1

This has been adapted from the text of a lecture I gave as part of a series on the history of EFL
teaching. It is written to be spoken so the references are not all academically formatted and
there may be one or two points which dont make sense because of the context.
Jennifer Jenkins and Adrian Underhill were co-lecturers on the day and both are referred to.

The Recent History of Pronunciation Teaching in

ELT
Steve Hirschhorn
steveh@teaching-training.com

Contents
The Recent History of Pronunciation Teaching in ELT...............................................................................1
Introduction to Past Pronunciation Teaching...........................................................................................2
The Native Speaker Model......................................................................................................................3
The Reform Movement............................................................................................................................3
A New Age Dawns...................................................................................................................................4
Ear Training.............................................................................................................................................5
Intuitive vs Analytical...............................................................................................................................6
Enter: Technology....................................................................................................................................7
Listening First?........................................................................................................................................9
Pronunciation Advice from the 1970s......................................................................................................9
Redundancy in Language......................................................................................................................11
Pronunciation Teaching in the 80s........................................................................................................12
Material and Pronunciation Teaching....................................................................................................12
Current Practice.....................................................................................................................................14

Jan 24th 2004

Historical depth related to current questions is usually unavailable in the literature. One would like to
know why our field is not more conscious of where its history fits into current work. (Selinker, 1992)

Introduction to Past Pronunciation Teaching

J.R. Firth the first Chair of Linguistics in a British University, writing in 1937 (The Tongues of Men) says
this:
Sounds come in and similar sounds go out. We can ourselves cause similar sounds to
those we hear and also hear what we cause. The roundabout is complete on the air,
and for that reason we can run in on one anothers roundabouts and share common
experience.(21)

3
This seems to me to be a useful starting point in terms of context, since I am asking a number of
questions about how we and our language students have related to each others roundabouts and how
as fairground managers, we have dealt with the problems of helping people onto our moving carousel.
In Europe, pronunciation teaching prior to the late 19 th c relied largely on imitation along with
approximations derived from spelling and so, unsurprisingly, little was written about pronunciation
teaching and learning in comparison with the teaching of structure or meaning.
This scarcity of recorded information may result from a lack of technical understanding which is quite
likely, but perhaps also because classical language study (the main area of scrutiny in the literature)
never really required learners to engage in communicative interaction.
Firth(177) makes the point nicely:
the more you talk like a book, the less your pronunciation matters!
It may also be as J.C.Catford laments as late as 1959 (in Teaching English as a Foreign Language)
the student is still left to pick up some features of English without the aid of
specific instruction and drill. (149)
In other words, the acquisition of pronunciation, accurate or not, was considered a matter for the learner
to deal with not the teacher. Perhaps with what we know now about the acquisition of pronunciation, this
is at least half right.

The Native Speaker Model

Despite the paucity of pre 20th c information on how to deal with pronunciation, importance was
nevertheless attached to having access to a good model where good meant: native speaker.
Perhaps it was thought that a native speaker model was enough and that exposure alone would result
in native-like performance or perhaps nothing was thought about it at all.
It is self evident that pronunciation only achieves a central position in language teaching if language is
seen at least in part as a system of oral communication.
If, as in the case of for example Grammar Translation, language is seen as a theoretical study or a
means to enable further study of, for example literature, then pronunciation plays an awkward and
tuneless second fiddle to the great instruments of structure, syntax and vocabulary.

The Reform Movement

The Reform Movement of the late 19th c changed all that, and in fact the face of language teaching for
ever. As A.P.R. Howatt reports:

4
The [Reform] movement was a remarkable display of international and
interdisciplinary co-operation in which the specialist phoneticians took as much
interest in the classroom as the teachers did in the new science of phonetics.
The intellectual leader of the group, Henry Sweet might in a sense be seen as the father of
pronunciation teaching since it is primarily his work in the last third of the 19 th and beginning of the 20th c
which brought phonetics into the practical arena of language teaching and spelling reform for the first
time. (Sampson, G.)

Sweet began the analysis of the relationship between sound production and vocal organs which we now
take for granted and this work was of course later developed extensively by Daniel Jones and later still
(1962), by his student, A.C.Gimson in An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English.
So it could be argued that Sweet set a precedent, he opened up a field of interest at the right time and
perhaps in the right place since English language teaching as a young profession was ready to talk!

A New Age Dawns

Harold Palmer, writing in 1921 (The Principles of Language Study) records the dawn of an age in a
number of respects.
Discussing the state of Language Teaching, Palmer describes a situation in which branches of research
are beginning to co-operate. He cites pronunciation work especially:
For years past phoneticians have been busily engaged with research work.. a
universal terminology is coming into existence.. a universal phonetic alphabet is
well on its way.. the principles of phonetics and phonetic transcription are
developing rapidly.. (77)
He notes that similar co-operation and advances are not being undertaken in grammar and semantics
but is nonetheless optimistic for the future.
These comments offer us a glimpse of the birth of our own recent history and subsequent growth and
development but they are also interesting in terms of their predictive content. Palmer hoped that aligned
fields of science would work together to examine some burning questions, in that sense, to some
degree, he was right.

He also seemed convinced that science would be able to arrive at solutions to the big questions of
language teaching and learning. Ill leave you to decide whether he was right to be optimistic!

5
Palmer states quite categorically that language learning is a process of habit formation. He says:
if we do not secure habits of accurate observation, reproduction and imitation
during the first stage, it is doubtful whether we shall ever secure them
subsequently.
Included here is a clear reference to the teaching and learning of pronunciation but just in case the
reader misses it:
if ear training is neglected during the elementary stage he [that is the learner] will
replace foreign sounds by native ones and insert intrusive sounds into the words of
the language he is learning.
Language learning, says Palmer, is an art not a science and as such requires one of two methods to
acquire proficiency in it: learning by theory or learning by imitation.
This is moving in the direction of Krashens learning/acquisition debate of 50 years later and also
predicts to some degree the declarative/procedural knowledge types posited by Faerch & Kasper, 1983.
Palmer believes that adults in whom the capacity to learn is now dormant, must have that facility
reawakened by a series of exercises.
This is refreshingly pre Lenneberg (1967) (or Penfield and Roberts, 1959 to be precise) when we were
told it is very unlikely that our adult learners will ever be any good, especially in pronunciation because
theyve lost cerebral plasticity. The Critical Period Hypothesis.
Amongst Palmers initial preparation strategies are:

ear training exercises

articulation exercises and

mimicry of a native speaker model.

This list informs us of the importance Palmer attached to pronunciation training and as a consequence
we are able to discern that language was being treated at least to some degree, as a system of
meanings, the 2 surely go hand in hand.

Ear Training
Again, I would like to spend a moment or two examining the type of exercises which Palmer proposed.
We need to see what he meant by, for example: ear-training exercises.
1. teacher articulates single or multiple sounds and the student attempts unconscious efforts at
reproduction. Palmer says this is the most natural form of ear training since we did it for L1 years
ago.

2. teacher writes phonetic symbols on the board, assigning each a number. Teacher articulates a
sound and asks sts to say which number it is.

3. teacher gives phonetic dictation so sts write down using phonetic symbols.
This last, says Palmer can later be extended to the dictation of syllables or words though he stresses
that nonsense syllables and words will be more useful to the st who will then not be tempted to rely on
known spellings.
For articulation Palmer recommends a course of mouth-gymnastics suggesting that practice to develop
the muscles must be undertaken to achieve the required results.
Being suggested here is a combination of instruction and mimicry with the instructor showing, explaining
and modelling.

Intuitive vs Analytical
Historically the practice of pronunciation teaching falls into two main categories or theories:
intuitive and analytical.
These are almost self-explanatory, the first, intuitive, relying on imitation, I say viszontltasra and you
repeat!
And the second, analytical, being reinforced by explanations of articulatory processes.
Palmers mouth gymnastics was a combination of both processes.
The intuitive methodology was generally more accessible to the teacher (who may or may not have
received some training) and probably to students too and so, the analytical procedures never really
gained a firm foothold until the early 20 th c.
This change in interest or focus was of course due largely to the contribution made by the Reform
Movement. Prior to this time detailed and accurate information concerning the articulation and
production of speech sounds didnt really exist. So the Reform Movement offered language teachers a
description which they could use in pronunciation training.
J.C.Catford again (1959) notes that this contributed to a general feeling of what he calls scientific
optimism.
In the hundred years between around 1850 and 1950, there had been a sense that language was
ultimately not describable and the Reform Movement was instrumental in dispelling that sense.

7
It is probably no coincidence that the hope that we were going to be able to describe sound production
(which is arguably a source of essential information for the teacher of pronunciation) coincides with
technological advances allowing us to record and replay the human voice with ever increasing
accuracy.

Enter: Technology
Edison created the first sound recorder in 1877, the gramophone followed in 1882, and magnetic
recording was invented in 1898 even if the tape version didnt arrive until 1928.. now of course we use
all manner of digital technology and can even examine the results visually on a home computer!
In large part however, the credit for such a change of attitude and understanding must go to members of
the Reform Movement, linguistic scholars such as Henry Sweet, Wilhelm Vietor and Paul Passy who did
much to move the area of phonetic study into the realm of language teaching and learning.
This is no mean feat if we consider that in some academic circles, even today, the view that actually
teaching a language is low down on the horizon of academic credibility. Does that ring bells?!
Helpful and accurate descriptions of pronunciation processes became available to teacher and student
alike.
Charles Fries in Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language, 1945 which advocates the oral
approach, says:
in learning a foreign language, the chief problem is not learning the vocabulary items
but the mastery of the sound system.
Fries goes further to suggest that:
a person has learned a foreign language when he has first, within a limited
vocabulary, mastered the sound system, that is, when he can understand a stream of
speech and achieve an understandable production of it.
The second criterion Fries cites is automatisation of structural devices. This second concerns us less
today.
Interestingly, Fries goes on to advocate:
an accuracy based upon a realistic description of the actual language as used by
native speakers in carrying on their affairs.
I am sure that today we could all raise objections to several aspects of that statement - and some I
expect we will hear later - but it is easy to criticise in retrospect from a different contextual standpoint.
Perhaps in 50 years time some of the things we advocate or take as obvious will be laughable but for
the moment they serve us..

8
Fries again, touches on an area with which we are all familiar - that of sounding like and perhaps feeling
like a child as we struggle to get our vocal apparatus around new and unfamiliar sounds. Fries certainly
cant be accused of sentimentality noting that a learner has a simple choice to make:
..if he achieves an accurate reproduction, he will sound peculiar to himself; if he
fails to achieve accurate reproduction and does not sound peculiar to himself he
will sound very peculiar to the native speakers of the language he is trying to learn
(p5)
The point Fries is making is that students must:
throw off all restraint and self consciousness as far as the making of strange
sounds is concerned. (p5)
Very easy to say but Im learning Hungarian at the moment! There is a suggestion in the later literature
that the strength of ones ego has a role to play in the ease with which one can do what Fries
recommends. This is Guioras (1972) ego permeability hypothesis. Guiora sees language not only as a
communicative system but also as a means of self-representation.
And
pronunciation is the most important contribution of language ego to selfrepresentation
So were talking about the extent to which an individual can be flexible in moving in and out of systems
of self-representation. How much one needs to hold on to ones projected self-image.
Fries however, is clear (as most of his contemporaries are) that language learning is a matter of good
habit formation, at least, for Fries, in the initial stages of learning. The Oral Approach places
pronunciation teaching or training centrally as Fries says:
The speech is the language.(1945: 6)
Initial pronunciation training takes the form of mimicry and discriminatory drills leading eventually to:
understand and produce the stream of speech (20)
Its worth mentioning that the name: Oral Approach was, Fries tells us, to do with the objective, an oral
competency, rather than a description of the methodology used to achieve that end.
The Oral Approach drills did not exist in isolation however, in fact a systematic Contrastive Analysis was
also important to Fries and he suggests that exacting preparations be undertaken prior to a language
course which include the:
scientific description of the language [L2] and a parallel description of the
language of the learner.

9
Indeed the English Language Institute where Fries worked prepared separate sets of instructional
materials designed specifically for students of different L1 backgrounds. The teacher too needed to
have a descriptive knowledge (at least) of the learners L1.
Fries work also emphasised the importance of prosodic features the stress, rhythm and intonation of
spoken language; Fries calls these covering patterns.
He has a system of relative tones, numbered 1-4 which at first sight is quite daunting and must have
been more so for the learner, possibly unused to linguistic analysis of any formal sort. Also rather odd in
my view is Fries recommendation designed to assist low level learners comprehension; he advocates
not a slowing down as such but:
giving more weight to those syllables which are normally reduced.
What this seems to mean in practice is that we lose the weak forms, the bits of English which form the
fundament of English stress-timing. He is suggesting that English then sounds more like a syllabletimed language to the beginners ear.
I am sure many of us would like to take issue with that as a useful principle but dont shoot the
messenger!

Listening First?
Fries emphasised the need to develop a discriminatory listening skill before attempting to pronounce.
Minimal pairs featured largely and students were required to recognise the difference between read /
rid, raid/red and so on.
The emphasis here was on the English sound system and Fries writes that little attention was paid
initially to
phonetic differences that can be grasped as one phoneme
So for example the Spanish t was left alone since it does not interfere with English meaning.
Going back for a moment to our 2 theories of pronunciation teaching: intuitive and analytical, Fries
makes use of both, perhaps for the first recorded time.
His 3rd step indeed uses a description by the instructor of how sounds are articulated for which:
the student must a have preliminary, elementary knowledge of the physiology of
the human vocal apparatus
followed by an L1/L2 comparison. Exaggerated imitation was also employed by Fries as was the
technique of reading an L1 text using English sounds and pitch to encourage sts to compare the sound
systems.
The use of an analytical approach is one of the features which distinguishes the Oral Approach from the
Direct Methodists of the early 20th c. They held no truck with analytical processes, this seems clear if

10
one considers that the Direct Method in its strictest form allowed for no translation and little if any
explanation holding as it did to many of the traditions of the natural methods.
The central tenet of the natural methods is that we can/should/do acquire L2 in a way which is as close
to L1 as possible. Therefore, imitation was the norm since it was assumed (remember we are pre
Chomsky) that L1 was learned by imitation.

Pronunciation Advice from the 1970s

In 1971 Nilsen and Nilsen produced Pronunciation Contrasts in English which told instructors that their
students
areas of difficulty are predictable because they result from native language
interference in which the deeply established first language habits of the student
tend to predominate until the new English speech patterns have been firmly
mastered.
As a disinterested observation, it seems that we are still in agreement with Fries 1945 contrastive
preparation and had yet to arrive at a broader understanding of interlanguage phonology.
We are though now combining intuitive and analytical theories since Nilsen and Nilsen present drills for
the student, example sentences which purport to provide contextual clues and also explanations of
articulation in the form of diagrams and technical descriptions, (p5 on ohp?) intended I think, for the
instructor. And also lists of languages whose speakers, it is predicted, will encounter difficulties with
each of the minimal pair items presented.
Peter MacCarthy in his 1978 publication: The Teaching of Pronunciation offers a number of reasons for
good pronunciation, amongst them:
hesitation, slowness and mispronunciation can cause irritation [to the listener], a
lack of sympathy or just the vague feeling that the speaker could have taken more
trouble to pronounce ones language well
He goes on:
the favourable effect of a good pronunciation can include absence of distraction..
the agreeable feeling that after all, not so much divides people of differing
linguistics backgrounds..
and so on.
Exercises which MacCarthy suggests for such things as auditory training bear a striking resemblance to
ideas put forward by Fries 30 years before. As such, discrimination exercises, comparison exercises
and technical description by students and teacher are all here. However MacCarthy breaks new ground
in other ways; he promotes for example the idea of conscious make-believe, students pretend to be

11
English, adopting what they have observed to be English mannerisms and accent. They can do this in
L1 or L2.
This idea of course is taken to its natural limit in Lozanovs Suggestopedia. Here students are given or
choose a new L2 identity in order to reduce self-consciousness when functioning in the new language.
We can recall Fries comment regarding that sensitive area which was basically shut up and get on with
it.. or perhaps Im being unfair.
In the early 70s then we still believe that L1 interference (or transfer) is the main cause of learner error
despite F.G. Frenchs 1949 observation that different L1 speakers were making the same errors and
that there may be more to it than simple transfer! He was pretty much ignored.
L1 transfer then is seen as the prime suspect in pronunciation error and it is not until later, 1978 to be
precise, that Elaine Tarone suggests that other factors may have a greater influence on learner
pronunciation difficulties.
Tarone posited that L1 influence on pronunciation may simply be more noticeable to the casual
observer than L1 influence on other aspects of production.
In other words, mispronunciation is more in yer face than errors of syntax or grammar.
David Wilkins (1972 p60) in his general investigation of Linguistics in Language Teaching asks if
pronunciation accuracy is even necessary for a language learner. He gives short shrift to the old myth
which arises from studies of minimal phonological pairs: if a learner can only master one of a pair, the
other being rendered identically, the message will not be understood.
He notes (in no uncertain terms) that context will usually assist the speakers whose pronunciation would
otherwise not meet L1 standards of comprehension. Viewers of Allo Allo will recall the famous
mispronunciations of the *policemoan, that phonological joke wouldnt have worked had viewers not
understood the message. Wilkins does however argue for accurate pronunciation and for the teaching
of it but his argument centres around redundancy.

Redundancy in Language
Gimson (1962: 4) says this:
An utterance will provide a large complex of cues for the listener to interpret, but
a great deal of this information will be unnecessary, or redundant, as far as the
listeners needs are concerned.
Redundancy then, relates to the amount of unused information carried in a message. In other words
information which we can live without since meaning is conveyed in such a broad variety of linguistic
and para-linguistic ways. Redundancy also includes the notion of repetition. In other words it is rare that
we pass a message once and once only.

12
Human languages allow for the fact that speakers and listeners work in the real world with external
disturbances which can delete or obscure part of a message.
Redundancy frees us to attend to the message whole rather than analyse its parts as it is being
delivered. This means that what is left, ie the essential information, needs to be efficiently received.
If a learners pronunciation is faulty (Wilkins word, not mine) the quantity of phonological redundancy
has been decreased and so creates difficulties for the listener.
To understand this better if we had a language which contained 4 phonemes (unlikely, I know but bear
with me), we would need to pay very great attention to the features of those phonemes since every
detail would have to contain more or less vital information for the comprehension of the message. There
would be no room for redundancy rather like computer languages in which 1 apparently tiny error
results in 100% misunderstanding.
All human languages have redundancies and Wilkins point is that we need to develop the skills and
abilities of our learners so that their L2 is fully redundant.
Only then, he argues, can they efficiently communicate in a normal environment with background noise,
disturbances and all the other interference which we know to exist outside the doctors waiting room.
The point resurfaces in 1986 with Gerry Abbot in ELTJ offering a variety of transcribed examples in
which a lack of redundancy would be likely to result in a miscommunication.
So there is a cogent argument in favour of pronunciation training of some sort we are not left to rely
on the flabby
how else are they going to learn approach.

Pronunciation Teaching in the 80s

And yet, during the 80s with the spread of Communicative Language Teaching, pronunciation was left
rather on the sideboard by many materials writers; strange if we consider that up to then there had been
a direct relationship between the way language was seen and how pronunciation was dealt with. Youll
remember: the more language is seen as a theoretical study, the less pronunciation is central.
Youd expect then that CLT would have put pronunciation teaching on the front burner. What little there
was tended to be segmental.

Material and Pronunciation Teaching

Perhaps we can briefly overview some of the material from the 2 nd half of the 20th century:
Streamline English, 1978, offers drills in a variety of formats and little more than listen and repeat.
Almost no rationale is offered to the teacher and by the way, the student is still referred to as he!
Harmers influential The Practice of English Language Teaching, 1983, does not even contain a content
heading dealing with pronunciation; bearing in mind that this book was basic reading for all new EL

13
teachers. Instead, if we look up pronunciation in the index we can access a comment here and there
such as the 200 words discussion (p25) on why we dont really need to worry about it!
To be fair to Jeremy, the revised edition published in 2001 has a complete chapter on pronunciation
including a little theory and some copies of pronunciation activities.
Of course the first publication of Jeremys book was only a year after Krashen had told us that there
was actually no point in teaching pronunciation since it is an acquired skill, not something we can
learn.
Even the ground-breaking Cobuild published in 1988 offered scant assistance to teacher or learner
regarding pronunciation. Boxes marked: English Sounds, contain mini activities to focus students on
particular pronunciation areas but its all a bit by the way.
Prospects published in 1988 doesnt mention pronunciation at all.. anywhere. Ive only checked the
Advanced book its true so perhaps they thought at that level.. hey..
1990s
Nexus Teachers Book 1990 has one comment on pronunciation, its so short that I can reproduce it
here:
play model utterances from the dialogue for stress marking and repetition by your
students.
Cambridge English for Schools teachers book 1996 has some information on how to approach
pronunciation teaching but were talking about 200 words in the appendix.

Jane Revells 1990 Connect Ts book approaches pron but discretely, dealing perhaps with 2 or 3
phonemes in one unit and linking words together in another followed by weak forms and then stress
and rhythm in another unit.
The minimal notes in Headway Pre Int. Teachers book 1991 on pronunciation reads like an ad for sts to
buy the book and tape and do no more than suggest that pron materials will provide balance and
variety in your timetable. Sounds like a diet.
In 1992 Scott Thornbury expressed concern over this apparent lack of interest in pronunciation matters
in an ELTJ article. In it he suggested a focus on voice setting.

14
That is how we hold our mouths, lips, tongue to produce the sounds of different languages. Scotts
definition is:
the description of those features of accent that result from the characteristic
disposition and use of the articulator-y organs by speakers of a particular
language, and which affects the production of all the individual sounds common to
that language.
There are some 20 practical suggestions in that ELTJ article on how one might go about using the
principles of voice setting well worth a look: ELTJ 47/2 93.
Here then we find not just an important observation but also a clue that the climate was right for change.
What I mean is that he wouldnt have written this paper if materials writers were still ignoring
pronunciation clearly they were doing something, but that something needed review.
But in 1995 Jones and Evans, also in ELTJ, have this to say:
most materials still have a long way to go in presenting pronunciation in a truly
communicative and holistic manner ELTJ 49/3
And then of course also in 1995 Adrian published Sound Foundations. Im not going to extol its virtues
here but I will suggest that this multi facetted work inspired (and inspires) many practising EL teachers
to get into more creative ways of handling pronunciation training.

Current Practice
As recently as 2002, Rodney Jones (in Methodology in Language Teaching 2002, 176) notes that most
current techniques and task types designed for the teaching of pronunciation
continue to be based on behaviourist notions of second language learning, largely
relying on imitation and discrimination drills, reading aloud and contrastive analysis of
L1 and L2 sound systems.
In other words it would appear that little has really changed since the good old days of audiolingualism
where students were expected to repeat bits of language without context.
I dont want to paint too bleak a picture, Celce-Murcia, Brinton and Goodwin, in Teaching Pronunciation
1996 offer us a vision into the future with a variety of well documented activities and ideas for the

15
teacher to try. But of course the impetus and motivation to examine these must come from the
classroom.
I am sure that later today we are going to be inspired to re-evaluate whatever it is we are currently doing
with pronunciation in the classroom.
And Jennifer notes in her 2000 publication that there are elements of pronunciation that cannot be
learned in the classroom. She also reminds us that motivation may well be a key. That which students
find relevant and are therefore motivated to grasp, and that which is teachable (ie learnable) are
closely correlated.
This is The Phonology of EIL (OUP 2000) a copy of which is available for browsing..!
So how far have we come? Im not sure, but if as Rod Ellis suggested in 93, the teachers direct
influence on learning in the classroom is minimal, perhaps we should be optimising every moment.
I realise that there are many areas which I have not touched on this morning.. Chomsky; Krashen has
only had a quick mention, Gattegnos important work with pronunciation training, Speech
Accommodation Theory, Phonological avoidance; all these and much more could be discussed and all
have a bearing on our topic today. In offering an historical overview, I have had to make choices, I hope
they were the right ones.

16
References:
A.P.R.Howatt
Abbot, G
Catford, J.C. (in Quirck,

A History of English Language Teaching

A New Look at Phonological Redundancy
The Teaching of English as a Foreign

R & Smith, A.H. eds)

Language (in The Teaching of English)
Celec-Murcia,M., Brinton,
Teaching Pronunciation
D. & Goodwin, J.
Firth, J.R.
Tongues of Men
Firth, J.R.
Speech
Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign
Fries, C.C.
Language
An introduction to the Pronunciation of
Gimson, A.C.
English (3rd ed)
Jenkins, J
The Phonology of EIL
Teaching Pronunciation through Voice
Jones, R & Evans, S
Quality
Jones, R (in Richards, J
Methodology in Language Teaching
& Renadya,W eds)
MacCarthy, P.
The Teaching of Pronunciation
Nilsen& Nilsen
Pronunciation Contrasts in English
Charles Carpenter Fries: His Oral Approach
Norris,W. & Strain,J.
for Teaching and Learning Foreign
(eds)
Languages
Palmer, H.E.
The Principles of Language Study
Sampson, G
Schools of Linguistics
Having a Good Jaw: Voice Setting
Thornbury, S.
Phonology
Teaching Foreign Languages An Historical
Titone, R
Sketch
Wilkins, D
Linguistics in Language Teaching

1984
1986

OUP
ELTJ 40/4

1959

OUP

1996

CUP

1937
1930

Watts & co
Ernest Benn
Ann Arbor: Uni. of

1945

Michigan Press

1980

Edward Arnold

2000

OUP

1995

ELTJ 49/3

2002

CUP

1978
1971

CUP
?

1989

Georgetown
University Press

1921
1980

Harrap & co
Hutchinson

1993

ELTJ 47/2

1968
1972

Georgetown Uni.
Press
Arnold

If youd like to comment on this article or have questions regarding it, please drop me a line
stevehteachingtraining@gmail.com
or leave a comment on the ouebalogue at www.teaching-training.com