Pronunciation Learning Strategies and

Language Anxiety In Search of an

Interplay 1st Edition Magdalena
Szyszka (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/pronunciation-learning-strategies-and-language-anxie
ty-in-search-of-an-interplay-1st-edition-magdalena-szyszka-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Assessment in Second Language Pronunciation 1st Edition

Okim Kang

https://textbookfull.com/product/assessment-in-second-language-
pronunciation-1st-edition-okim-kang/

Learning American Sign Language in High School

Motivation Strategies and Achievement 1st Edition
Russell S. Rosen

https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-american-sign-language-
in-high-school-motivation-strategies-and-achievement-1st-edition-
russell-s-rosen/

Pronunciation Instruction in English for Academic

Purposes: An Investigation of Attitudes, Beliefs and
Practices 1st Edition John Hodgetts

https://textbookfull.com/product/pronunciation-instruction-in-
english-for-academic-purposes-an-investigation-of-attitudes-
beliefs-and-practices-1st-edition-john-hodgetts/

Evolution of Artificial Neural Development: In search

of learning genes 1st Edition Gul Muhammad Khan

https://textbookfull.com/product/evolution-of-artificial-neural-
development-in-search-of-learning-genes-1st-edition-gul-muhammad-
khan/
Dental Fear and Anxiety in Pediatric Patients Practical
Strategies to Help Children Cope 1st Edition Caroline
Campbell (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/dental-fear-and-anxiety-in-
pediatric-patients-practical-strategies-to-help-children-
cope-1st-edition-caroline-campbell-eds/

Internationalizing Teaching, Localizing Learning: An

Examination of English Language Teaching Reforms and
English Use in China 1st Edition Paul Mcpherron (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/internationalizing-teaching-
localizing-learning-an-examination-of-english-language-teaching-
reforms-and-english-use-in-china-1st-edition-paul-mcpherron-auth/

Diplomatic Strategies of Nations in the Global South:

The Search for Leadership 1st Edition Jacqueline
Braveboy-Wagner (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/diplomatic-strategies-of-
nations-in-the-global-south-the-search-for-leadership-1st-
edition-jacqueline-braveboy-wagner-eds/

Comprehension Strategies in the Acquiring of a Second

Language Harris Winitz

https://textbookfull.com/product/comprehension-strategies-in-the-
acquiring-of-a-second-language-harris-winitz/

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching: The Case

of China 1st Edition Hayo Reinders

https://textbookfull.com/product/innovation-in-language-learning-
and-teaching-the-case-of-china-1st-edition-hayo-reinders/
Second Language Learning and Teaching

Magdalena Szyszka

Pronunciation
Learning
Strategies and
Language Anxiety
In Search of an Interplay
Second Language Learning and Teaching

Series editor
Mirosław Pawlak, Kalisz, Poland
About the Series

The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and
teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs
and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes
underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language
learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching
process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and
evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas,
they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research
paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic
and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists,
curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate
students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt
and taught.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129

Magdalena Szyszka

Pronunciation Learning
Strategies and Language
Anxiety
In Search of an Interplay

123
Magdalena Szyszka
Opole University
Opole
Poland

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic)

Second Language Learning and Teaching
ISBN 978-3-319-50641-8 ISBN 978-3-319-50642-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50642-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016959398

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Ewa and Piotr
Preface

The book focuses on two constructs located in the domain of individual learner
differences (ID): pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) and language anxiety
(LA). The growing interest in both cognitive and affective language learner pro-
cesses that determine the pace and ultimate attainment of second or foreign (L2)
language acquisition brought about the development of research exploring ID
relationships. The latest findings in the field of research on the interplay of various
IDs, however, rarely offer their contributions regarding the role that L2 learner
internal affective factors play in pronunciation learning processes. The main aim of
this volume is, therefore, to shed more light on the interplay between two IDs
affecting L2 pronunciation acquisition: PLS and LA. This account presents the
relevant theoretical claims, the most recent research findings and the results of the
empirical research on PLS deployed by the EFL trainee teachers experiencing
different levels of LA.
Apart from the Introduction, the book consists of five chapters, offering both
theoretical clarifications and empirical findings. More precisely, the focus of
attention in Chap. 2 is on the psychological and pedagogical perspectives of English
pronunciation learning. It provides the theoretical explanations and rationale for the
research on the interplay between PLS and LA. Working definitions for the key
terms (pronunciation, language learning strategies and pronunciation learning
strategies) are selected from an array of definitions provided by a number of
researchers. As pronunciation learning processes are largely affected by didactics, a
diachronic overview of pedagogical approaches to pronunciation teaching is offered
in order to locate pronunciation learning strategies within the framework of pro-
nunciation teaching. Subsequently, several factors affecting pronunciation acqui-
sition are presented and discussed before the emphasis is shifted to different
typologies of language and pronunciation learning strategies.
Chapter 3 is intended to overview the key issues related to the constructs of
general anxiety and language learning anxiety. First, anxiety is viewed from a
psychological perspective. The concept and its types are defined with reference to
stable characteristics (trait anxiety) and transience in specific situations
(situation-specific anxiety). Next, some selected theoretical models explicating the

vii
viii Preface

complexity of general anxiety are presented before the construct of language

anxiety is introduced and analysed from the perspective of an L2 pronunciation
learner. Finally, potential sources of language anxiety are discussed, and plausible
links between language anxiety, oral performance and pronunciation, as well as
language learning strategies are outlined.
An overview of the most influential and recent empirical research on language
anxiety, relating to pronunciation, language and pronunciation learning strategies,
forms the core of Chap. 4. Some attention is given to the research methods applied
in recent investigations into language and pronunciation learning strategies. In
addition, this chapter provides further rationale for the need to bridge the gap
between the existent studies and the one presented later in this volume.
Chapter 5 provides methodological details and the results of the empirical study
investigating the interplay between PLS and LA. Here, the statement of purpose
includes three research questions and a number of more calibrated hypotheses. The
participants, instruments and procedure are described before a thorough analysis
of the quantitative and qualitative data. Subsequently, the study findings are dis-
cussed and interpreted with the support of the theoretical models of anxiety
explicated earlier in Chap. 3.
The book finishes with general conclusions stemming from the discussion. The
author provides a description of two tentative profiles of L2 pronunciation learners
who exhibit high and low language anxiety levels. Finally, she explores the study
limitations, offers future research directions, and suggests several pedagogical
applications inspired by the results of the study.

Opole, Poland Magdalena Szyszka

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation
Learning and Language Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Different Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching—A
Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 Goals in Current EFL Pronunciation Teaching . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.3 Foreign Language Pronunciation and Cognitive
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.4 Selected Factors Affecting Pronunciation Attainment . . . . . 17
2.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Defining Language Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2 Selected Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies . . . . 31
2.2.3 Factors Affecting the Choice of Language Learning
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3.1 The Typology of Pronunciation Learning Strategies . . . . . . 38
2.3.2 The Role of Pronunciation Learning Strategies
in Pronunciation Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3 Foreign Language Anxiety in the Context of Foreign Language
Oral Performance, Language and Pronunciation Learning
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1 The Concept of Anxiety as a Psychological Construct . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1.1 Anxiety Types: Trait, State, Situation-Specific
and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.1.2 Selected Theories and Models of Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2 Foreign Language Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.1 Constituents of Language Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

ix
x Contents

3.3 Causes of Language Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3.1 Internally Grounded Causes of Language Anxiety . . . . . . . 70
3.3.2 Externally Grounded Causes of Language Anxiety . . . . . . . 74
3.4 The Impact of Language Anxiety on L2 Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.4.1 Language Anxiety at Input, Processing, Output Stages
and Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.4.2 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.4.3 Language Anxiety, Language Learning and
Pronunciation Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4 A Review of Selected Empirical Research on Pronunciation
Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 87
4.1 Research Methods in Language Anxiety and Pronunciation
Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.2 Research on Pronunciation Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.3 Language Anxiety and Oral Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.4 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.5 Language Anxiety and Language Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . 114
5 Research on the Interplay Between Language Anxiety and
Pronunciation Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.1 Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.2.2 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.2.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.2.4 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.3.1 Language Anxiety Levels of EFL Trainee Teachers . . . . . . 147
5.3.2 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics of EFL
Trainee Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.3.3 The Relationship Between Language Anxiety Levels
and the Deployment of Pronunciation Learning Strategies
and Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5.4.1 Language Anxiety Levels of EFL Trainee Teachers . . . . . . 174
5.4.2 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics of EFL
Trainee Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.4.3 The Interplay Between Language Anxiety and
Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics . . . . . . . . . . 180
5.4.4 Deployment of Pronunciation Learning Strategies
and Tactics Amongst Groups of Trainee Teachers
Displaying Both High and Low Levels of Language
Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Contents xi

6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Abbreviations

EFL English as a foreign language

EIL English as an international language
ELF English as a lingua franca
ELLSI The English language learning strategy inventory
FL Foreign language
FLCAS The foreign language classroom anxiety scale
GA General American
HLA High language anxiety level
ILD Individual learner difference
IPA International phonetic alphabet
LA Language anxiety
LFC Lingua franca core
LLA Low language anxiety level
LLS Language learning strategies
L1 Mother tongue or the first language
L2 Second or foreign language
MALQ The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire
PA Performance anxiety
PhLAS The phonetic language anxiety scale
PLA Phonetic learning anxiety
PLS Pronunciation learning strategies
PLSI The pronunciation learning strategy inventory
PTS Pronunciation teaching strategies
RP Received Pronunciation
SILL The strategy inventory for language learning
SILP The strategy inventory for learning pronunciation
SLA Second language acquisition
SORS Survey of reading strategies
SPLS Strategic pronunciation learning scale
TL Target language

xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction

Second or foreign language (L2) learning or acquisition1 is a daunting process for

most learners. Even if the external conditions are comparable, there are consider-
able differences in levels of achievement among language learners. One of the
reasons for such a discrepancy is attributed to individual learner differences (ILD),
which could either inhibit or accelerate learning. An instance of the limiting factor
of an L2 learner’s potential is a high level of language anxiety (LA) experienced
while learning a target language. However, there are many ILD that stimulate an L2
learning process, for example effective use of language learning strategies (LLS).
Therefore, the extent to which a learner succeeds in L2 learning depends, among
others, on the level of LA he or she experiences in the classroom and the language
learning strategies he or she deploys while studying an L2. The investigation of the
interaction between language anxiety levels and the deployment of strategies may
shed more light on understanding the complex processes of L2 acquisition. Both of
these variables affect the way language—so also its components, such as reading,
writing, speaking, listening skills, as well as grammar, vocabulary and pronunci-
ation—are acquired.
This book focuses upon pronunciation learning strategies deployed by L2
learners who exhibit various levels of language anxiety while acquiring L2 phonetic
features. There are many reasons why this topic has been chosen. Pronunciation
usually plays a marginal role in L2 teaching and is frequently neglected in an L2
classroom, which has been confirmed not only by researchers in Poland (e.g.,
Pawlak, 2003; Szpyra-Kozłowska, Frankiewicz, & Gonet, 2002; Wrembel, 2002)
but also on a global level (e.g., Cheng, 1998; Lin, Fan, & Chen, 1995).
Pronunciation has even been referred to as the ‘Cinderella’ of foreign language
teaching by many scholars (e.g., Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goddwin, & Gringer,
2010; Kenworthy, 1987). Teachers frequently complain about the range of external
factors which prevent them from paying sufficient attention to pronunciation
teaching: for instance, the lack of teaching materials and time available in the

1
Although the author is aware of Krashen’s (1981) and Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) theoretical
distinction between the terms ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ used in SLA resources, in this book these
terms are used interchangeably.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

M. Szyszka, Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety,
Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50642-5_1
2 1 Introduction

classroom, where the teacher concentrates on teaching examination skills that stem
from the curriculum requirements. The researcher’s experience in teaching pho-
netics to learners who have graduated from secondary schools in Poland confirms
this unfortunate educational reality.
On the other hand, pronunciation is important in the process of L2 acquisition
because it facilitates intelligibility, communication and fluency amongst the target
language users. The correct articulation of L2 sounds and utterances may be crucial
for mutual understanding between interlocutors with different L1 backgrounds. If
L2 pronunciation practice is neglected, L1 articulatory features may obscure the
intelligibility of the intended message. In foreign language learning, where learners
sharing the same L1 have limited contact with L2, pronunciation instruction is
particularly important. In the foreign language classroom L2 pronunciation is
affected by the same L1 pronunciation features. This fact may mean that while
learners’ L2 speech is intelligible within their L1 group, it may not necessarily be
understood in the international communication. Therefore, an EFL teacher should
pay particular attention to pronunciation practice, by instructing and guiding
learners in how to deploy pronunciation learning strategies which are indispensable
for self-directed L2 pronunciation learning. Moreover, the speech of an L2 learner
who is aware of pronunciation phenomena taking place in a foreign language may
become more fluent. For instance, being familiarised with the aspects of connected
speech and the role of a schwa sound in English, an EFL student may practise and
apply this knowledge in his or her speech, making it more intelligible.
While proper L2 pronunciation may make a learner more confident, less perfect
articulation may lead to a lack of confidence and fear of negative evaluation linked
to anxiety, and may influence the attitude of a learner towards pronunciation
learning. This connection is clearly expressed by one of the respondents of
Vitanova and Miller’s (2002) study:
I think by improving my pronunciation I will be more willing to open up and speak in my
(…) classes. Sometimes for fear of people not understanding or misunderstanding you, you
prefer to keep quiet (p. 4).

This debilitating fear may reflect high levels of language anxiety experienced in
an L2 learning context affecting a speaker’s intelligibility, without which com-
munication is not effective. Thus, high levels of language anxiety may interplay
with pronunciation and the way L2 learners approach pronunciation learning.
Not only is a high level of pronunciation intelligibility necessary for language
learners, but it is also indispensable for non-native English teachers because this
group should provide a high-standard model for their learners. Thus, their roles as
teachers place greater demands on their pronunciation acquisition, which may also
elevate their levels of language anxiety.
Teachers should be aware of the fact that without intelligible speech commu-
nication is not possible. Therefore, it is essential to search for the tools that make
pronunciation teaching and learning more effective and attractive both for teachers
and learners. Pawlak (2006) and Wrembel (2002) advise teachers to incorporate
pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) in pronunciation teaching and to encourage
1 Introduction 3

learners to deploy them for the purpose of accelerating pronunciation acquisition. In

order to put this practice into action, there is first a need to make trainee teachers
conscious of an array of PLS which they may deploy in their pronunciation
learning. These strategies may then be taught to other EFL learners. It is believed
that “learners with strategic knowledge of language learning, compared with those
without, become more efficient, resourceful, and flexible, thus acquiring a language
more easily” (Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006, p. 78). Therefore, future EFL
teachers equipped with an array of pronunciation learning strategies may become
more efficient in their L2 pronunciation acquisition and later in pronunciation
teaching.
Ellis (1994) asserts that the choice and use of LLS depends on both individual
learner differences (ILD) and situational/social factors. The set of ILD comprises a
range of factors, which include, among others, learners’ beliefs and affective states,
one of which is language anxiety defined as a negative feeling connected with
emotional reaction observed in the context of foreign language learning (MacIntyre,
1999). Following the above premise, it may be justifiable to assume that the choice
and use of PLS is dependent on one of the ILD—language anxiety. The concept of
PLS and their relationship with language anxiety are central to this volume, the goal
of which is to research the links between PLS and levels of language anxiety. In
other words, the aim is to investigate whether an EFL trainee teacher—who is also an
advanced L2 learner, experiencing a high level of language anxiety—chooses and
uses a different repertoire of PLS while learning English pronunciation in compar-
ison with a learner experiencing low levels of language anxiety. However, it may
also be the case that the choice and use of PLS influence the level of language
anxiety. Hence the working hypothesis is non-directional, suggesting that there is a
relationship between the levels of language anxiety experienced among EFL trainee
teachers and their conscious choice and use of PLS.
The group of trainee teachers selected for research presented in this book has
been chosen for many reasons. First of all, Celce-Murcia et al. (1996, 2010)
underline the importance of thorough pronunciation training to specific groups of
English language learners. These include, among others, non-native teachers of
English as a foreign language,2 whose L2 pronunciation serves as a model for their
students, and non-native-English speakers working in those branches of industry
that require international contacts with English speaking visitors or partners. The
participants of this research, students of an English language teacher training col-
lege, belonged to both groups. It is of vital importance to explain that although
teacher training colleges in Poland have been closed, there is a continual need to
train groups of students who choose as a profession EFL teaching. Therefore, the
outcomes of this investigation are applicable to trainee teachers who in the future
aim to become qualified teachers of English. Their pronunciation will be perceived

2
In this volume a foreign language (FL) is understood as one learnt mainly in the classrooms of a
country where it is not an official language; whereas a second language (SL) is viewed as one
acquired in an environment where this language plays an important administrative, cultural and
social role (cf. Ellis, 2008, p. 6).
4 1 Introduction

as a model for a younger generation of EFL learners. Bearing that responsibility in

mind, the importance of pronunciation teaching at the tertiary level of education
should be unquestionable. Moreover, pronunciation does matter because of its
potential influence on international communication and the ultimate success of
international contacts. Therefore, the results of the study indicating the relationship
between levels of language anxiety and the application of pronunciation learning
strategies may provide a useful insight into the pedagogy of pronunciation.
Secondly, the target group of advanced adult language learners is usually provided
with more focused training at pronunciation courses. As a result of training in
pronunciation, their phonological meta competence increases and they are better
able to identify the strategies they employ while learning pronunciation in com-
parison with other learners whose English pronunciation learning is frequently a
marginal aspect of their general language learning courses. Thus, EFL students of a
teacher training college can consciously discuss their approaches to pronunciation
learning and specify a range of pronunciation learning strategies they devise.
The aim of the book is to present the theoretical claims and the results of the
empirical research on pronunciation learning strategies deployed by the pre-service
EFL trainee teachers, who experienced different levels of language anxiety. It
contains the theoretical chapters focusing on the concepts of pronunciation
learning/acquisition, pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety. The
volume also encompasses an overview of recent empirical research on several
aspects related to L2 pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety. The
theoretical clarifications offer a convincing rationale for the investigation into the
interplay between PLS and LA, the details of which are presented in the consec-
utive chapter. In the concluding part the author aims, among others, to delineate two
tentative profiles of anxious and non-anxious EFL trainee teachers who support
their pronunciation learning with an array of pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics.
Chapter 2
Pedagogical and Psychological
Background of Pronunciation Learning
and Language Learning Strategies

The aim of this chapter is to provide the theoretical background for the concept of
pronunciation, its pedagogical aspects, and selected factors affecting its acquisition.
In the following section an array of definitions of pronunciation will be presented in
order to provide a broad perspective. This will be followed by a diachronic over-
view of approaches to pronunciation teaching and learning, in order to present the
pedagogical background. Subsequently, the chapter will address current issues
linked to aspects of pronunciation and factors affecting pronunciation acquisition.
Language learning strategies are now considered influential in the area of foreign
language acquisition. However, these were much neglected prior to the onset of the
twenty-first century, and have only recently begun to play a prominent role in this
field. Therefore, the second aim of this chapter is to discuss language learning
strategies and pronunciation learning strategies as factors facilitating the process of
L2 learning. For this purpose, problems concerning the definition of language
learning strategies are examined, and later exemplified through various classifica-
tions of language learning strategies. The final part of this chapter focuses on
pronunciation learning strategies, their definitions and taxonomies.

2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning

Communication between two speakers can easily be inhibited unless both inter-
locutors pronounce the language of communication clearly (Kelly, 2000).
A violation of any of the aspects of pronunciation, for example an incorrect pro-
duction of a sound or a word stress, may lead to misunderstandings and confusion.
Students often consider pronunciation important because of their need for intelli-
gible communication (Waniek-Klimczak, 1997), although “pronunciation is treated
as a low priority area of study” (Hewings, 2004, p. 11). When discussing pro-
nunciation learning, it is essential to clarify the concept of pronunciation. Therefore,

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 5

M. Szyszka, Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety,
Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50642-5_2
6 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

an overview of definitions will contribute to a broader understanding of one of the

key concepts in this volume.
Pronunciation is frequently viewed as a part of a wider notion referring to the
sounds of a language—phonetics. These two terms cannot be used interchangeably
(Sobkowiak, 1996, p. 13) although there is a strong interrelation between them. To
understand what pronunciation is, it is necessary to start with a definition of pho-
netics, which is a broader concept. The following section of this chapter offers a
number of definitions of phonetics which, together with phonology, refer to lan-
guage sounds.
Phonetics deals with the description of the physical aspects of sounds, i.e., their
articulation or pronunciation, and this branch of phonetics is called articulatory
phonetics (Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2002, p. 19). In this definition, pronunciation refers
to the articulatory aspects of sounds. Moreover, phonetics, or a branch of it called
acoustic phonetics, analyses the qualities of sound waves and describes how these
waves are perceived by a listener (auditive phonetics).
Jassem (1987) defines phonetics as the study and science of speech sounds, and
enumerates four different aspects of this discipline: physiological—taking not only
the articulation of sounds into account but also “the processing of the speech signal
in the organs of hearing” (p. 51), acoustic—studying the transmission of speech
waves from the speaker to the receiver, neurological—describing signal transmis-
sions in the different parts of the speech centres, and psychological—analysing
“mental processes involved in the production and perception of speech” (p. 51).
The branch of phonetics which focuses on pronunciation, i.e., the production and
perception of speech sounds, is reflected in the first aspect mentioned above.
The aspect of phonetics related to pronunciation is defined as “the knowledge
and use of” (Sobkowiak, 1996, p. 14) speech sounds. In other words, pronunciation
is equivalent to the ‘know-how’ in phonetics that a learner needs to acquire/learn in
order to speak well. Roach (2009) views pronunciation in a similar way stating that
“pronunciation is the act of producing the sounds of a language” (p. 64). He makes
the distinction between pronunciation and phonetics and phonology when
explaining the title of his book English Phonetics and Phonology (Roach, 2000).
He would have chosen a different title, i.e., English Pronunciation, if the book
focused only on the practical aspects of “how English is pronounced” (p. 1). By
adding the theoretical context to the book, i.e., the theory of speech sounds and how
they are used, Roach opts for ‘phonetics and phonology’ in the title, indicating at
the same time the distinction between pronunciation as carrying a practical appli-
cation and phonetics and phonology as being theoretical aspects of how speech
sounds are used in the language.
Burgess and Spencer (2000) understand pronunciation in the process of language
learning as linked to two skills: speaking and listening. The former is used for
practising “and meaningful use of TL phonological features” (p. 191), whereas the
latter is connected with the interpretation of the phonological features of the target
language (TL) which are represented by both segmentals, such as phonemes, i.e.,
sound differences distinguishing words (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996,
p. 37), and suprasegmentals, e.g., stress, rhythm and intonation.
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 7

Spencer (1996) perceives phonetics as the study of the physical aspects of

speech linked directly both to speech production and speech perception, which are
understood by Dalton and Seildhofer (1994) as pronunciation. This is in line with
Nowacka (2011) who hypothesises that speech production is affected by speech
perception. Although a similar approach is dominant in the area of pronunciation
acquisition, some researchers place production before perception, while others
claim that these two aspects of speech are independent (cf. Nowacka, 2011).
However, both the production and reception of speech sounds are significant
because they function in a language as transmitters of meaningful encoded mes-
sages largely dependent on context. Setter and Jenkins (2005) agree with the fact
that pronunciation refers to both production and perception, adding that “pronun-
ciation tends to operate at a subconscious level, particularly with regard to
suprasegmental features, and so is often not easily amenable to manipulation”
(p. 2), which explains the difficulties learners encounter in pronunciation learning.
Richards and Schmidt (2002) emphasise that “pronunciation stresses more the
way sounds are perceived by the hearer” (p. 429). They therefore view pronunci-
ation as the way sounds are perceived and interpreted by a recipient, rather than as
pure articulation of sounds. In a similar vein, Richards, Platt, and Platt’s (1992)
interpretation of pronunciation states that “[u]nlike articulation, which refers to the
actual production of speech sounds in the mouth, pronunciation stresses more the
way sounds are perceived by the learner and often related the spoken word to its
written form” (p. 296).
For the purposes of this volume pronunciation will be viewed in accordance with
Burgess and Spencer’s (2000) definition referring to both the way speech, together
with all its phonological features, is produced and the way it is perceived and
interpreted. In other words, pronunciation is understood as the way a learner utters
or articulates both segmental and suprasegmental features of a foreign language as
well as how he or she perceives and interprets them.

2.1.1 Different Approaches to Pronunciation Teaching—A

Historical Overview

The earliest systematic studies concerning pronunciation date back to the end of the
nineteenth century, when Paul Passy and other reformers initiated the Reform
Movement which addressed the issues concerning teaching pronunciation to L2
learners (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996). The assumptions of this movement stressed the
value of an analytic-linguistic approach to pronunciation teaching, incorporating
articulatory descriptions or phonetic alphabet, which had been established by
International Phonetic Association founded by Sweet, Viëtor, and Passy
(Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner 2010; Wrembel, 2006). Soon after, in
1899, Passy published an essay “On the direct method in modern language
teaching” the title of which inspired the followers of another method associated
8 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

with pronunciation teaching, the Direct Method. Although this method stemmed
from the Reform Movement, it favoured a different, more natural approach,
focusing on intuitive-imitative pronunciation practice. More precisely, an L2 lear-
ner was supposed to listen and copy the model sounds, rhythm and intonation of a
foreign language.
The Direct Method contributed significantly to the development of further nat-
uralistic approaches to foreign language teaching, e.g., Total Physical Response and
the Natural Approach (Wrembel, 2006). These approaches valued the natural
process of sound system internalisation following a period of initial exposure to the
target language pronunciation. In other words, the learner could listen to model
pronunciation for as long as he or she needed without any external pressure.
Following this period of assimilation, these approaches assumed that the learner
would be able to speak, having absorbed and internalised the new sound system.
In the 1940s and 1950s, when the Audiolingual Method gained in popularity,
pronunciation learning was limited to imitation and rote learning of segments
(Pawlak, 2003). Students were expected to achieve the target model through mere
repetition. However, the role of pronunciation in the classroom increased. This
method postulated the implementation of theoretical instruction parallel to model
imitation (Wrembel, 2006). It assumed that the process of learning corresponds to
the stages of habit formation, so the most frequently used techniques for pronun-
ciation learning were repetition drills, such as word drills based on minimal pairs
and sentence drills, either syntagmatic drills—contrasts within a sentence—or
paradigmatic drills—contrasts across two or more sentences (Celce-Murcia et al.,
1996). Therefore, primary attention was given to articulatory explanations, imita-
tion and pattern memorisation.
The Cognitive Approach, which emerged in the 1960s, viewed the process of
foreign language learning not as habit formation, but as rule-governed. The pro-
ponents of this approach assumed that the objective of gaining native-like pro-
nunciation was unrealistic; therefore, teaching this aspect in the classroom became
irrelevant.
In the 1970s new approaches to foreign language learning emerged. One of
them, Caleb Gattegno’s Silent Way, focused on pronunciation learning, which was
very different to the Audiolingual habit formation that relied on repetitions and
imitations. Gattegno understood learning a foreign language as “a process which we
initiate by ourselves by mobilizing our inner resources (our perception, awareness,
cognition, imagination, intuition, creativity, etc.)” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 54).
In this approach one aspect of pronunciation, sounds, was introduced at the very
beginning of the course forming the first building blocks for further learning.
A teacher, whose role was to support a learner, would help learners internalise the
sound system through comparison and reference to the sound system of their
mother tongue and through a sound-colour chart practised by students (cf.
Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Other elements of pronunciation, such as stress and into-
nation, were considered important for a better understanding and use of the target
language. A number of teaching aids supported the teacher who was supposed to
speak as little as possible. In order to teach effectively, the teacher therefore used
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 9

gestures, tapped out the rhythm, indicated stress with fingers, used coloured rods
and an array of charts, e.g., a sound-colour chart (presenting sounds), or a Fidel
chart (providing sound-spelling associations) (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996). In brief,
Silent Way foregrounded the importance of pronunciation learning in the class-
room, thus reasserting its important status.
Another method from the same decade “recognised the importance of affective
domain” (Brown, 2001, p. 25) in second or foreign language learning. This was
Community Language Learning (CLL) developed by Curran (cf. Larsen-Freeman,
2000) who focused on the relationship between a learner and a teacher. The latter
was supposed to be sensitive to students’ needs, taking not only their intelligence,
but also their feelings and reactions to the process of teaching into account. This
method followed the ideas of Carl Rogers’ humanistic psychology, which
approached a learner as a “whole person” (Brown, 2000, p. 89). One of the most
important assumptions of CLL was the value of the process of learning rather than
teaching, which is only a step further from autonomy. Therefore, from the very
beginning students were engaged in generating their own materials, which consti-
tuted the springboard for their learning of various aspects of a language, including
pronunciation patterns. One of the techniques used for pronunciation learning was a
Human Computer the role of which was played by a teacher-counsellor, ready at
any moment to be ‘switched on or off’. While using this ‘computer,’ a student
decided when to ask the teacher for pronunciation help, i.e., to switch on the Human
Computer. Then the student imitated and repeated pronunciation after the teacher as
long as was necessary. To sum up, CLL followed the intuitive-imitative approach to
pronunciation teaching, yet allowed learners to control the scope of the content of
pronunciation learning (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996).
From the 1980s to the present moment, the Communicative Approach, also
termed Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), has dominated teaching of
foreign language pronunciation (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Wrembel, 2006),
placing learners’ abilities to communicate at the top of foreign/second language
learning priorities. Apart from linguistic competence, an L2 learner is expected to
develop three other components of communicative competence: discourse com-
petence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. Therefore, class-
room instruction should focus on providing useful tools for developing the above
competences in order to maximise communication. This purpose can be served not
only through classroom pronunciation practice, but also though the guided appli-
cation of pronunciation learning strategies. Both of these aspects are viewed as
invaluable factors leading to the development of communicative competence
through a positive influence on the development of both speaking and listening
skills (Pawlak, 2003).
Nevertheless, the role of pronunciation in the communicative classroom is
supportive rather than central. For instance, the guidelines for CLT suggested by the
Council of Europe (2001) in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages enumerate a list of skills and knowledge contributing to phonological
competence, but the recommendations are insufficient and the proposed classroom
tasks focusing on pronunciation are limited to activities such as exposure to
10 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

authentic speech samples, imitation or drilling (Sobkowiak & Piasecka, 2014).

Thus, the levels of intelligible pronunciation that are to be achieved by learners
following the CLT principles largely depend on their communication needs
(Morley, 1991).
At the beginning of the new millennium there has been observed a growing
interest in the instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) theory that “investi-
gates L2 learning or acquisition that occurs as a result of teaching” (Loewen, 2015,
p. 2). Within this framework, the researchers acknowledged that the communicative
approach should be complemented with a focus on form. For example, Pawlak
(2011a–c) proposed a tentative model of learning speaking in the foreign language
classroom that emphasised systematic teaching of forms “promoting noticing and
hypothesis formation, for example, through timely, narrowly focused error cor-
rection during communicative tasks” (p. 18). Similarly, Trofimovich & Gatbonton
(2006) offered a framework for communicative pronunciation teaching that applied
form-focused instruction. An L2 pronunciation learner should be involved in a
communicative task, requiring repetitions of formulaic chunks based on pronun-
ciation aspects. In this model three components play a major role: a genuine
communicative exchange, repetitions triggering automatization, and a formulaic
language applicable in other contexts. Although the effectiveness of this approach is
still not fully confirmed, the preliminary research outcomes indicate the advantage
of form-focused instruction over CLT in English pronunciation learning (e.g., Lan
& Wu, 2013).
Clearly, the above overview of the approaches to teaching pronunciation is not
exhaustive. Nonetheless, it contains the background information focusing on the
aspect of an L2 that is frequently neglected in language classrooms. One of the
reasons for this might be the fact that both teachers and learners rarely place
pronunciation among their major goals in L2 teaching and acquisition. However,
the group of L2 learners in need of the highest level of intelligible pronunciation are
L2 trainee teachers who are non-native speakers of English (Morley, 1991), because
they will “serve as the major model and source of input in English for their stu-
dents” (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 9). The issues concerning the goals in pro-
nunciation teaching and learning are discussed further in the following section.

2.1.2 Goals in Current EFL Pronunciation Teaching

Pronunciation learning goals are determined by the general L2 learning goals. For
instance, if an L2 learner wants to achieve a mastery in writing, pronunciation
practice will be perceived as useless. Obviously, an EFL student who intends to use
English professionally in communication will be more motivated to improve his or
her pronunciation than a biology student who needs an L2 for other purposes.
A primary school pupil learning a foreign language as a school subject will have a
different pronunciation learning aim from a young adult who is trained to become
an L2 teacher. Therefore, individual learners’ pronunciation learning goals vary,
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 11

depending on age, motivation, attitude, and various other factors mentioned later in
Sect. 2.1.4. Moreover, the approaches and methods of L2 teaching adopted by
educational institutions and teachers influence the goals for pronunciation teaching
and learning to a large extent.
The aims for pronunciation teaching and learning have fluctuated from a com-
plete neglect of this aspect of L2 to an insistence on native-like mastery.
Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) advocate considering a realistic goal which enables
learners to use intelligible speech. Nevertheless, the term intelligibility can be
understood differently and needs to be addressed. Nelson (2008) explains that “to
be intelligible, the speaker must articulate his sounds and words clearly, so that the
hearer does not have to stop to think what word was meant” (p. 14). Another view
is provided by Jenkins (2000) who regards intelligibility as indispensable for suc-
cess in communication between second language learners who use a “simplified
linguistic code” (p. 19). Abercrombie (1991) perceives intelligible pronunciation as
“pronunciation which can be understood with little or no conscious effort on the
part of the listener” (p. 93). Munro and Derwing (1995), as well as Celce-Murcia
et al. (2010), distinguish intelligibility from comprehensibility and accentedness.
The first notion is “the extent to which a listener actually understands an utterance
or message” (p. 32). The second stresses perception of the level of difficulty (how
difficult the message is for the listener to understand), and the last concentrates on
the perception of the differences between the accents of a speaker and a listener.
Therefore, both native and non-native speakers of English may speak at either very
low or high levels of phonological intelligibility (Scheuer, 2007).
Fitzpatrick (1995) and Kenworthy (1987) are in favour of intelligibility or
comfortable intelligibility as the main aim in pronunciation teaching. They claim
that the rejection of a native-like level of pronunciation as a target pronunciation
model is more achievable, and at the same time they encourage teachers to take
learners’ needs for pronunciation learning into consideration (Kelly, 2000).
However, they still operate within traditional model systems of either standard
British or American pronunciation. In other words, a teacher should use either
standard British or American pronunciation as a model but should not require
perfection in the use of either of these models on the part of the student whose aim
is to achieve intelligible communication.
Other researchers (e.g., Głogowska, 2003; Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Walker, 2001,
2010) support the idea of teaching pronunciation in accordance with the syllabus
entitled Lingua Franca Core (LFC) proposed by Jenkins (2000), who moves further
towards the idea of intelligibility in pronunciation teaching. She analyses English
language and pronunciation as used by non-native speakers in a multilingual
context. The data collected leads to the establishing of a set of features
(LFC) essential for intelligible communication among non-native speakers of
English.
The two major goals in current pronunciation pedagogy, regarding the choice of
pronunciation model and teaching pronunciation from the perspective of LFC, are
discussed below in more detail.
12 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

2.1.2.1 English Pronunciation Models for Teaching/Learning

Both the Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GA) models attained
dominance for a considerable period in the area of pronunciation learning and
teaching. Other standard native models, for example Scottish English, Australian
English, Irish English, etc., play a marginal role in the Polish context
(Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2004; Waniek-Klimczak, 1997), and they are not discussed
further here.
The choice of a pronunciation model should largely depend on a learner’s needs,
requirements and context (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Hewings, 2004). However, it
is frequently the choice of a teacher or an institution as to which variety of English
is taught. In Poland RP, also referred to as BBC English, Standard British English
or Queen’s English, has been the dominant model for years due to historical and
political links (Sobkowiak, 1996) and geographical proximity. Despite the fact that
only 5% (Mazurkiewicz, 2009) or even 3% (Crystal, 1995) of the British population
actually use it, this model is still present in most dictionaries and course books
offered by British publishers which flood the Polish market and are chosen by
teachers of English at Polish schools.
Gradually, with the growing economic and political status of the United States as
well as access to the Internet resources and media, the General American
(GA) model has gained in popularity, according to Sobkowiak (1996), although
teachers are frequently forced to design their own GA pronunciation activities
because the majority of course books used in Polish schools follow the Standard
British model (Pawlak, 2003).
There are different arguments for choosing a particular native model for teaching
pronunciation, especially for teaching pronunciation to students in a Polish context.
One of the arguments is that both RP and GA are high standard models in the sense
that they are supra-regional, natural, well described and researched by specialists.
Therefore, in this sense they give the learner the opportunity to sustain intelligibility
and communication (Głogowska, 2003). Those high standards are especially
important in the context of teacher training where “native-like pronunciation—
alongside structural accuracy, fluency, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence,
knowledge of the realia, etc.—is a logical target of advanced foreign language
instruction, particularly expected of prospective teachers” (Majer, 1997, pp. 28–29).
Sobkowiak (2003) supports this claim by saying that teachers’ pronunciation should
be as close to the native model as possible. Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) confirm the
high status of pronunciation among non-native groups of English teachers in the
course of their training but suggest aiming at a more realistic goal, namely that of
intelligible pronunciation.
The second argument for the choice of one of the above standard native models
is a learner’s preference based on attitudinal factors. High preference for native-like
pronunciation models is evident in both international (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005;
Timmis, 2002) and Polish-based studies (Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2004; Wach, 2011;
Waniek-Klimczak, 1997; Waniek-Klimczak & Klimczak 2005). The results of
research confirm that the majority of EFL university students and teachers choose
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 13

native-like pronunciation as a target model in language learning or teaching.

Preference for a native-like pronunciation model is also evidenced among EFL
learners of lower proficiency levels. A group of 134 teenage students learning
English in Polish high schools responded to a question concerning their preferred
pronunciation model (Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2004). The results showed that approx-
imately 40% of the respondents opted for learning Standard British English pro-
nunciation and almost 33% would choose GA for their model pronunciation. Those
preferences, however, are not always easily transferable to the classroom envi-
ronment because of the number of variables affecting pronunciation learning and
teaching.
In the classroom the problem of choice of a pronunciation model is frequently
solved by a teacher (Porzuczek, 1997) whose pronunciation, often based on his/her
own preference, serves as the first and frequently the only model for a learner
starting his/her foreign language education. Harmer (2001) opts for a similar pro-
nunciation model for beginners as “too many varieties and accents will be
counter-productive” (p. 9), and learners might feel overwhelmed by a large number
of pronunciation models within one language, which could lead to confusion
(Porzuczek, 1997). In time, however, when their level of foreign language com-
petence increases, learners should be exposed to different varieties and authentic
speech, as Harmer (2001) suggests. Generally, proponents of achieving a near
native pronunciation—either British or American—follow the nativeness principle,
whereas the supporters of the intelligibility principle (Levis, 2005, p. 370) advocate
the abandoning of unrealistic goals for the achievement of native-like pronuncia-
tion, and opt for a focus on intelligible speech practice.
In the case of students of English in Poland, the choice of the model for English
pronunciation is, to a large extent, left open to the personal preferences of the
students, who are exposed during their classes to varieties such as GA and RP, as
well as the variety of pronunciation of English amongst Polish lecturers, termed
Polglish by Sobkowiak (1996).

2.1.2.2 Pronunciation Teaching from the Perspective of English

as a Lingua Franca

One researcher endeavouring to implement the intelligibility principle in paradigms

of pronunciation pedagogy is Jenkins (2000), who has triggered a discussion
concerning one of the most debated issues in pronunciation teaching during the first
decade of 21st century. Her proposal for the introduction of a pronunciation syl-
labus for English as an International Language (EIL) postulates changes in the
target model of English pronunciation, which result from the fact that most speakers
of English at the present time are non-natives who use English in a non-native
context. In her research, Jenkins (2000) has discovered that most breakdowns in
communication between non-native speakers are caused by pronunciation errors, so
pronunciation should be of vital importance in teaching EIL. At the same time, she
discards the status of the RP model as it may lead to a rejection of a learner’s self
14 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

because “pronunciation is so much a matter of self-image that students may prefer

to keep their accent deliberately, in order to retain their self-respect or to gain the
approval of their peers” (p. 16). In other words, she notices the influence of affective
and cultural factors on pronunciation.
The main goal of empirical research conducted by Jenkins (2000, 2002) is the
collection of evidence for phonological intelligibility among non-native English
speakers. The results of these studies have served as basis for the structuring of a
pronunciation syllabus for EIL, termed the Lingua Franca Core (LFC). LFC con-
sists of a list of pronunciation features, which, in the author’s view, are to be
acquired in order to communicate intelligibly with other speakers of English. The
list refers to four areas: consonants, consonant clusters, vowel sounds and nuclear
stress (Jenkins, 2000, p. 159). The emphasis is, therefore, placed on segmental
rather than suprasegmental aspects. In order to exemplify the scope of LFC, a few
implications for pronunciation studies of segmentals are shown. Learners are per-
mitted to substitute the initial pronunciation of dental fricative ‘th’ sounds with
other sounds. They can also use their L2 regional vowels consistently, apart from
the mid-central tense vowel—long schwa. Vowel length contrast is important, as is
the aspiration of the fortis plosives placed initially in stressed syllables (/p/, /t/, /k/).
However, LFC excludes rhythm, weak forms, assimilation, elision and linkage from
the syllabus.
The assumptions of LFC have been widely discussed amongst Polish researchers
and teachers of phonetics (Bryła, 2006; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Przedlacka, 2005;
Głogowska, 2003; Sobkowiak, 2003, 2005; Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2003, 2004), who
have elucidated a number of arguments against the implementation of LFC.
Głogowska (2003) stated that the syllabus was not designed for Poles, who did not
take part in Jenkins’ research, and there was therefore a need for further investi-
gations and adjustments. She added that phonological features based on Polish
might be transferrable to EIL pronunciation, which could impede intelligibility.
Szpyra-Kozłowska (2003) examined LFC’s pedagogical feasibility and the
simplicity of its implementation within the Polish frame of reference in a thorough
analysis of the syllabus’s inventory. Those items which “simplify the process of
learning English by Polish learners” (p. 207) were assigned a ‘+1’, whereas those
which did not were given a ‘−1’ label. The total score of all 23 items subject to
analysis was zero, meaning that the implementation of LFC features in pronunci-
ation learning did not simplify the process, as Jenkins had assumed. In conclusion,
within a Polish context, it has not been corroborated that LFC is more teachable.
A slightly different perspective on LFC standards was taken by Sobkowiak
(2003), who enumerated several arguments against the introduction of the new
syllabus within the curriculum of English pronunciation learning. He discussed a
range of issues, including the argument referring to teachability and relevance of
pronunciation items in the EIL pronunciation syllabus. For example, Jenkins (2000)
argued that LFC “drastically simplifies the pedagogic task by removing from the
syllabus many time-consuming items which are either unteachable or irrelevant for
EIL” (p. 160). In contrast, Sobkowiak (2003) stated that learners should be
encouraged to set high goals, and not simplified ones. If LFC is introduced in the
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 15

classroom, learners will most probably maintain their ways of pronouncing the
target language, so the pronunciation learning process will be limited, if not alto-
gether abandoned. Furthermore, there are no suggestions in LFC concerning the
teaching of pronunciation to teacher trainees, although there is an overt acceptance
of regional traces of a teacher’s accent resulting from his or her acquisition of only
the core pronunciation features (cf. Sobkowiak, 2003). Such an approach leads to
lowering the pronunciation standards in education. Moreover, there is a psycho-
logical aspect of pronunciation learning, which goes against introducing LFC in a
Polish educational context. Students may consider appropriate pronunciation as a
value in itself, regardless of its function in the language, which in turn triggers
motivation for learning.
The attitude of learners towards LFC was researched by Szpyra-Kozłowska
(2004) and Bryła (2006). In the first study 134 Polish students learning English at
the age of 16–17 were asked to express their opinions on whether or not they would
like to learn a particular pronunciation model. LFC was one of the items stated in
the questionnaire. Only 13.4% of the respondents gave LFC as their selected option
for pronunciation learning, providing several arguments for their choice, including
the following: the pronunciation model is universal, and understood on a global
level, it is easier to learn, or it is the most useful in terms of its application. 16% of
the students stated that they would not like to follow LFC for the following reasons:
it is artificial, it is over-simplified, and it would not be well perceived by native
English or American speakers. The majority of students (over 40%) opted for the
standard British model because of its universality, as well as for aesthetic reasons
—“it sounds nice” (Szpyra-Kozłowska, 2004, p. 118)—and for its perceived sim-
plicity. Szpyra-Kozłowska (2004) emphasised that the English language was
viewed by the majority of the respondents not as a lingua franca, but as the lan-
guage embedded in the English culture they wanted to know more about. Bryła
(2006) collected the views of 70 European learners of English who responded to a
question concerning their preferences of accent. 26% selected International English
as a preferred option for many reasons: pragmatism, neutrality, and personal
identity. Although Europeans who chose LFC as their target model outnumbered
Polish learners who selected the same model, Bryła (2006) concluded that both
groups “value[d] good English pronunciation” (p. 34) and Jenkins’s (2000)
assumptions were not confirmed by the respondents’ opinions of both of the above
surveys. In conclusion, LFC does not seem to be a generally accepted model for
pronunciation learning in a Polish context both for pronunciation researchers and
learners. Besides, as Hewings (2007) points out, it is not possible to adapt EIL
pronunciation in the constantly changing international context when speaking to
different users of EIL, e.g., Chinese English or Italian English. Therefore, a unified
model is essential for mutual intelligibility and “it is useful to ‘model’ your pro-
nunciation on one variety—but also recognise that this is just one of many equally
acceptable varieties” (Hewings, 2007, p. 10).
16 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation …

2.1.3 Foreign Language Pronunciation and Cognitive

Processing

Acquiring foreign language (FL) pronunciation is a part of a more general process

of an L2 acquisition (SLA). Target language pronunciation learners have to go
through the cognitive input-processing-output stages in order to perceive, attend to,
interpret, internally process and produce L2 sounds, syllables, stress, rhythm,
intonation, etc. Success in pronunciation learning is to a large extent dependent on
the optimisation of cognitive processes (cf. Darcy, Park, & Yang, 2015). Therefore,
in order to understand those processes better, a brief presentation of selected
cognitive models of an L2 speech perception and production are delineated. The
model of speech production proposed by Levelt (1989) in the interpretation of
Kormos (2006) and Bygate (2001) is described with reference to language anxiety
in Sect. 3.4.
At the input stage of cognitive processing, L2 learners perceive the speech
sounds. L2 perception entails, according to Strange and Shafer (2008), both the
physiological and mental processes of an L2 learner who detects the acoustic input
and assigns phonetic categories to it in order to interpret the stimuli. If the learner
has not yet developed mental representations of L2 phonological categories, he or
she assigns the perceived L2 sounds to the L1 category “on the basis of their
gestural similarity to L1 phonetic segments” (p. 170). Flege’s Speech Learning
Model (cf. Strange & Shafer, 2008) further explains that it may be difficult to
ascertain the differences between the L1 and L2 phonemes if they are assigned to
the same category. In consequence, the input may be misinterpreted. Therefore, in
order to interpret L2 sounds properly, L2 learners need to gradually build their
mental L2 phonological categories by being exposed to L2.
Additionally, attention or attentional focus (Best & Tyler, 2007 in Strange &
Shafer, 2008, p. 174) plays a role in L2 speech perception. Strange (2006 in Strange
& Shafer, 2008) proposes the Automatic Selective Perception model in order to
explain the role of attention in L2 pronunciation acquisition. He clarifies this with
the observation that there are two modes of speech processing: a context-specific
phonetic mode, requiring attentional resources, and an automatic phonological
mode for L1 speech processing. The extent to which these modes interplay in the
L2 speech perception depends, among others, on the learner’s L2 experience and
the difficulty of the input and task. If the L2 message is complex and a task is
demanding, the learner’s attention is directed towards the semantic comprehension
of the message, and the automatic mode for L1 speech perception is switched on. In
consequence, the learner may have problems with identifying L2 phonetic sound
contrasts because he or she assigns L2 sounds to L1 categories, not L2. The
automatic mode may be developed for L2 speech processing, but it requires
extensive exposure to the L2 and training in order to create L2 mental categories for
the L2 sounds. Therefore, only advanced L2 learners are able to cope with proper
discrimination of L2 sounds while being exposed to a demanding input and task.
2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning 17

Second/foreign language speech production is influenced by the speech per-

ception and the phonetic and phonological patterns of L1 (Zsiga, 2013). If an L2
learner does not perceive L2 sounds properly, he or she cannot articulate them well.
Even if the L2 perceptual phonological categories are developed, L2 speech pro-
duction is affected by the patterns that are transferred from L1 to L2. The phonetic
patterns comprise articulatory habits and settings (e.g., place of articulation, manner
of articulation, vowel quality), and phonological patterns that refer to prosody and
allophonic distribution. In consequence, a foreign-sounding pronunciation occurs
“when the patterns from the L1 and L2 do not match, and a learner uses an L1
pattern to pronounce an L2 sentence” (ibid p. 459).

2.1.4 Selected Factors Affecting Pronunciation Attainment

External variables and individual learner characteristics may contribute significantly

not only to the ultimate success of the target language acquisition in general but to
FL pronunciation attainment as well (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). L2 learner vari-
ations are referred to as individual learner differences (ILD) that influence one
another (Ellis, 1994, 2008) and affect the routes of L2 learning success. There are
several taxonomies of ILD proposed in SLA literature (e.g., Dörnyei, 2009; Ellis,
1994). Ellis (1994), for example, places beliefs about language learning, affective
states and general factors (e.g., age, language aptitude, learning styles, motivation,
and personality) among ILDs, claiming that they influence the choice of learner
strategies, whose selection affects L2 attainment. Thus, there is a tripartite view of
the intensity of interaction between the above learner characteristics, learner
strategies and language learning outcomes. The dynamic nature of ILD is also
noticed by Dörnyei (2009), who perceives them as composed of cognitive, affective
and motivational dimensions, which interact dynamically with one another and
cannot be viewed as separate stable entities.
Consequently, the process of second language pronunciation or phonological
acquisition is determined by the quantity and quality of ILD and external factors,
which interrelate and lead to different outcomes. These variables which, among
others, affect pronunciation acquisition are classified by researchers in a number of
ways. Wrembel (2008) divides them into four major groups: cognitive factors, oral
and auditory capacities, psychological and affective factors, and sociolinguistic
factors. The first group comprises language aptitude, intelligence, learning strate-
gies and maturational constraints. The second concerns aptitude for oral mimicry
and auditory sensitivity when acquiring a target language pronunciation.
Psychological and affective factors are subdivided into language ego flexibility,
identity, self-esteem, empathy, personality and language anxiety. Attitude and
motivation are found among sociolinguistic factors. This taxonomy, however,
focuses mainly on a learner’s internal characteristics, marginalising the role of the
context for pronunciation learning.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
invention of it would have been made shortly after by B, and by him
possibly would have been brought to light in still greater perfection. If
the invention of A, however, is patented, the inventive perfectioning
of the object by B must rest until the expiration of A’s Patent.
The more an invention is to the purpose for general adaptability,
the more reasonable appears the supposition that others would have
arrived at the same invention.
In spite of the contrary intention, Patents proved themselves an
impediment to the progress of human ingenuity, and by each newly-
granted Patent an unrelenting “halt” is shouted to the competition in
that direction.
On closer reflection, even persons who move in circles which,
from personal interest, have hitherto used their influence to give the
greatest possible stability to Patent-rights, will come to the conviction
that the disadvantages outweigh by far the advantages.
The Patent system, viewed from a standpoint of political economy,
produces a similar influence as the Lottery. The “grand prize”
dazzles all; however, only one can have it, and the multitude of those
who contributed to the solving of the problem lose very often a not
inconsiderable stake in uselessly-incurred costs, and lost time and
trouble.
Many have been induced by the system to rush after doubtful
reward in the shape of a Patent, instead of steadily applying their
ability and knowledge to regular industry.
Besides, it is not sufficient to make up one’s mind to make an
invention capable of being patented; such proceedings lead to a
success in the most rare cases. The most important discoveries
have proceeded, on the contrary, from those who thoughtfully
prosecute their regular avocations. The fear that with abolition of
Patents the ingenuity of mankind would slacken, we cannot share,
because the germ of progress is embodied in human nature, and
because the joy over an invention made, and the satisfaction felt at a
new discovery, in themselves are powerful impulses for the
employment of energies in such directions. A strong proof of the
correctness of this assertion the men of science furnish, whom we
have to thank for the most important discoveries, in so far as the
application of physical and chemical laws to industry are concerned
—which have been always handed over immediately to the public
with the utmost liberality. Others have based their inventions on such
laws, and managed to acquire for this one or that other a Patent, and
thus, to their own advantage and to the cost of the public, made an
invasion of territory hardly legitimately theirs. They reaped where
others had sowed.
Let us take, for instance, all the lighting apparatuses during the
last twenty-five years. The different lamp contrivances during this
period for which Patents have been granted by the industrial States
of Europe will number several hundreds. Now, if we sift the matter,
we will find that all these patented combinations are simply variations
of a principle which Berzelius established and applied to his spirit-
lamp.
Similar is the experience with the invention of Bunsen, who
reduced the costs of the electric battery considerably, by applying a
hard sort of coke in place of the platinum in Grove’s Battery.
In a still higher degree has Morse acted meritoriously. It is true,
Morse, in consideration of the signal importance of his invention, has
received a public reward in the shape of money, and this mode of
acknowledging real merit in the province of inventions recommends
itself for adoption even in individual States.
After the abolition of Patents, apart from such acknowledgments
as aforesaid, very soon associations of the various interested parties
who, by each discovery, would be equally benefited, will be formed
for the purpose of rewarding new inventions made in accordance
with indicated problems, the solution of which may be felt to be most
important to them.
For State rewards only such inventions should be taken
cognizance of as, according to their nature, cannot be kept secret,
and are not of a kind that will ensure to the inventor an adequate
reward by his own use of them.
 Principles, which hitherto have not been admissible for Patents,
would be likewise excluded from rewards. There could be also no
premiums for new modes of manufacture, such as simpler or
cheaper manufacture of materials already known, and in the same
manner manufacture of new articles directly going into consumption,
because, in the first case, the secret use of the invention would
present an equivalent, while in the latter cases the start which the
inventor has with regard to manufacturing, as well as disposal,
before and over his competitors, in most cases is more than
sufficient reward for the merit of having given mankind new means of
satisfying human enjoyments and necessities. It was consequently a
timely Convention between the States of the Zollverein, which
already, under date of 21st September, 1842, acknowledged the
principle that the granting of a Patent henceforth could establish no
right to prohibit either the import or the sale, nor the use of articles
agreeing with those patented, as far as articles of consumption are
concerned, and that a right of that nature was only applicable to
machinery and tools for manufacturers and artisans.[10] Accordingly,
the granting of rewards would have to be restricted to inventors of
useful machinery and tools, who do not use them solely in their own
interest and keep their construction a secret, but, on the contrary,
make them accessible to everybody by multiplication.
With such regulations as to Patent-right in force in Germany, it will
be observed that here, as in other countries, the great disadvantage
arises from this, that by the patenting of an invention its utilisation or
trial is prohibited to home industry, while the foreigner is quite at
liberty to make use of it and to bring the articles in question to market
in the country where the Patent exists.
In this manner foreign industry is actually enjoying a preference, to
the detriment of the industry of that country in which the Patent is
granted; consequently even the patentee, through such foreign
competition, loses the intended reward partially. The example
furnished by the Patent on the manufacture of aniline colours in
France illustrates the case. On the whole, it is not to be denied that
those advantages which the Patent monopoly should guarantee are
often not in harmony either with the value or the importance of the
patented invention; just as often these advantages do not reach the
author of the invention at all, but flow into the pockets of such people
as make it a business either to purchase Patent-rights, and so work
them for their own account, or in partnership with the patentee,
taking care to secure for themselves the lion’s share. It is further
proved by experience that insignificant and most simple inventions
have often brought extraordinary advantages to the patentee, while
the discoverers of important novelties (we instance only Reissel, who
introduced the screw as a motor in navigation), in spite of Patent-
rights, could not find gratitude nor reward for what they
accomplished.
We arrive, consequently, at the conclusion, that the partly
imaginary advantages of Patents are outweighed by the
disadvantages attached, and that, as the industrial condition of
Switzerland exemplifies, no further use of such means is any longer
required in helping to elevate industry in all its branches to a very
high standard, or to keep pace with the development of other
countries in that direction.

[10] I cannot but think the patenting of machinery a great

disadvantage to any community. Yet if importing were allowed in
spite of the Patent, the exaction of heavy royalties, and of
royalties graduated according to work performed (which is the
greatest source of evil), would be impossible, and the
disadvantage be neutralised.—R. A. M.
 EXTRACTS FROM M. VERMEIRE.
After most of this fasciculus is in type, I am favoured with a copy of
M. Vermeire’s “Le Libre Travail,” Brussels, 1864, from which I subjoin
three extracts.
The first, a noble passage quoted by that gentleman from M.
Bastiat’s “Harmonies Economiques:”—

“C’est la concurrence qui fait tomber dans le domains

commun toutes les conquêtes dont le génie de chaque siècle
accroît le trésor des générations qui le suivent. Tant qu’elle
n’est pas intervenue, tant que celui qui a utilisé un agent
naturel est maître de son secret, son agent naturel est gratuit
sans doute, mais il n’est pas encore commun; la conquête est
réalisée, mais elle l’est au profit d’un seul homme ou d’une
seule classe. Elle n’est pas encore un bienfait pour l’humanité
entière. Si les choses devaient rester ainsi avec toute
invention, un principe d’inégalité indéfinie s’introduirait dans le
monde; mais il n’en est pas ainsi, Dieu, qui a prodigué a
toutes ses créatures la chaleur, la lumière, la gravitation, l’air,
l’eau, la terre, les merveilles de la vie végétale, l’électricité et
tant d’autres bienfaits innombrables, Dieu, qui a mis dans
l’individualité l’intérêt personnel qui, comme un aimant, attire
toujours tout à lui, Dieu, dis-je, a placé aussi au sein de
l’ordre social un autre ressort anquel il a confié le soin de
conserver à ses bienfaits leur destination primitive, la gratuité,
la communauté. Ce ressort, c’est la concurrence.
“Ainsi l’intérêt personnel est cette indomptable force
individualiste qui nous fait chercher le progrès qui nous le fait
découvrir, qui nous y pousse l’aiguillon dans le flanc, mais qui
nous porte aussi a le monopoliser. La concurrence est cette
force humanitaire non moins indomptable qui arrache le
 progrès, à mesure qu’il le réalise, des mains de l’individualité,
pour en faire l’héritage commun de la grande famille humaine.
Ces deux forces qu’on peut critiquer, quand on les considère
isolément, constituent dans leur ensemble, par le jeu de leurs
combinaisons, l’harmonie sociale.
“Et, pour le dire en passant, il n’est pas surprenant que
l’individualité, représentée par l’intérêt de l’homme en tant
que producteur, s’insurge depuis le commencement du
monde contre la concurrence, qu’elle la réprouve, qu’elle
cherche à la détruire, appelant à son aide la force, la ruse, le
privilége, le sophisme, la restriction, la protection
gouvernementale, le monopole.”

The second, portion of an interesting letter by M. Paillottet, éditeur-

commentateur of Bastiat’s works, (written in May, 1863):—

“Cette connaissance, résultat de son travail, est pour

toujours à lui; nul ne peut la lui enlever ni ne doit l’empêcher
de s’en servir.
“Seulement, comme la nature permet à d’autres hommes
de se livrer à la même recherche, qu’elle les y excite et
souvent même leur en fait une nécessité, le jour doit arriver
où la notion que cet homme possédait seul est aussi
possédée par d’autres. Ce jour-là, je dis que le premier
inventeur n’a plus seul le droit de se servir d’une notion qu’il
n’est plus seul à posséder. Prétendez-vous que je le dépouille
du résultat de son travail? J’ai à vous répondre: Si je
dépouille le premier, vous, vous dépouillez le second, le
troisième, le centième inventeur peut-être; si je dépouille le
Chinois, vous, vous dépouillez Guttemberg!
“Un mot maintenant sur le droit à la réciprocité de services.
“Je crois fermement, avec Bastiat, que ‘la véritable et
équitable loi des hommes, c’est: Echange librement débattu
de service contre service.’
 “Si un inventeur me rend service, je lui dois un service
équivalent; Dieu me garde d’en disconvenir. Mas de même
que je n’exige pas de l’inventeur ses services et ne l’oblige
pas à en recevoir de moi, j’entends qu’il n’exige pas les miens
et ne m’impose pas les siens. Entre lui et moi, l’échange doit
être précédé d’un libre débat amenant le consentement des
deux parties. M. Le Hardy de Beaulieu oublie ou supprime la
nécessité du libre débat.”

The third, a narrative by my able and ardent Belgian fellow-

labourer in this great cause, the Abolition of Patents, M. Vermeire
himself, to whose work I refer readers. He will allow me to say I
impute it to no deficiency in courtesy on his part that it escaped
earlier and due notice. He there gives the Chambers of Commerce
of this kingdom credit for opinions which they have not generally
embraced up to this hour:—

“M. Eugène Flachat attaque la loi des brevets comme une

lépre industrielle. M. Arthur Legrand ne critique pas moins
vivement cette législation surannée ainsi que M. Michel
Chevalier, que l’on peut considérer, à juste titre, comme le
chef des économistes français.
“Quand l’opinion de ces hommes érudits me fut connue je
n’hésitai plus et je publiai l’exposé de ma doctrine du Libre
travail dans l’Economiste Belge du 28 Mars, 1863.—Plus tard
M. Macfie, president de la Chambre de Commerce de
Liverpool, fit connaître ses idées sur la matière et le congrès
des économistes allemands réuni à Dresde en Septembre,
1863, émit la résolution suivante qui fut adoptée à une forte
majorité:
“‘Considérant que les brevets d’invention n’encouragent
pas les progrès des inventions et mettent plutôt obstacle à la
réalisation de celles-ci.
“‘Considérant, que les brevets d’invention entravent plutôt
qu’ils ne favorisent la prompte exploitation des inventions
utiles et qu’ils ne sont pas un mode convenable de
récompense.
“‘Le congrès a résolu que les brevets d’invention sont
nuisibles au développement de la prospérité publique.’
“Cet avis des hommes de la science a été écouté en
Allemagne par les hommes de la pratique; car sur les 47
Chambres de Commerce que renferme la Prusse, 31
viennent de se prononcer pour l’abolition des brevets
d’invention d’après ce que je viens de lire dans les journaux,
au moment même où j’écris ces lignes.—
“Le libre travail qui fut suivi, de mon Examen critique de la
garantie légale des modèles et dessins de fabrique provoqua
une ardente discussion,” &c.
 MOVEMENTS IN GERMANY,
BELGIUM, AND HOLLAND.
A Belgian projet de loi in favour of copyright of models and
designs in manufacture, having been defeated, in consequence, as
is alleged, of M. Vermeire’s efforts through the press and otherwise,
we are told—

“This fact demonstrates once more that in Belgium, as

everywhere else, opinions in favour of intellectual property
within the domain of industry are declining, and that so far
from legislation tending in the direction of giving such property
increased proportions, it will soon be proposed to demolish
entirely the superannuated legislation which interposes so
many and so serious obstacles to the progress of industrial
operations.
“The tactics of the partisans of such property consist in
identifying or assimilating it with material property. This
similarity permits the conclusions and deductions to be drawn
which form the basis of Patent legislation.
“The pretended identity or similarity has been completely
overthrown by M. Vermeire in his ‘Le Libre Travail.’ His
‘Examen Critique de la Garantie Légale des Modèles et
Dessins de Fabrique’ deals a fresh blow against the
confounding of property in a thing and property in an idea.”

EXTRACT OF LETTER, BRUSSELS, JUNE 11,

1869.
 There is in Belgium, as in England and all other countries, a
feeling antagonistic to Patent-rights. It is even shared in by many
eminent political economists. I think, however, I may venture to
assert that in this country the Government, far from participating in
this feeling, would rather be inclined, in the event of a revision of the
Patent-Laws, to secure in a more effectual way the rights of
inventors.

GERMANY.
EXTRACT FROM LETTER OF AN EMINENT HOUSE IN
COLOGNE.

Although we think it rather difficult to form a general opinion on this

matter, we still believe that most Industrials would welcome abolition
of Patents for Inventions. The Cologne Chamber of Commerce
expressed, in September, 1863, its opinion in the same sense.
German legislation regarding Patents will probably be reformed. A
proposition made in this direction by Count Bismarck to the
Bundesrath, contained in the “Annalen des Norddeutschen Bundes,”
by Dr. George Hirth, 1ster Heft Jahrgang, 1869, page 34, 42, II.,
would interest you much, as it coincides, we believe, with your
motion. The latest publications in German literature on the subject
are Klostermann “Die Patents Gesetzgebung aller Lander,” Berlin,
1869; Barthel “Die Patent-frage,” Leipzig, 1869.

EXTRACT FROM “DIE PATENTS GESETZGEBUNG ALLER

LANDER,” BY DR. R. KLOSTERMANN (BERLIN, 1869).

A short time since, in the course of the present decade, the public
has spoken out, following numerous and important persons who
wished the entire abolition of Patents for inventions, because they
allege that the existence of such is incompatible with the free-trade
movements. They said that such impede industry instead of
advancing it; that the claim of the first inventor to a monopoly is
untenable; that discovery is not the work of one man, but the ripe
fruit of industrial development.
From the difficulty and complexity of the subject, men would do
away with Patent-Laws; but the real cause of the agitation against
them lies in the enormous development which our international
commerce has undergone in the last ten years through free-trade,
steam-boats, and railways.
As the complete abolition of the “customs-limits,” with the German
Zollverein [customs-union], was not made without a direct
transformation of the Patent-Laws and a positive limitation of Patent
protection, so is—through the concluding of the treaties of commerce
made during the last ten years between the Zollverein and France,
Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy—a total reform in the Patent-Law
rendered necessary.
All countries, with the single exception of Switzerland, recognise
by their existing laws the necessity of Patent protection; and this
case of Switzerland is particularly brought forward by those opposed
to the Patent movement. The Commission which was appointed of
Swiss experts (and which said that Patent protection is unnecessary
and tends to nothing good) was impartial enough to avow that the
particular advantages which Switzerland draws from existing
circumstances arise from the fact that in all the adjoining countries
the protection of Patents does exist, but in Switzerland alone not so.
Swiss industry, which is exceedingly small, is placed in the position
of imitating all foreign Patents which find a market in Switzerland,
and getting the benefit of the discoveries made under the protection
of foreign Patents. Switzerland is just in the position of a man who
keeps no cats because he can use his neighbours’.

HOLLAND.
I have before me a series of valuable illustrative documents
printed by the Government of the Netherlands, which are too long to
introduce here. The movement for abolishing Patents in that country,
already referred to on pages 196-230, was consummated by a
striking majority, in the First Chamber, of no less than 29 to 1; the
abolition to take effect from 1st January next, existing rights, of
course, to be respected.
 ON PERPETUITY OF PATENT-RIGHT.
The following observations, abridged from a review, by M. Aug.
Boudron, of M. le Hardy de Beaulieu’s La Propriété et sa Rente, are
from the Journal des Economistes for May:—
The author assimilates the inventor’s privileges to proprietorship of
a field. Nevertheless there is a fundamental difference between the
two kinds of property. Independently of State privileges, the
originator of a discovery may use it as his own, and even to the
exclusion of all others, provided he keep it secret, so that he shall
have no competitor to encounter; whereas the owner of a field, if he
is deprived of his right, loses all. The advantages of an invention
may be enjoyed simultaneously by many persons; the produce of a
field by one only. Now for a difference of importance affecting the
interests of the public. Give the possessor of a field his right in
perpetuity, and you have circumstances the most favourable for its
yielding all the produce which it can. Not so with the privilege of an
inventor, for it essentially consists in hindering others from bringing
the methods or materials that are patented into use. From the time of
invention and first exploitation the privilege is an obstacle; it limits the
amount of good that society would in its absence enjoy. What, then,
is the motive of certain States in conceding this exclusive
privilege?... The legislators who have created the right thought that
there would in consequence be a larger number of useful inventions
and improvements, and that, on the whole, society would be a
greater gainer than if there were no Patents.... As there are
innumerable instruments and processes for which Patents have
been and might still be taken, there must, if perpetuity of privilege be
granted, be a prodigious number of monopolies, and almost no
operation could be performed, nothing done, without people being
obliged to pay tribute to some privileged person. There would be a
countless host of administrators like receivers of tolls and pontages,
diminishing wealth in place of creating it; the world would soon
produce too little to sustain the monopolists and their employés. We
thus arrive at an impossibility. But conceive all this possible, and the
world must yet miss a great number of inventions and improvements,
that would under the system of perpetuity be prevented. This is seen
by the obstacles which even privileges of limited duration throw in
the way of new inventions. In actual practice progress is often
attained only by the use of previous inventions. But what if these are
the subject of Patents the holder of which will not come to terms or
cannot be treated with? Retardation, if the privilege is temporary; a
full stop, if perpetual.
 NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF MR.
MACFIE’S SPEECH.
[Page 17.]
The views taken in the text as to the meaning of the word
“manufacture” receive confirmation from the following extract from
the Engineer of June 4, 1869:—

THE AMERICAN PATENT-LAW.

... Accordingly, in the first general Patent-Law passed by
Congress, the subject for which Patents were to be granted were
described as the invention or discovery of “any useful art,
manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement
therein not before known or used.” In the next statute—that of 21st
February, 1793—the phraseology was first introduced which has
been ever since employed—namely, “any new and useful art,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, not known or used before the application for a
Patent.”... We have, then, the following four heads of subjects
suitable for Patents—viz., an art, a machine, a manufacture, and a
composition of matter.... In England, to make a new process the
subject of a Patent, the word “manufacture” would be used, and
would have to be interpreted somewhat liberally. Thus, in some
cases, there might not be a perfect distinction between the thing
itself and the art or process of making the thing.... With regard to the
head “manufacture,” we cannot do better than give the definition
which Mr. Curtis has added as a note to his work. He says a
manufacture “would be any new combination of old materials,
constituting a new result or production in the form of a vendible
article, not being machinery.”...
 As well as from the following extract from—

HINDMARCH ON “VENDING OR SELLING.”

“The sole privilege of making the invention as expressed ... is in
truth the same in substance as the sole privilege of using and
exercising it.... By the first section of the Statute of Monopolies,
patents granting ‘the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using
of anything’ are declared to be void, and the proviso in favour of
inventions contained in the sixth section only extends to ‘grants of
privilege of the sole working or making of any manner of new
manufactures,’ leaving the sole buying or selling of anything within
the prohibition.... The sole privilege granted by a Patent for an
invention authorises the inventor ‘to make, use, exercise, and vend’
the invention.... And as no one can use the invention except the
patentee, no one besides him can lawfully have such articles for
sale.... Every part of the privilege granted by a Patent for an
invention, when thus explained (!) is therefore clearly within the
meaning of the exception contained in the Statute....”
I demur. Is there anything in the Statute to prevent a person
importing articles and vending them though the same as the
privileged person is alone allowed to make or work? In point of fact
that surely might, when the statute was passed, be done from
Scotland and Ireland as to manufactures not patented in these
countries, but patented in England.
[Page 18.]
The number of Patents granted in the first fifty years after the
Statute of Monopolies was seventy-two, or at the rate of less than
one and a-half per annum.
[Page 19.]
The following list of applications for Patents up to the end of 1862,
in several classes, is abridged from Mr. Edwards’ interesting treatise
on, or rather against, “Letters Patent for Inventions:”—
 Oct., 1852, to Before Total.
Dec. 31, 1862. Oct., 1852.
Railways and Railway
1,418 630 2,018
Carriages
Telegraphs 558 109 667
Steam and Steam Boilers 1,293 377 1,670
Steam-engines 1,228 704 1,932
Spinning 1,837 1,120 2,957
Electricity, Galvanism, and
662 38 700
Electroplating
Sewing and Embroidery 352 40 392
Heating and Evaporating 1,108 373 1,481
Fireplaces, Grates 317 169 481
Flues and Chimneys 278 75 353
Fuel 227 129 356
Ventilating Buildings,
392 81 473
Carriages, Ships, &c.

SUGGESTIVE EXTRACTS FROM DR. PERCY’S

WORKS ON METALLURGY.
[Page 34.]

The Copper Trade.

It would be sheer waste of time even to notice many of the mis-

called improvements in copper—something for which Patents have
been granted in this country during the last twenty years. Some of
the patentees display such deplorable ignorance of the first
principles of chemistry, and such utter want of practical knowledge,
as would seem hardly possible with the present facilities of acquiring
information.
Various Patents have been granted for alleged improvements in
the treating of copper ores, of certain products obtained in the
smelting of copper ores, &c., which are only worthy of notice as
affording, as I conceive, satisfactory illustrations of the defective
state of our existing Patent-Laws.... That a man who has worked out
an original and valuable process from his own brain, and who may
have incurred great expenses in bringing it to a practical issue—it
may be, after years of protracted toil and anxiety—should have
secured to him by law during a moderate term the exclusive privilege
of reaping the substantial reward of his own invention, appears to me
as just and reasonable as that an author should be protected against
piratical and unprincipled publishers. But that the law should confer
upon a man the exclusive right of appropriating to his own benefit
facts which are perfectly familiar to every tyro in chemistry, and of
practising operations which are of daily occurrence in the
laboratories of chemists, is as impolitic as it is unjust. And surely, the
particular “inventions” above referred to belong to this category. I
cordially subscribe to the opinion expressed by Mr. Grove, Q.C.—
namely, that the real object of Patent-Law was to reward not trivial
inventions, which stop the way to greater improvements, but
substantial boons to the public; not changes such as any
experimentalist makes a score a day in his laboratory, but
substantial, practical discoveries, developed into an available form.

The Hot Blast.

It cannot strictly be termed a great invention, for what great

exercise of the inventive faculty could it possibly have required for its
development? There was no elaborate working out of a process or
machine, as has been the case in many inventions, but the thing was
done at once. Without wishing in the smallest degree to detract from
the merit to which Mr. Neilson is justly entitled, I may nevertheless
express my opinion that the hot-blast was a lucky hit rather than an
invention, properly so-called. Whatever opinion may be entertained
as to the expediency of Patents, there can be no doubt that such a
Patent as this ought never to have been granted. A Patent, even
though it may be proved invalid, confers upon its possessor a locus
standi in the eye of the law, and enables him thereby to involve
innocent persons in most expensive litigation, to say nothing of the
attendant annoyance and anxiety. The preliminary examination
before the Attorney or Solicitor-General is in many cases an absolute
farce, and nothing less. The present system, although confessedly
an improvement on the old one, is yet in many cases highly
obstructive and injurious to national interests.
[Page 50.]
The following passage from the Engineer of May 28, proves
clearly that the Bessemer Patents do raise prices of iron:—
The present royalty on rails is 2l. per ton; on each ton a drawback
of 1l. is nominally allowed, but the nature of Mr. Bessemer’s
arrangements with regard to scrap, crop ends, waste, &c., is such
that the true royalty on every ton of Bessemer rails delivered to a
railway company—in other words, sold—amounts to about 1l. 5s. 6d.
After the lapse of Mr. Bessemer’s Patents in February, 1870, this
sum, all but 2s. 6d. per ton royalty on plant, will be saved; and,
therefore, in March next year, rails may be bought for at least 1l. 3s.
per ton less than they cost now.

WORKING MEN AS INVENTORS.

[Page 62.]
Somewhat to my surprise, I am led to apprehend that the interest
of working men will be represented as coinciding with retention of
invention monopoly. I hope they are too wide awake to believe such
a fallacy, and too upright to approve of the continuance of a proved
national disadvantage, even though it were not a fallacy. If Patents
are injurious to the community by raising prices of articles of
consumption and utility, then the operative and labouring classes,
inasmuch as they constitute the bulk of the population, must be the
chief sufferers. If Patents interfere with labour in any direction, and
tend to drive trade away from our island, they, as the mainstays of
industry, must be the chief sufferers. The only pretence for such an
allegation as I am combating is this: some inventions in all trades,
many inventions in some trades, are made by artisans, who
therefore will lose this form of reward. True enough; but is the reward
to these few individuals a compensation for the evils inflicted on the
many—the millions? and is not the reward often so like the gift of a
white elephant, or the catching of a Tartar—so much of a delusion, a
difficulty, a disadvantage, a snare, a ruin—that their wisest
counsellors would warn against its fascination, especially if through
their own favour for my propositions there is the choice of fair and
satisfactory alternative recompenses? The position of working men
in respect to Patents is frequently dealt with in this compilation; their
attention and co-operation I respectfully invite.

THE INVENTORS’ INSTITUTE.

An Inventors’ Institute has been formed for the purpose of
maintaining the Patent System, and amending it in such a way as, I
fear and am sure, will only make its yoke more galling and its burden
heavier. The public will do well to remember that, in spite of the
name, this is rather a society of patentees, including in its
membership a portion only of those inventors who take Patents, and
not including the innumerable inventors who do not take Patents,
and who suffer by the system which the Institute is intended to
perpetuate, extend, and knit more tightly on us all and in the first
place on them. The honoured names who direct that society will do
well to consider who are inventors and what are inventions. If they
would but reflect that we are almost to a man inventors in the sense
in which the great mass of patentees are such, and that the majority
of inventions which choke the Patent-office are such as themselves,
at any rate, would disdain to claim and scorn to annoy their fellows
by patenting, they would probably arrive at the conviction—which is
half-way on the road to complete emancipation of trade from the
fetters they hug—that the system is so practically bad that
rectification is hopeless, and would join in endeavours, not to amend
what is, even theoretically, defective and bad, but to devise and
introduce a thoroughly good substitute. I hope the present
publication will not be in vain, when it endeavours to remove well-
meaning prepossessions by force of truth.