Written Assignment 2 Nyr Indictor, 8 Oct 2017

Choose a general ELT/ESL coursebook (i.e. a book for learners, not for teachers, and NOT one that is specifically focused on pronunciation teaching) and evaluate its treatment of pronunciation.

Textbook evaluated: Cunningham, Sarah, and Moor, Peter (2005), New Cutting Edge Intermediate, with mini-dictionary. Students’ Book. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

What model (e.g. RP, GA, ELF) of pronunciation is promoted?Although not specifically indicated to the student, RP is promoted. Figure 1 shows an example exercise that is meant to help Ss distinguish /ɒ/, /ɔ:/ and /əʊ/, the notation and phonemic analysis implicitly suggesting RP.

Fig. 1. Cunningham and Moor (2005), Module 5, Pronunciation Spot, p. 59.

This exercise would be a challenge for me to teach as it stands: while I do distinguish between the three sets of words, mostly as /a/, /ɔr/ and /oʊ/, my pronunciation of /ɒ/-words varies:

me RPwant /wʌnt/1 /wɒnt/box /baks/ /bɒks/dog /dɔg/ /dɒg/

If I were teaching this exercise, I would play the recording for the Ss and be very clear that my own pronunciation was different. I would prefer to create an analogous exercise for /a/, /ɔr/ and /oʊ/ and be the model for the Ss.

1 The normal correspondences for /ɒ/ are /a/ and /ɔ/ in my dialect. “Want” is something of an anomaly, I believe, because it is moving towards quasi-modal status, which may account for the tendency for “want to” to become /wʌnə/ in many (but not all) environments. When using this word as a noun (as in, e.g. “to suffer from want”), I alternate freely between /wʌnt/ and /want/.

Is the pronunciation syllabus integrated (e.g. into skills work) or segregated?It is integrated into skills and/or systems work. Each module is divided into sections, such as “Language Focus” [usually grammar], “Vocabulary,” “Reading,” “Listening,” “Speaking,” “Task,” “Further Skills” [“Writing” and “Real Life,” the latter meaning functional language], and “Study Practise Remember”). Every module also has two different pronunciation exercises, entitled “Pronunciation” and “Pronunciation spot.” The former is incorporated into different sections in different modules, while the latter is generally included in the “Study Practise Remember” section. An example of how pronunciation is integrated into systems work is seen in Fig. 2, in which the pronunciations of “-ed” are reviewed in conjunction with a Language Focus section that introduces past simple and continuous (the full page can be seen in Fig. 7):

Fig. 2: Cunningham and Moor (2005), Module 2, p. 17, detail. These exercises appear in conjunction with grammar exercises relating to the past. The whole page is shown in Fig 7, below.

The exercises are helpful in getting students to notice that in some cases “-ed” is syllabic and in some cases it isn’t. Curiously, the pronunciation of syllabic “-ed,” /ɪd/, is indicated, while the two non-syllabic pronunciations, /d/ and /t/, are not. It is left up to the teacher to decide how much to explain about how “-ed” is pronounced. Since the pronunciation of “-ed” is quite regular and easy to describe (devoicing after unvoiced consonants, separate syllable after /t/ and /d/), I would generally give students a list of the sounds that trigger the pronunciations /ɪd/ and /t/. The lack of a productive exercise here is also disappointing; however, the teacher may easily modify freer practice at the bottom of the page to help the students focus on pronunciation as they are talking about past events.

An example of pronunciation being integrated into skills work is seen in Fig. 3, where intonation is taught in conjunction with a “Real Life” section in which the function being taught is “showing interest.”

Fig. 3. Cunningham and Moor (2005), Module 2, Pronunciation, p. 24, detail, showing suprasegmental practice in the context of a “Real Life” [i.e. functional language] lesson.

This section has both listening and speaking components; one might say that the listening subskill being taught is “detecting interest” and the speaking subskill is

“showing interest”. Exercise 3 could reinforce the pronunciation exercise, if the instructions asked the Ss to incorporate the intonation pattern into their responses.

Is the pronunciation focus primarily segmental, or suprasegmental, or both?There is an even mix of segmental and suprasegmental focus. Suprasegmental focus includes sentence intonation (see Fig. 3, above), as well as word stress and word phrase stress. Syllabification and juncture issues are mentioned; these may be said to have both segmental and suprasegmental aspects.

Is there a balance between receptive and productive pronunciation activities?There is always a receptive activity; this is usually followed by a productive one (see Figs. 1 and 3), but not always (see Fig. 2). There is always a productive activity after the pronunciation practice, but it is not always clearly linked to it.

Are the pronunciation activities mechanical or communicative?Activities are largely mechanical, rather than communicative, with virtually no freer practice. It would be easy to add a communicative component to each of the pronunciation sections, for example:

Fig. 2:Ex. 4. With a partner, write a dialogue between two people using six of the -ed words in exercise 3. Practice the dialogue. [Teacher circulates, correcting grammatical errors, monitoring Ss pronunciation.]

Fig. 3:Ex. 3. In pairs, take turns telling your partner about something surprising that you have experienced. Show your interest in what your partner has told you by using rising intonation (You did? ⤴ It was? ⤴ Really? ⤴ Uh-huh.⤴)

Does the treatment of pronunciation seem systematic?Not exactly. A total of 14 phonemes are practiced (5 consonants, 1 semi-vowel, 7 monophthong vowels and 1 dipthong; or about a third of the entire RP repertoire), and some important suprasegmental features are focused on. It seems as though Cunningham and Moor have chosen phonemic distinctions and suprasegmental features that they feel are important and/or appropriate for the intermediate student.

I do not particularly agree with some of the choices of phonemic distinction the authors have elected to focus on. For example, there is a Pronunciation spot for /θ/ and /ð/ (see Fig. 4), which is not a terribly important distinction; the fact that the same digraph <th> represents both sounds is evidence that the distinction has a low functional load.2 Although /θ/ and /ð/ are rare in other languages, and therefore worth teaching, the important distinctions are:

/θ, ð/ vs. /f, v/ [e.g. for Russian learners]/θ, ð/ vs. /s, z/ [e.g. for German and French learners]

2 The only minimal pairs I can think of are thou /ðaʊ/ (2nd p. pronoun) and thou /θaʊ/ (short for thousand), and thy /ðaɪ/ and thigh /θaɪ/. Each of these pairs features an obsolete pronoun.

/θ, ð/ vs. /t, d/ [e.g. for Turkish learners]

The Pronunciation spot for /b/ and /v/ (see Fig. 5), while useful for Spanish and Japanese speakers, might not be as critical as one that distinguishes /l/ and /r/, which is not included in this text. Also not in evidence anywhere, and certainly more important than the /θ, ð/ distinction, are exercises for consonant clusters.

Fig. 4. Cunningham and Moor (2005), Pronunciation Fig. 5. Cunningham and Moor (2005), Pronunciationspot, Module 7, p. 79, detail spot, Module 9, p. 101, detail

Another way in which treatment is less systematic than one might wish for is seen in the Pronunciation spot for /i:/ and /ɪ/ (see Fig. 6, following page), an unarguably important distinction for intermediate students to master. But while the initial exercise gives three minimal pairs (it/eat, fit/feet, sit/seat), the example words in the second exercise do not form minimal pairs (with the regrettable exception of beach). It is not as important that the student master the vowel of big and tea, since there are no /bi:g/ and /tɪ/ to confuse these words with. In other words, the example words are not well-chosen. Students will be more motivated if there is a real danger of confusion; and there are dozens of level-appropriate minimal pairs to choose from.

Fig. 6. Cunningham and Moor (2005), Pronunciation spot, Module 3, p. 35, detail

Are the pronunciation activities likely to be motivating?I find the activities less than exciting. They are nearly all mechanical, and the productive exercises are vaguely worded (“practice saying the phrases”) and lack a way for the Ss to gauge whether they are producing the words correctly and appropriately (e.g. “Practice saying the phrases in pairs. Can your partner tell whether you are saying /b/ or /v/?”). They require the teacher to direct the Ss and monitor their output, or to modify the task to give it a clear objective. Intermediate students are more than ready for more challenging and creative exercises of the type my colleagues proposed in the minimal pairs discussion (e.g., distinguishing minimal pairs in the context of complete sentences, drawing a picture of the sentence your partner has uttered, playing a “telephone” type game, etc.).

On the basis of the above, would you recommend this text?I cannot give a strong recommendation for this text solely on the basis of the pronunciation exercises; these are a bit boring, and mechanical. The choice of material covered is also less than ideal (see discussion of /θ/ and /ð/, above). On the positive side, the extensive treatment of suprasegmentals is refreshing and should help make learners more aware of suprasegmental issues, which many textbooks overlook. This coursebook is definitely not something I would want to recommend to an inexperienced teacher, especially one that is not able to extend the exercises beyond what is written, or who has not given much thought to suprasegmentals; however, in the hands of an experienced teacher the pronunciation materials can be used in interesting ways, by connecting them more with the other components of the book, or by linking them more directly to the freer practice exercises that are found throughout the book.

Fig. 7: Cunningham and Moor (2005), Module 2, p. 17, showing how the pronunciation exercises are incorporated into the grammar practice.