Article Title
Teaching English Pronunciation Skills to the Asian Learner. A Cultural Complexity or Subsumed Piece of Cake?
Author
Paul Robertson
Bio Data
About the author - Paul Robertson received his Ph.D in 2002. He has lived in Korea since 1997
Introduction:
For the last two decades academics and publishers have propounded theories on pronunciation acquisition and on pronunciation training. For the greater part, they have paid lip service to the critical issue underlying both the aforementioned, namely the culture behind the target of the pronunciation theory. With a broad sweep, all L2 learners were grouped as though there were no differences that could possibly affect the learner. Politzer and McGroarty's 1985 survey, fleetingly cited by Ellis (1996:559) notes the early suggestion that cultural differences are important. Carmichael (2001) identifies the issues that immediately precede the role of pronunciation teaching, whilst Robertson (2002a, 2002b) examines the Korean learner's characteristics and the impact of Confucianism on the Korean learners learning style. Otlowski (1998) leads the future in Asian pronunciation teaching by arguing for pronunciation programs to be included in all L2 students training, and further believes there is optimism for success in the outcomes of such programs.
Yet Dash (2002) researched and analyzed the Korean classroom and found that an English Only policy was seriously flawed. Thus we have a chasm between what some believe is the academically ideal way to proceed in any pronunciation program, and those who consider clearly identifying cultural peculiarities within the target (Asian learning zone) leads to identification of alternate approaches in delivery of pronunciation programs in Asia. However, despite propounding the inclusion of pronunciation programs, (Otlowski, 1998, Kenworthy, 1996) the method of delivery is thrown into doubt by Dash's (2002) findings. This paper will submit, {i} based upon the evidence to date, that pronunciation programs in Asia must and can be delivered successfully by native speakers of English irrespective of their varying levels of educational background. This view is supported by Kenworthy (1996:69) whilst Fromkin and Rodman (1998:349) extend the category to those with near native speech. Secondly, {ii} that the mode of delivery of a pronunciation program must relate to that particular countries culture so as to complement, and not offend, cultural complexities.
For the last two decades academics and publishers have propounded theories on pronunciation acquisition and on pronunciation training. For the greater part, they have paid lip service to the critical issue underlying both the aforementioned, namely the culture behind the target of the pronunciation theory. With a broad sweep, all L2 learners were grouped as though there were no differences that could possibly affect the learner. Politzer and McGroarty's 1985 survey, fleetingly cited by Ellis (1996:559) notes the early suggestion that cultural differences are important. Carmichael (2001) identifies the issues that immediately precede the role of pronunciation teaching, whilst Robertson (2002a, 2002b) examines the Korean learner's characteristics and the impact of Confucianism on the Korean learners learning style. Otlowski (1998) leads the future in Asian pronunciation teaching by arguing for pronunciation programs to be included in all L2 students training, and further believes there is optimism for success in the outcomes of such programs.
Yet Dash (2002) researched and analyzed the Korean classroom and found that an English Only policy was seriously flawed. Thus we have a chasm between what some believe is the academically ideal way to proceed in any pronunciation program, and those who consider clearly identifying cultural peculiarities within the target (Asian learning zone) leads to identification of alternate approaches in delivery of pronunciation programs in Asia. However, despite propounding the inclusion of pronunciation programs, (Otlowski, 1998, Kenworthy, 1996) the method of delivery is thrown into doubt by Dash's (2002) findings. This paper will submit, {i} based upon the evidence to date, that pronunciation programs in Asia must and can be delivered successfully by native speakers of English irrespective of their varying levels of educational background. This view is supported by Kenworthy (1996:69) whilst Fromkin and Rodman (1998:349) extend the category to those with near native speech. Secondly, {ii} that the mode of delivery of a pronunciation program must relate to that particular countries culture so as to complement, and not offend, cultural complexities.
Otlowski (2001) notes the oft cited view that little relationship exists between teaching pronunciation in the classroom and attained proficiency in pronunciation, which was supported by research done by Suter (1976, 233) and Suter & Purcell (1980, 286). They concluded that pronunciation practice in class had little effect on the learner's pronunciation skills and moreover, 'that the attainment of accurate pronunciation in a second language is a matter substantially beyond the control of the educators,' Suter & Purcell (1980, 286). The findings were subject to the caveat (as also noted throughout literature in numerous places) that variables
Posts
