References

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