological perspective on language teaching as
described by Tudor (2001).
Regarding the expectation of English as an international language and
the real condition of what happens to English education in Indonesia, I
decided to conduct a study on Indonesian EFL teachers’ perceptions of the
priorities in pronunciation teaching for Indonesian EFL learners. The
following three research questions were formulated:
(1) What English variety is appropriate for Indonesian EFL learners?
(2) What components of pronunciation are important for Indonesian EFL
learners?
(3) What techniques for teaching pronunciation are appropriate for
Indonesian EFL learners?
METHOD
Participants
A total of 37 Indonesian EFL teachers (25 males and 12 females) of
public junior high schools in Lombok Timur, the province of Nusa
Tenggara Barat, Indonesia, voluntarily participated in the study by using
opportunistic random sampling. The participants were randomly chosen
from all of the public junior high schools with considerations of taking
advantage of the unexpected flexibility such as the participants’ interest in
the topic of the study, education background, and teaching experience.
These participants had different levels of English language education
backgrounds: 11 teachers had Diploma in Education of English Language
Education and 26 teachers had Bachelor of Education in English Language
Education. These teachers had teaching experience of various length: 4
teachers with 1-5 years of teaching experience; 11 teachers with 6-10 years
of teaching experience; 14 teachers with 11-15 years of teaching
experience; and 8 teachers with more than 15 years of teaching experience.
Data Collection explanationThe data of the study was primarily collected by means of a paper-
form questionnaire. The questionnaire included three aspects of pronun-
ciation: (1) the English varieties (Q1) comprising American English,
Australian English, British English, international English, and Indonesian
English; (2) the components of pronunciation (Q2) consisting of accurate
consonants, accurate vowels, prominence (sentence stress), rhythm
patterns, intonation patterns, and word stress; and (3) the techniques for
teaching pronunciation (Q3) being composed of teacher explanation in L1,
sound discrimination, tongue twister, listen-and-repeat, teacher demons-
|
|
tration, communicative practice, and drama and role play. The respondents
were required to determine their own perceptions through a five-point
Likert scale. The options of each question were coded from 1 (not
appropriate for Q1; not important for Q2; not effective for Q3) to 5 (very
appropriate for Q1; very important for Q2; and very effective for Q3). The
questionnaire was designed to be anonymous and unregistered so that the
respondents could honestly share their opinion.
To collect data, the master copy of the questionnaire was sent to the
coordinator of this study in Indonesia who helped to collect data. The
master copy of the questionnaire was reprinted and distributed directly (in
person, not by mail) to the respondents of the study. After three weeks, the
distributed questionnaire sheets were collected, packed, and sent back to
the present researcher. The questionnaire sheets were sorted and only the
data of the valid questionnaire sheets were tabulated and analysed.
In addition to the questionnaire, in-depth interview with four teachers
was conducted to explore their views and practices in English
pronunciation teaching in Indonesian EFL classrooms, focusing on the
perceptions of the preferable English varieties for Indonesian EFL learners,
the components of pronunciation, and the techniques for pronunciation
teaching. These four teachers were randomly identified on the basis of their
teaching experience as indicated in the section of Participants. The
interview took about 25 – 30 minutes for each participant.
Data Analysis
The tabulated scores of the English varieties, the components of
pronunciation, and the techniques for teaching pronunciation were
averaged for each item of each question. In order to dichotomize each item
of each question (into an appropriate/inappropriate group for Q1, an
important/unimportant group for Q2, and an effective/ineffective group for
Q3), the calculated mean scores were compared with the median (i.e.,
3.00).
Moedjito, Priorities in English Pronunciation Teaching in EFL Classrooms In order to show the significance level of the difference among the
mean scores, the data were also submitted to analytic statistics. Since
Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests disclosed that the data of each item was not
normally distributed and Levene’s tests revealed that the variances in the
questions were not equal, the data was submitted to Friedman tests to
determine whether there was a significant difference in the mean ranks of
the items for each question. Whenever the Friedman tests determined the
difference in the mean ranks of the items, the data was then submitted to
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with different significant levels of Bonferroni
correction (the level of significant [normally.05] was divided by the
number of micro questions) to examine which pairs of the means of the
micro questions were statistically significant different.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
English Varieties
Table 1 presents the mean scores of the investigated English varieties
and difference in respondents’ perceptions of appropriateness. Comparing
the mean scores of each English variety with the median, the study showed
that while Indonesian English was considered as an inappropriate model of
English pronunciation, international English was rated as the most
appropriate English variety for Indonesian EFL learners, followed by
American English, British English, and Australian English. A Friedman
test discovered that there was a significant difference in the mean ranks of
the investigated English varietiessigned-rank tests revealed that there was a significant difference in the
means of all the pairs of the English varieties, except for the pair of
American English versus British English, as seen in Table 1. This implies
that international English is more preferable than other English varieties by
Indonesian EFL teachers.
The quantitative analysis is consistently justified by all the interview
teachers’ comments indicating that the new target of spoken English for
Indonesian EFL learners should be international English. They assumed
that not only would oral communication in English between native – non-
native speakers of English increase in the future, but also oral interaction
among non-native speakers. For this reason, two of the interviewees who
had more than ten years of teaching experience, needed a clear guideline of
international communicative competence, especially related to pronuncia-
tion teaching.
The junior teacher, whose teaching experience was less than five
years, insisted on exposing students to several models of English
pronunciation, not only American or British English. This finding is
consonant with the idea of EIL proposed by some applied linguists (e.g.,
Jenkins, 2000; McKay, 2002; Walker, 2001). Conversely, Indonesian
English was rated as the least appropriate model for Indonesian EFL
learners with native Englishes (i.e., American English, British English, and
Australian English) coming between international English and Indonesian
English. Compared with other Asian countries, for example, this finding is
a sharp contrast to the situation in Japan where Japanese English is the
second most preferred model for Japanese EFL learners (Jenkins, 2000).
One most probable reason for the lowest rating of Indonesian English is the
fact that the Indonesian language is not Indonesian EFL learners’ mother
tongue, but their second language. This situation, of course, is different
from that in Japan, where the Japanese language is the first language for the
Japanese learners of English. Thus, it is inevitable that learners’ native
language will interfere with the learning of English pronunciation;
therefore, it is not possible or advisable to eradicate Japanese influence.
This is reflected in their choice of the appropriate models of English
pronunciation.
Components of Pronunciation
Concerning the components of pronunciation, as shown in Table 2, the
participants valued the segmental features (vowels and consonants) more
positively than the suprasegmental ones (prominence, rhythm, intonation,
and word stress). The segmental features were equally rated as the most
important components of pronunciation. Among the suprasegmental
features, the rating of prominence was the highest, followed by intonation
and word stress, while that of rhythm was the lowest. As far as the mean
scores and median comparison are concerned, the finding showed that all
the investigated components of pronunciation were important for
Indonesian EFL learners to study. A Friedman test discovered that there
was a significant difference in the mean ranks of the components of
pronunciation
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that there was no significant
difference in the means of the pairs of consonants and vowels. Likewise,
there was no significant difference in the means of the pairs of intra-
suprasegmental features, except for the pair of prominence versus rhythm.
Performing a pair wise comparison test of each segmental feature versus
each suprasegmental feature, the result showed that there was a significant
difference in the means of all the pairs, with the exception of the pair of
consonants versus prominence and that of vowels versus prominence.
The main issue of components of pronunciation which emerged from
the interviews was a necessity of the balance treatment of both segmental
and suprsegmental features in pronunciation teaching. All the teachers
agreed that segmental and suprasegmental features should be the priority in
pronunciation teaching. However, when the interviewees were asked a
further question Which segmental and suprasegmental features should be
considered more in pronunciation teaching?, all of them preferred
segmental features (vowels and consonants) as their priority because they
found that there was a significant difference between the system of English
pronunciation and that of learners’ mother tongue (the Sasak language of
Lombok Island, Indonesia). This implies that Indonesian EFL teachers are
still more concerned with the segmental features (consonants and vowels)
than with the suprasegmental ones.
This finding notably contrasts with the present trend of pronunciation
instruction for ESL/EFL learners. Numerous applied linguists (e.g. Bowen,
Madsen, & Hilferty, 1985; Florez, 1998; Wong, 1987) propose the
suprasegmental features as the priority of pronunciation instruction rather
than the segmental features. Bowen, Madsen, & Hilferty (1985) claim that
the priority order of pronunciation teaching should be fluency, stress,
rhythm and intonation, and vowels and consonants. Florez (1998) argues
that the suprasegmental features are more prominent in pronunciation
instruction. Wong (1987) also supports the idea that the most relevant
components of pronunciation which play a greater role in English
communication are rhythm and intonation. In Indonesia context, this
finding is closely related to the remarkable reasons for learners’ difficulty
in English pronunciation: (1) the absence of English sounds in learners’
native language and (2) the different distribution of the same or similar
sounds in the phonetic structure of English and that of their L1 (Moedjito,
2006). Thus, the absence of English sounds and the different distribution of
the same or similar sounds in L1 and L2 prompt Indonesian EFL teachers
to consider consonants and vowels as the priority of pronunciation
instruction in Indonesian classrooms.
However, referring to the mean scores which were all greater than the
median, the present study is consonant with some studies on the
importance of the balance of the segmental and suprasegmental features
(e.g., Jenkins, 2000; Ufomata, 1996). Jenkins (2000) proposes Lingua
Franca Core (LFC) that requires the balance between the segmental
features (consonants, consonant clusters, and vowels) and the supraseg-
mental features (particularly, nuclear stress or prominence). Moreover,
Ufomata (1996) claims that vowels and consonants are the essential
features of pronunciation along with sounds in combination, stress, and
intonation. Taking these figures into consideration, we conclude that onesian EFL teachers qualitatively have the same view of the inclusion
of both segmentals and suprasegmentals of English pronunciation although
they quantitatively have different opinion of these features.
Techniques for Teaching Pronunciation
In terms of the techniques for teaching pronunciation, the participants
rated sound discrimination as the most appropriate technique for teaching
pronunciation, followed by listen-and-repeat, tongue twister, communi-
cative practice, teacher demonstration, teacher explanation, and drama and
role play, as indicated in Table 3.
Concerning the comparison between the mean scores and the median,
the findings discovered that all the investigated techniques for teaching
pronunciation were appropriate for Indonesian EFL learners. A Friedman
test revealed that there was a significant difference in the mean ranks of the
techniques for teaching pronunciation, χ
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests disclosed that there was a significant difference
in the means of the pairs of (1) teacher explanation versus sound
discrimination and teacher explanation versus listen-and-repeat, and (2)
drama and role play versus all the investigated techniques with the
exception of teacher explanation a inappropriate nd teacher demonstration. The finding is
consonant with the proposal of utilising a variety of techniques for teaching
pronunciation proposed by some applied linguists (e.g., Celce-Murcia et
al., 1996; Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994). However, a careful analysis of
teachers’ perceptions of the investigated techniques for teaching English
pronunciation indicates that the dominant technique is sound
discrimination that typically makes use of minimal pairs.
These statistic findings are also supported by the interview partici-
pants’ comments indicating that sound discrimination should be one of the
essential techniques for teaching pronunciation (c.f. Annual Review of
English Language Education in Japan, 2006). In addition to sound
discrimination, teacher explanation in Indonesian language and teacher
demonstration might be helpful for Indonesian EFL learners. However,
these interview teachers surmised that teachers’ knowledge of pronuncia-
tion might be still a major problem. They presumed that many teachers did
not have sufficient knowledge of pronunciation. Even one teacher said that
she felt uncomfortable to teach pronunciation because of her limited
knowledge of pronunciation. These views indicate that Indonesian EFL
teachers need professional development which provides them with
knowledge of pronunciation as well as skills of how to teach pronunciation
and of how integrate pronunciation in language classrooms.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The present study investigated Indonesian teachers’ perceptions of the
priorities in the teaching of pronunciation for Indonesian EFL learners
focusing on the English varieties, the components of pronunciation, and the
appropriate techniques for teaching pronunciation. Although the study has
revealed some interesting findings, it has its limitations such as the sample
of the study. The number of the teachers who were involved in the study,
especially those who were interviewed, is relatively small. It is not possible
to ascertain how wide-spread these findings are among other teachers.
Nevertheless, considering international English is the most appropriate
variety for Indonesian learners, the study suggests that learners should be
exposed to a more balance treatment of the segmental and suprasegmental
features by using a variety of techniques. However, the fact that practically
teachers do not really know the features of English phonological and
phonetic structures determining intelligible pronunciation still becomes one
the remaining issues. Therefore, further research should be conducted to
investigate which features of English are important for Indonesian EFL
learners and which of these featuresthey should pay more attention to.
REFERENCES
Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan (ARELE). (2006).
Priorities in the teaching of pronunciation for Indonesian EFL learners.
Proceedings of the 32nd National Conference of the Japan Society of
English Language Education. Kochi: Kochi University.
Basir, N. L. (2002). Bahasa Inggris: Sulit dipelajari atau sulit diajarkan? [English: Is it difficult to learn or to teach?]. Pendidikan Network [Education Network].
Retrieved September 19, 2005, fromhttps://artikel.us/laely-basir.html
Bowen, J. D., Madsen, H., & Hilferty, A. (1985). TESOL techniques and proce-
dures. Massachusetts:NewburyHouse Publishers.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronun-
ciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages.
Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Cruttenden, A. (2001). Gimson's pronunciation of English (6th ed.). London:
Arnold Publisher.
Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994).Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Depdiknas. (2004). Kurikulum dan hasil belajar mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris
sekolah lanjutan tingkat pertama [English curriculum and achievement for
junior high school]. Jakarta:PusatKurikulumBalitbang Depdiknas RI.
Florez, M. C. (1998). Improving adult ESL learners' pronunciation skills.Digests.
Retrieved March 3, 2004, from https://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/
digests/Pronun.html
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Jenner, B.(1989). Teaching pronunciation:The common core. Speak Out!4, 2-4.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Moedjito. (2006). A study on perceptions of pronunciation among Indonesian EFL
teachers and students. Unpublished master's thesis, Naruto University of
Education, Naruto, Tokushima.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ufomata, T. (1996). Setting priorities in teaching English pronunciation in ESL
contexts. Phonetics and Linguistics. Retrieved May 2, 2004, from
https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/ shl9/ufomata/titi.htm
Walker, R. (2001). Pronunciation for international intelligibility. English Teaching
Professional, 21.Retrieved December 11, 2005, from https://www3.telus.
net/linguisticsissues/internationalintelligibility.html
Wong, R. (1987). Teaching pronunciation: Focus on English rhythm and
intonation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-HallRegents.
Consequently-следовательно
Segmental-часть,кусок
propriate-неуместный
explanation-объяснение
Significant—значительный,важный
Influenced-влияние,действие
Comfortable-удобный
Admits-допускать,принимат
Accurate-точный,правилный
Attention-внимание
Aspiration-стремление