Pronunciation in Course Books - English As A Lingua Franca Perspective

Pronunciation in course books:
English as a lingua franca

perspective
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/1/55/6126485 by Izmir Ekonomi University user on 16 March 2022

Marek Kiczkowiak 
In recent decades there has been a growing interest in the use of English as
a lingua franca (ELF), for example identifying the lingua franca core (LFC),
or pronunciation features important for intelligibility in ELF contexts. While
some analyses of course books (CBs) have shown ELF research findings are
not yet reflected in these materials, few studies have focused specifically on
pronunciation in CBs, and none from an ELF perspective. Consequently, this
study analysed to what extent pronunciation syllabi of six globally published
CBs follow the LFC, and what beliefs informed the CB authors’ choice of
pronunciation features. The results show that LFC features represent only
between 5 and 33 per cent of the pronunciation syllabi. While most authors were
aware of the LFC and eager to focus on intelligibility, they either did not think it
was important to follow the LFC or could not do so due to publisher’s demands.
Introduction In the last two decades there has been a growing research interest on the
use of English as a lingua franca (ELF). It has become clear that English is
increasingly being used by those who speak it as an additional language.
Rather than as a foreign language to communicate with its first-language
users, these language users use it to communicate among themselves
both intra- and internationally (Syrbe and Rose 2016). This raises
important questions about how English should be presented in general
English course books (CBs) and using which language models. One of
such areas is the teaching of pronunciation.
More specifically, many learners will use English to communicate in
multilingual settings where few, if any, first-language users are present,
which henceforth is referred to as an ELF context. It is thus questionable
whether standard ‘native speaker’ pronunciation should remain the main
model of pronunciation instruction.
Lingua franca Various studies have demonstrated that intelligibility in ELF contexts does
core (LFC) not seem to be related to speaking with ‘native speaker’ pronunciation
pronunciation (Deterding 2013; O’Neal 2015). These studies have identified a list
of pronunciation features which, if mispronounced, can result in
ELT Journal Volume 75/1 January 2021; doi:10.1093/elt/ccaa068 55

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication 2 February 2021
misunderstandings, frequently referred to as the LFC (Jenkins 2000;
Lewis and Deterding 2018). These are:
• Consonant sounds (excluding the interdental voiced /ð/ and voiceless
/θ/ fricatives)
• Consonant clusters
• Vowel length
• Vowel /ɜː/, especially if mispronounced as /ɑː/
• Nuclear or tonic stress.

On the other hand, many suprasegmental pronunciation features, such as
sentence stress, word stress, weak forms, elision, or assimilation, do not
seem to lead to misunderstandings when mispronounced, and thus do not
form part of the LFC.
It is worth drawing attention to two points regarding the LFC, which also
have an impact on the analysis of the data in this study. First, a distinction
was made between nuclear (or tonic) stress, which is part of the LFC,
and sentence stress, which is commonly used in CBs, but is not part of
the LFC. The former refers to the most prominent syllable in a given
utterance and ‘indicates [to the listener] the focus of the information’
(Roach 2010: 153). As Roach (ibid.) observes, while tonic stress typically
falls on the last lexical word, it might also be used by the speaker to
highlight a certain piece of information and thus fall on another word. On
the other hand, sentence stress often refers to all the stressed syllables in a
given utterance.
Secondly, it is important to note that although there are some indications
misplaced word stress might at times affect intelligibility (Lewis and
Deterding 2018), these instances of misunderstandings are very
rare. For example, out of 183 tokens where misunderstandings due
to pronunciation occurred, Deterding (2013) only identified six that
were due to misplaced word stress, and these instances also contained
mispronunciation of other LFC features. Bearing this in mind, it is argued
here that word stress plays only a minimal role and for the purposes of
this paper is still viewed as a non-LFC feature.
Finally, there is some evidence indicating that a pronunciation syllabus
based on LFC features might be more effective in improving students’
pronunciation than one based on standard British English (Rahimi
and Ruzrokh 2016). Rahimi and Ruzrokh (ibid.) randomly divided 56
Iranian high-school students into two groups, one of which was taught
pronunciation for six months using a syllabus based on LFC features only,
while the second was based on features of the standard British accent. The
results showed that the intelligibility of students taught with an LFC-based
syllabus was greater than that of the second group. While this might be
due to the lower number of features that form the LFC syllabus and thus
greater possibility for revision, it is nevertheless an important finding
further supporting basing pronunciation teaching on LFC features.
ELF and LFC in Over the years, numerous analyses of CBs have been conducted, also
ELT course books including those from an ELF perspective. For example, Si (2019) analysed
to what extent business English CBs reflected ELF research findings.
56 Marek Kiczkowiak
The author concluded that those perceived as ‘native speakers’ featured
prominently in audio recordings. Si (ibid.) also observed that there was a
lack of exposure to interactions in ELF contexts and of activities informed
by ELF research.
In the general English context, Syrbe and Rose (2016) focused on the
representation of culture, norms, and users of the English language in
CBs published in Germany. They noted a dominance of those perceived
as ‘native speakers’ even in sections of the CB that were supposed to

showcase ‘authentic’ English use. Other researchers have observed that
‘non-native speakers’ contribute far less in dialogues (Matsuda 2012) and
that ‘native speaker’ culture predominates (Rai and Deng 2016).
However, few studies have focused specifically on which pronunciation
features are taught in CBs. One notable exception is that conducted
by Levis and Sonsaat (2016), who analysed whether New Cutting Edge,
Touchstone, New Headway, and English Unlimited presented pronunciation
effectively. They showed that intonation, sentence stress, word stress,
and connected speech dominate pronunciation slots in general English
CBs. Interestingly, this was misinterpreted as proof that CBs promote
intelligibility (Levis and Sonsaat ibid.), despite the fact that all of the
above features are non-LFC. Another important shortcoming of all the
previously mentioned CB analyses is that the researchers did not interview
the authors themselves to learn more about how the syllabi had been
created.
Bearing this in mind, this study analysed the pronunciation syllabi of six
globally published CBs (Outcomes, Keynote, New English File, Cutting Edge,
Roadmap, and Language Hub) to ascertain to what extent LFC features are
present. Through a questionnaire, it also sought to investigate the reasons
that informed CB authors’ choices of pronunciation features.
Methodology Before presenting in detail the CBs analysed in this study, it is worth
Sampled CBs outlining what is meant in this paper by a CB. A ‘CB’ refers here to books
for adult general English students published globally by publishers such
as Pearson, Oxford University Press, or Macmillan. While of course not
representative of all ELT CBs around the world, they are nevertheless
important examples of how the English language and its users are
presented to learners since they are widely used by universities and private
language schools all around the world. These books are also typically
divided into different CEFR levels.
Based on the author’s own ten-year experience as an English teacher and
informal conversations with CB writers, six CBs which were thought to be
representative examples of the global CBs referred to above were selected
(see Table 1).
Interviewed While all 31 authors of the sampled CBs were contacted, only 11 (35%)
authors returned the completed questionnaire. All participants signed a consent
form informing them about the aims of the study and voluntarily agreed
to participate. All data were anonymized immediately after collection. The
participants will be referred to here as CB Writer 1–11. To further protect
Pronunciation in course books: English as a lingua franca perspective 57

their anonymity, no connection between the participants’ comments and
the CB they wrote will be made.
Procedures Content analysis of the sampled CBs was conducted. The author relied on
both electronic and physical copies of the CBs provided by the publishers,
depending on which ones were available. First, the total number of
pronunciation slots per individual CB level was counted. Afterwards, each
pronunciation slot in the syllabus was analysed individually in order to
establish whether it formed part of the LFC. CB authors were contacted

via email, when this was made available to the researcher, or through
LinkedIn, and sent a written questionnaire containing six open-ended
questions, which is available in the Appendix.
Results Table 2 shows data for the Cutting Edge series. Overall, it is striking that
Pronunciation only 5 per cent of all pronunciation features across levels were identified
features in CBs as LFC features. In fact, three levels do not contain any LFC pronunciation
practice at all. Nuclear and contrastive stress make up almost all (80 per
cent) of the LFC features in the series.
CB title Publisher Levels available

Outcomes National Geographic Learning A1, A2, B1, B1+, B2, C1
Keynote National Geographic Learning A2, A2+, B1, B2, C1, C2
Roadmap Pearson A2, A2+, B1, B1+, B2, B2+
Cutting Edge Pearson A1, A2, B1, B1+, B2, C1
ta b l e  1
New English File Oxford University Press A1, A2, A2+, B1, B1+, B2, C1
Sampled course books Language Hub Macmillan A1, A2, B1, B1+, B2, C1
Level Number of Slots with LFC Most common LFC Most common non-LFC
pronunciation features feature feature
slots
No. % Name No. % of Name No. % of
LFC non-LFC
C1 7 3 42 Nuclear 2 66 Word 2 50
stress stress
B2 14 2 14 Contrastive 2 100 Intonation 4 33
stress
B1+ 18 0 0 NA 0 0 Connected 6 33
speech
B1 25 0 0 NA 0 0 Intonation 8 32
A2 23 0 0 NA 0 0 Connected 11 48
speech
A1 23 0 0 NA 0 0 Connected 6 26
speech
All 110 5 5 Nuclear and 4 80 Connected 23 20
levels contrastive speech
stress
ta b l e  2
Pronunciation features in
the Cutting Edge series
58 Marek Kiczkowiak
A similarly narrow focus can be noticed with the non-LFC features.
For example, in Cutting Edge A2 almost half (48 per cent) of all
pronunciation slots are occupied by features of connected speech. It
is also striking that there is no practice whatsoever of consonants or
consonant clusters, despite their crucial role for intelligibility in ELF
contexts. In fact, the only consonant sounds practised across the entire
series are the interdental fricatives /ð/ and /θ/, which are non-LFC
features.

As shown in Table 3, the ratio of LFC pronunciation features is
substantially higher in the Keynote series, but remains low at 30 per
cent. Similarly to Cutting Edge, a considerable number of these LFC
pronunciation slots focus on nuclear and contrastive stress. Across all
levels, contrastive and nuclear stress occupy 25 (71 per cent) of the 35
LFC pronunciation slots. As a result, a very narrow range of features is
practised.
Unfortunately, a similar problem can be noted as far as non-LFC
features are concerned since features of connected speech and intonation
constitute the vast majority of total pronunciation slots. For example, out
of 19 total pronunciation slots in Keynote B1, connected speech is practised
eight times (61 per cent) and intonation four times (30 per cent). In fact,
across all Keynote levels, connected speech alone occupies 42 per cent of
non-LFC pronunciation slots.
As shown in Table 4, only 21 per cent of pronunciation slots in New
English File (NEF) across all levels are dedicated to LFC features.
slots
LFC non-LFC
C2 13 4 30 Nuclear/contrastive 3 75 Connected 5 55
stress speech
C1 20 8 40 Nuclear/contrastive 6 75 Intonation 5 41
stress
B2 15 5 30 Nuclear/contrastive 5 100 Connected 5 50
stress speech
B1 19 6 31 Nuclear stress 5 83 Connected 8 61
speech
A2+ 24 5 21 Nuclear/contrastive 4 80 Connected 5 26
stress speech
A2 24 8 33 Nuclear stress 2 25 Connected 8 50
speech
All levels 115 35 30 Nuclear/contrastive 25 71 Connected 34 42
stress speech
ta b l e  3
Pronunciation features in the
Keynote series

slots
LFC non-LFC
C1 19 2 10 Consonant 1 50 Connected 5 29
clusters speech
Vowel length 1 50

B2 21 2 9 Consonants 1 50 Word stress 7 36
Nuclear 1 50
stress
B1+ 24 6 25 Vowel length 3 50 Sentence stress 5 27
B1 23 5 22 Consonants 3 60 Sentence stress 5 21
A2+ 42 7 17 Consonants 4 57 Sentence stress 8 22
A2 43 10 23 Consonants 5 50 Sentence stress 11 33
A1 31 10 32 Consonants 6 60 Sentences 10 47
stress
All 203 42 21 Consonants 21 50 Sentence Stress 45 27
levels
ta b l e  4
New English File series
In comparison to Keynote and Cutting Edge, however, a greater variety of
LFC features was chosen, especially at lower levels (A1 to B1+). Nevertheless,
over three-quarters (79 per cent) of all pronunciation slots remain non-LFC.
Similarly to Keynote, a narrow range of non-LFC pronunciation features
seems to occupy a disproportionate number of slots. For example, in NEF A1
almost half (47 per cent) of these slots are dedicated to sentence stress.
Since Outcomes level A1 does not have any slots marked explicitly as
‘pronunciation’ – instead students are asked to ‘listen and repeat’ either
individual words or whole phrases – it was impossible to identify the
pronunciation focus of these activities. Consequently, this level was
excluded from the analysis. While at C1 level there is only one explicitly
marked pronunciation slot, it is very clear that the other nine slots focus
on sentence stress; and hence this level was kept in the analysis.
As listed in Table 5, only 18 per cent of all pronunciation slots in
Outcomes contain LFC features. As in other titles examined here, there
is a predominant focus on suprasegmental pronunciation features. For
example, the vast majority (80 per cent) of LFC features are either nuclear or
contrastive stress. Regarding non-LFC features, at A2 level 13 (76 per cent)
out of the 17 non-LFC pronunciation slots are dedicated to connected speech,
11 of which focus on weak forms specifically. In fact, apart from several
unfocused ‘listen and repeat the words’ exercises, there is only one non-LFC
and three LFC pronunciation slots dealing with a segmental feature.
Table 6 shows that similarly to NEF, the Roadmap series features a high
number of pronunciation slots (194). However, only 12 per cent of these
are LFC features. As in other series analysed here, the majority (62 per
cent) of these are either nuclear or contrastive stress. In addition, there are
problems with how some of the LFC features are presented. For example,
60 Marek Kiczkowiak
pronunciaton features feature feature
slots
No. Name Name No. % of Name No. % of
LFC non-LFC
C1 10 0 0 NA 0 0 Sentence 9 90
stress

speech
Intonation 6 31
B1+ 21 4 20 Nuclear/ 4 100 Connected 11 65
contrastive speech
stress
speech
A2 18 1 5 Consonants 1 100 Connected 13 76
speech
All levels 83 15 18 Nuclear/ con- 12 80 Connected 38 56
trastive stress speech
ta b l e  5
Outcomes series
Level Number of Slots with Most common LFC Most common non-LFC
pronunciation LFC features feature feature
slots
LFC non-LFC
B2+ 35 8 23 Nuclear/ 8 100 Connected 15 55
contrastive speech
stress
B2 35 4 11 Nuclear/ 3 75 Connected 15 48
contrastive speech
stress
B1 + 29 2 7 Nuclear/ 2 100 Connected 13 48
contrastive speech
stress
B1 32 2 6 Consonants 2 100 Connected 21 70
speech
A2+ 30 2 7 Consonant 2 100 Connected 15 53
clusters speech
A2 33 6 18 Consonant 2 33 Connected 13 48
clusters speech
Nuclear 2 33
stress
All 194 24 12 Nuclear/ 15 62 Connected 92 54
levels contrastive speech
stress
ta b l e  6
Roadmap series

when the superlative -est or past tense -ed endings are practised, students
are given no guidance as to the importance of the consonant cluster for
intelligibility.
As the other CBs presented here, Roadmap also seems to have a very
narrow focus with regards to the non-LFC features. For example, out of
the total of 170 non-LFC pronunciation slots, over half (54%) focus on
connected speech. This is striking, bearing in mind that connected speech
might actually be unhelpful to intelligibility in international contexts.

Finally, as can be seen in Table 7, the Language Hub series features a
similarly low percentage (21 per cent) of LFC features to the other CBs
discussed here.
While some levels (A1, A2, and B1), contain a good variety of LFC features,
others (B1+, B2, and C1) feature almost exclusively contrastive and nuclear
stress. This variety is much less visible in non-LFC features. In fact,
intonation and connected speech occupy over half (56 per cent) of the
entire pronunciation syllabus. This is especially problematic at A1, where
50 per cent of the non-LFC slots focus on connected speech, and at C1,
where 62 per cent deal with intonation.
It should also be noted that there are times when LFC features are
presented in these CBs, this is not done adequately. For example, all
the analysed titles include work on past simple -ed endings and on
third-person or plural -s ending. However, there is no mention of the
importance of the consonant cluster for intelligibility. Instead, the focus is
on voicing or adding an extra syllable when appropriate.
All in all, there seem to be two main problems with the choice of
pronunciation features. First, there is little work on LFC features, despite
their clear importance for intelligibility. Second, there is a very narrow
range of pronunciation features in the analysed CB syllabi, with intonation
and connected speech dominating. Consequently, it is important now
to learn more about authors’ reasons for designing such pronunciation
syllabi.
Authors’ reasons First, only three of the surveyed authors were not familiar with the
for the choice of LFC at all. Several authors remarked that they did attempt to focus on
pronunciation intelligibility and include LFC features. For example, one author observed
features that intelligibility was the main driving focus [CB Writer 2]. Nevertheless,
it is interesting that even the writers who reported familiarity with the
LFC, thought that non-LFC features were important for intelligibility.
For example, CB Writer 1 mentioned sentence stress, CB Writer 2
suprasegmental features, CB Writers 3 and 7 word stress, and CB Writer
10 vowel quality as important for intelligibility. This might suggest that
there is still some lack of understanding of the LFC among the surveyed
CB writers.
There might also be other reasons why the surveyed authors did not
include a sufficient number of LFC features, despite their knowledge of it.
For example, some expressed reservations about the usefulness of the LFC
to describe models and input [CB Writer 5 and 6]. One author also referred
62 Marek Kiczkowiak
pronunciation features feature features
slots
LFC non-LFC
C1 20 4 20 Nuclear/ 4 100 Intonation 10 62
contrastive
stress

B2 20 2 10 Nuclear/ 2 100 Connected 6 33
contrastive speech
stress Intonation 6 33
B1+ 30 4 13 Nuclear/ 3 75 Intonation 8 30
contrastive
stress
B1 48 14 29 Consonants 8 57 Connected 10 29
speech
A2 48 9 19 Consonants 3 33 Connected 14 37
Consonant 3 33 speech
clusters
Vowel 3 33
length
A1 25 9 36 Consonant 5 55 Connected 8 50
clusters speech
All 191 42 22 Consonants 16 38 Connected 45 30
levels speech
ta b l e  7
Pronunciation features
in the Language Hub
series
to strident and unbalanced views [CB Writer 10] of some ELF researchers,

which may not have encouraged them to use LFC findings in their CB.
It is also important to highlight that CB authors are often restricted in their
choices by the publisher and editors. For example, some writers observed
that certain non-LFC features (e.g. intonation and sentence stress) had to be
included more for marketing than for pedagogy [CB Writer 7], while others were
also restricted in terms of accents [to] mostly young educated southern UK types
[CB Writer 5 and 6]. The response of some editors to attempts to include LFC
features was described as tepid [CB Writer 7]. These restrictions placed on
authors by editors and publishers were summarized well by CB Writer 10:
[The editors] told me what they wanted. I gave some input back. They
either chose to listen or not. Then once the lessons were written, they
were 100% the gatekeeper. They decided what stayed and what didn’t.
The last reason which might have led to such a limited range of
pronunciation features being covered is that the pronunciation features
really came from the language [CB Writer 1] and always practised language
covered in the same spread [CB Writer 2]. Moreover, in comparison to
grammar and lexis syllabus, pronunciation was fairly far down on the
pecking order [CB Writer 4]. As a result, pronunciation becomes an ‘after-
thought’, decided upon after the grammar and lexis syllabus have been

planned and defined. This might explain why pronunciation features
such as word stress, connected speech, or intonation constitute such a
substantial part of the syllabus, since these features can be easily fitted
with practically any language point on the page. However, it is suggested
here that planning the pronunciation syllabus in advance, similarly to how
the grammar syllabus might be planned, can result in a more balanced
representation of pronunciation features.
This study aimed to analyse to what extent pronunciation features

Discussion and
conclusion presented in six global ELT CBs reflect the LFC. It confirms the
observations of other authors (Syrbe and Rose 2016; Si 2019) that ELF
research findings have so far had little impact on how English is presented
in CBs. Specifically, it is clear that LFC features constitute only a small
proportion of the analysed pronunciation syllabi. Overall, the ratio of
LFC features ranges from as low as 5 per cent in the Cutting Edge series,
to 33 per cent in Keynote. In addition to this very limited focus on LFC
features, nuclear and contrastive stress occupy the vast majority of LFC
pronunciation slots. This is despite the fact that most CB writers declared
familiarity with LFC and highlighted intelligible pronunciation as their
main reason for choosing the pronunciation features to focus on.
It should be noted here that focusing on non-LFC features per se does not have
to constitute a problem. However, if so much focus in a syllabus is devoted
to them that LFC features become infrequent (as is indeed the case in the
analysed CBs), it does become problematic. While it is true that the LFC was
not intended as a pronunciation model, its features can nevertheless be used
to inform the choice of and priority given to different pronunciation features
in a syllabus. It is argued here that it is reasonable to devote considerably
more attention than is currently done to LFC features as they are those which
have an impact on intelligibility in international contexts.
It is also worth observing that at times the presentation of LFC features
could have been better. For example, when the pronunciation of third-person
-s or -ed endings is practised, the importance of consonant clusters for
intelligibility is overlooked, and the focus is on voicing the consonant or on
adding an extra syllable, even though researchers emphasize the importance
of clusters for intelligibility (O’Neal 2015). All this could be seen as surprising
bearing in mind it has been over a decade since Walker’s (2010) excellent
practical account of how to implement an LFC-based syllabus.
Moreover, a rather narrow range of non-LFC features also seems to
dominate in the analysed CBs. As noted in previous studies (Derwing,
Diepenbroek, and Foote 2012; Levis and Sonsaat op.cit.), suprasegmentals
such as intonation, connected speech, and sentence stress predominate.
In some series (Roadmap, Outcomes, Keynote), approximately half of the
non-LFC slots are devoted to connected speech. This is questionable as
connected speech might actually hinder rather than aid intelligibility in
international contexts (Walker 2010). Bearing these problems in mind and
the fact that an LFC-based pronunciation syllabus can be more effective
(Rahimi and Ruzrokh 2016), it is unclear whether the pronunciation
syllabi in the CBs analysed here can adequately help students be more
intelligible in international contexts.
64 Marek Kiczkowiak
There are two likely reasons for these shortcomings. First, the
pronunciation syllabus seems to be somewhat of an afterthought, or what
Levis and Sonsaat (op.cit.: 114) referred to as ‘garnish’. In other words, it
occupies little space and is added once the vocabulary and grammar have
been decided on. However, this can lead to an unbalanced syllabus where
some features are given substantial prominence, while others are almost
never practised. Secondly, many of the surveyed CB writers noted that
they were often limited as to what could be included in the syllabus by the
publisher and the editor.

It is hence suggested that the pronunciation syllabus is planned in
advance, taking into account LFC features. These can then be matched
to the language that is being practised in a given unit or lesson.
Such planning might lead to a more balanced syllabus that promotes
intelligibility in international contexts. There are already detailed practical
suggestions which CB writers and editors could follow in terms of
implementing an LFC pronunciation syllabus (Walker 2010) and creating
ELF-oriented materials (Kiczkowiak and Lowe 2019; Kiczkowiak 2020).
While the LFC does not explicitly address level progression, it is possible
to establish a logical progression of difficulty. For example, individual
consonant sounds could be dealt with first, before attention is given to
consonant clusters. Likewise, two-letter clusters could be addressed before
three-letter ones.
This study is limited insofar as it sampled only six globally published
CBs. Future studies could examine the issue in locally available materials.
Furthermore, it was beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the audio
recordings from the CBs. It would be interesting to investigate, for
example, which accents are used to model pronunciation to see whether
Si’s (op.cit.) recent results, which showed that the recordings of those
perceived as ‘native speakers’ predominate in business English CBs,
could be confirmed in general English CBs. All in all, however, this
study is the first to show to what extent LFC pronunciation features are
included in CBs, providing practical suggestions for CB writers as to how
CB pronunciation syllabi could be redesigned in light of ELF research
findings on intelligibility in international contexts.
Final version received October 2020
References Kiczkowiak, M. 2020. ‘Seven principles for writing

Derwing, T. M., L. G. Diepenbroek, and J. A. Foote. 2012. materials for English as a lingua franca’. ELT Journal
‘How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address 74/1: 1–9.
pronunciation?’. TESL Canada Journal 30/1, 22–44. Kiczkowiak, M. and R. J. Lowe. 2019. Teaching English
Deterding, D. 2013. Misunderstandings in English as as a Lingua Franca: The Journey from EFL to ELF.
a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing.
South-East Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lewis, C. and D. Deterding. 2018. ‘Word Stress
Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an and Pronunciation Teaching in English as a
International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Lingua Franca Contexts.’ CATESOL Journal 30/1:
Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 161–76.

Levis, J. and S. Sonsaat. 2016. ‘Pronunciation Si, J. 2019. ‘An analysis of business English
materials’ in M. Azarnoosh, M. Zeraatpishe, coursebooks from an ELF perspective’. ELT Journal,
A. Faravani, and H. R. Kargozari (eds.). Issues in Advance online publication.
Materials Development. Rotterdam: SensePublishers Syrbe, M. and H. Rose. 2016. ‘An evaluation of the
Matsuda, A. 2012. ‘Teaching materials in EIL’ in global orientation of English textbooks in Germany’.
L. Alsagoff, W. A. Renandya, S. L. Mckay, and G. Hu Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 12/2:
(eds.). Principles and Practices for Teaching English as 152–63.
an International Language. New York: Routledge. Walker, R. 2010. Teaching the Pronunciation of English
O’Neal, G. 2015. ‘Consonant clusters and as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

intelligibility in English as a lingua franca in Japan:
phonological modifications to restore intelligibility in
ELF’. Pragmatics and Society 6/4: 615–36. The author
Rahimi, M. and S. Ruzrokh. 2016. ‘The impact of Marek Kiczkowiak has been in ELT since 2007 and
teaching lingua franca core on English as a foreign currently works a course book writer for National
language learners’ intelligibility and attitudes Geographic Learning. He holds a BA degree in English
towards English pronunciation’. Asian Englishes 18/2: philology from the University of Poznań, CELTA,
141–56. DELTA, and a PhD in TESOL from the University of
Rai, L. and C. Deng. 2016. ‘Glocalisation and English York. His main areas of interest are native speakerism
language education in Chinese context’. Globalisation, and teaching English as a lingua franca. He is the
Societies and Education, 14/1: 127–44. founder of TEFL Equity Advocates & Academy, where
Roach, P. 2010. English Phonetics and Phonology: he helps English teachers tackle native speakerism and
A Practical Course (Fourth edition). Cambridge: Klett teach English for global communication.
Sprachen. E-mail: marek_kiczkowiak@hotmail.com
66 Marek Kiczkowiak

Pronunciation in Course Books - English As A Lingua Franca Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pronunciation in Course Books - English As A Lingua Franca Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pronunciation in course books:

English as a lingua franca

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/1/55/6126485 by Izmir Ekonomi University user on 16 March 2022

ELT Journal Volume 75/1 January 2021; doi:10.1093/elt/ccaa068 55

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/1/55/6126485 by Izmir Ekonomi University user on 16 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/1/55/6126485 by Izmir Ekonomi University user on 16 March 2022