Dear participants (group 8):

Here are three points that have come up from the last
chat sessions. Two directly proposed by the groups and
one as an additional point for discussion. Please deal
with one or all the points, and you can participate as
many times as you would like to do so.

Point one:

Wong reminds us (1993:45) that the most relevant

features of pronunciationstress, rhythm, and
intonationplay a greater role in English communication
than the individual sounds themselves. Therefore,
teaching speech from the perspective of suprasegmentals
seems indispensable in a CLT setting. Learning
pronunciation should not be limited to finding primary
stress and comparing individual vowel and consonant
sounds in a given word, as has often been the case with
pronunciation learning in the past. Focusing on
individual vowel and consonant sounds is only the first
step in learning English speech, as Yule, Hoffman, and
Damico claim (1987:765).

It is now widely accepted that the ultimate goal of

language teaching is to encourage learners to acquire
communicative competence. This makes it all the more
important that pronunciation instruction should be
approached holistically, not phonetically, and that
teaching pronunciation be directed more from the
suprasegmental perspective.

Do you agree to the abovementioned? Why/why not?

Segmental or suprasegmental?
I agree with Wong. After all, a fairly-well stressed, modulated and
rhythmic utterance conveys a clearer meaning than a well-pronounced
word that does not regard the former factors. It is true, also, that
those drilling exercises that contrast minimal pairs or that focus all
attention on the treatment of a particular phoneme fail to succeed in
terms of more suprasegmental pieces when words melt into others, and
when intonation, above all, specifies the intention of the speaker.

There are two common types of mistakes caused by mispronunciation. The

first one is the phonetic type, the other is phonemic. One makes
communication difficult but achieves it, the other deludes the
listener creating confusion. With that in mind, it is obvious that
activities intended to practice suprasegmental aspects act better for
communication.

Point 2 from room 1:

Which would be the best approach for non-native English

teachers to teach pronunciation?

Above all sort of consideration teachers must be prepared to be models

added to the approach they decide to implement. I do not actually
observe a specific approach from the ones mentioned in the material
provided as being more or less successful even if they are taken by
non-native English teachers. I would choose an approach based more in
the type of learners and I would say that some really marked
differences will come out here. Some students will need to be taught
with an approach that focuses on L1 interference as they tend to have
more difficulty with some sounds of the L2, in the case of Spanish
speakers, for example, the pronunciation of words starting with the
phoneme /s/ like sport, where they will always add one syllable and
say esport. Others will deserve more attention applying the e
paradigm as they demand more exposure or exercise. By the way, not all
learners are able to get some advantage of the fact of being explained
how the different sounds are uttered as it becomes a tricky task to
grasp (They have to imagine how the tongue has to move, where it goes,
how the air flows, every single part that plays a role, and so on.)

Point 3 from room 2:

Is it best to teach phonetic symbols at an early age?

And how do we go about teaching prosodic elements such
as intonation, stress and so on? Note: Definition of
Prosodic features: Sound characteristics which effect
whole sequences of syllables. They may involve, for
instance, the relative loudness or duration of
syllables, changes in the pitch of the speakers voice
and so on.

Enjoy the debate/discussion.

Warm greetings,

Majid

I reckon phonetic symbols are to be taught once the learners are able
to mark differences between them. However, the purpose of its teaching
must go beyond the identification in production of these symbols, in
other words, they do not have to be part of the L2 assessment as
learners must copy dictations using the symbols since they do not have
to completely master them. The aim has to be for the learners to
identify sound differences in a visual way, as a reference point which
becomes absolutely useful in terms of getting the correct way.
I do not think there is an exact starting point to teach phonetic
symbols as long as they are used as a help device and not as another
load to bear while learning an L2.

About the prosodic features, I think they must be considered in a very

contrastive approach, both with the learners L1 and within the L2
itself. I find no other way, since the prosodic elements of the
language are a very characteristic and holistic part of communication.
Underhill shows in a simple example how the sentence Its eight
oclock! might have eighteen different meanings (I bet there are many
more) such as: weve overslept, youre late, weve got plenty of time,
according to the way the speaker uses his/her intonation. Therefore,
the contrast to be aware of these meanings and the different learners
intentions is the way to deal with this aspect of pronunciation.
I agree with Liliana when she says that materials should be driven by learners needs.
Jolly and Bolitho identified those needs for designing materials as the first stage and is
well grounded. Otherwise the aim would be too general and in many cases purposeless.
In terms of schools the educational standards for English set in most countries, still tend
to deviate from what the real use of the language is and propose defined syllabi that lead
the teachers to instruct on a very limited and forced contents table regardless the
students interests and backgrounds.
If we talk about language centers or schools, most of them do not offer other option than
the one chosen by them following market trends and the last method not yet proved to
be successful but advertised as being so. Here in Colombia we have those institutes as
businesses that try to either fill a classroom with a high number of students or sell a
high-price product that has more of aesthetics than of real efficiency for teaching
English.
One ideal situation to study the real needs of students and, based on them, start planning
and choosing materials would be that of the private class with small groups. Every
time I have had the chance to hold this type of class, I have done it that way and the
learning pace is surprisingly fast and effective.
What I stated above explains clearly, from my point of view, how materials should be
driven apropos of needs.