Skip to main content

How highly should we value pronunciation?


When I was reviewing the Speaking mark schemes for the new GCSE MFL exams beginning in 2018 (first teaching 2016) I picked up the fact that not all exam boards give a separate mark for pronunciation and intonation. It has led me to think again about this question: if a student can be understood without ambiguity does it matter at all whether their pronunciation is poor?

I am lucky as a language learner. I have, as they say, a "good ear" and can do accents quite easily. It is a natural ability many do not share (sorry to any readers who not believe in natural ability!). I was always impressed with students who shared this ability and you could hear it right from the start of their studies. To me it was one of the factors which identified the so-called gifted and talented linguist.

But if you can get your message across with a dodgy accent, does it actually matter? I have read that there is even some advantage to keeping some of your mother tongue accent: it reveals to the listener your geographical identity and it can sound charming, even sexy. If you have a very accurate accent it can be slightly disconcerting to the native speaker listener if they are uncertain of your roots.

On the other hand, native speakers are often impressed and surprised when they hear a British person with a near impeccable French accent. (This is, in my experience more common than the converse, probably owing to the slippery nature of English vowels compared with the phonetic simplicity of French ones.)

Logically, in language learning communication is the bottom line and grammar and pronunciation are only an issue when they hamper meaning. So maybe I'm just being a bit of an accent snob when I choose to value it myself.

What do you think?

BTW On the "sexy" thing maybe I should have tried less hard to sound French.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,
4 comments
Read more

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics
5 comments
Read more