How Well Can We Predict Second Language Learners’ Pronunciation Difficulties?

Oct 15, 2026

7

0

Uploaded by Indoniesian Boy

Explores whether second language (L2) learners’ pronunciation difficulties can be predicted by comparing learners’ first language (L1) and L2, as proposed by the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). Reviews mid-20th-century “scientific” error-prediction ambitions and traces how later research exposed serious flaws in CAH, especially the assumptions of uniformity and equal gravity. Concludes that evidence-based teaching offers a better alternative than error inventories.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Table of Contents

How Well Can We Predict Second Language Learners’ Pronunciation Difficulties?

Error Prediction and Pronunciation Teaching

Predictive Failures of CAH

How Well Can We Predict Second Language Learners’Pronunciation Difficulties? Mid-20th–century scholars argued that second language (L2) instruction should be rooted in a comparison of the structural characteristics of the first language (L1) and L2. Their enthusiasm for a “scientific” approach to errors reflected the view, based on the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH), that learners’ difficulties could be predicted through purely linguistic analyses. Pronunciation seemed particularly amenable to this treatment. If teachers knew their learners’ problems in advance, they could presumably design curricula and activities to address their students’ needs. Although it soon became clear that many aspects of CAH were seriously flawed, interest in a linguistic account of L2 pronunciation difficulties has persisted. This synthesis of empirical findings from pronunciation research demonstrates that the enthusiasm for error prediction has been misguided, largely because of 2 erroneous beliefs: the assumption of uniformity and the assumption of equal gravity. The need for an alternative perspective promoting evidence-based teaching practices is demonstrated. O ne of the most frequent requests that my colleagues and I receive from teachers is for a list of English pronunciation errors that learners from particular first language (L1) back- grounds will make. There is no question that the sound system of the L1 exerts a great deal of influence on how second language (L2) pronunciation is learned. It is for that reason that a Mandarin accent sounds different from a Spanish one. The appeal of a predicted error inventory for learners is therefore understandable: Beginning teachers may imagine a scenario in which they know in advance exactly which pronunciation problems will require attention in their classes. The CATESOL Journal 30.1 • 2018 • 267 They anticipate using this information to tailor instruction to match students’ difficulties so that efficient and effective pronunciation guidance can be provided. Error Prediction and Pronunciation Teaching On the surface, the logic of enhancing teaching by anticipating problem areas seems compelling. In fact, a similar line of argumentation was presented several decades ago when “scientific” comparisons of L1 and L2 were touted as beneficial for curriculum and instruction, whether in grammatical structure or pronunciation. Around that time, Weinreich’s (1968) work on language contact (originally published in 1953) had set the stage for important new research on bilingualism. Also, the influence of a behaviorist theory of language (Skinner, 1957) was being strongly felt in pedagogical circles. Among the proponents of linguistic comparisons were Fries (1945) and Lado (1957), who articulated the tenets of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH), a proposal with both theoretical and practical aims. Considerable value was placed on CAH in the behaviorist-inspired audio-lingual method of instruction, which had gained traction in North America and elsewhere. Audio-lingual teaching treated accurate pronunciation as essential to successful L2 acquisition: Learners were required to listen to and mimic native-speaker models so that pronunciation errors could be avoided as much as possible right from the start. Knowing which errors would occur was therefore argued to assist in the design of teaching materials. As a result of mid-20th–century writing and research on CAH, serious weaknesses in the approach were soon identified. The initial goal of predicting all L2 learner errors on the basis of L1 interference proved unattainable, and a variety of alternative perspectives on errors, such as error analysis (Corder, 1967; James, 1998) were offered and also discovered to be flawed (Schachter, 1974) . None of these proposals has enjoyed the level of scholarly attention that was originally accorded to CAH. Rather, pedagogically oriented researchers have generally turned their attention away f

FAQs

What idea motivated predicting L2 learners’ pronunciation errors?

Mid-20th-century scholars argued that L2 instruction should rely on comparing the structural characteristics of learners’ L1 and L2, assuming difficulties could be predicted through such linguistic analyses.

Why does the document say error prediction via CAH is misguided?

It highlights two erroneous beliefs—uniformity and equal gravity—and explains that patterns of pronunciation errors are not reliably predictable in ways that help teachers.

What alternative does the document support?

It calls for an alternative perspective that promotes evidence-based teaching practices rather than relying on predicted error inventories.

Oct 15, 2026

7

0

Uploaded by Indoniesian Boy