Teaching Language Under a Microscope: A Phonological Solution

As a native English speaker, I, along with what I can only assume is a large majority of the English-speaking population, have a tendency to neglect the audible details of our spoken language. From a young age, we have been subconsciously conditioned to abide by a phonetic alphabet and a set of phonological rules. As Kenstowicz suggests, these “constraints are wired into the system” either genetically or through immersion into the language at a young age, and aid to “circumscribe and direct the [language] learning process" (Kenstowicz 74).

When we consider the speech of those learning English as a second language, errors in pronunciation of phonemes and graphemes are obvious. Much of my Romanian extended family, for example, has trouble distinguishing which vowel allophone is appropriate for usage in a word.  With the “ough” letter sequence, for example, the words, “rough” [r^f], “cough” [kɔf], and “dough” [doʊ] should theoretically rhyme if pronounced by sounding out the words letter-by-letter, as the Romanian language often is. However, these vowels are pronounced open-mid back, rounded close-mid back, and open-mid back, respectively, as per The International Phonetic Alphabet Chart provided in Gusssenhoven’s article. Differences in vertical dimension, vowel heights, and bunch location give each word a different sound and a different context when applied in conversation. These seemingly-unjustified variations in similarly spelled words are an endless source of confusion for many foreign language speakers, including my family.

Each of the phonological variations discussed in Kenstowicz’s article and physical phonation techniques discussed in Gussenhoven’s article is uniquely specific, inviting dozens of questions -- how we can expect new English learners to pick up our verbal lexicon proficiently without being taught English orally at the acute phonological level? Should standard English as a Second Language education involve the teaching of detailed English language phonology, or the use of a phonetic alphabet to allow learners to more comfortably grasp details in pronunciation? If so, could we expand the usage of the International Phonetic Alphabet worldwide in foreign-language education for use as a global Rosetta Stone of phonetic variation?

The answer to the latter question, according to proponents of the generative phonology research program described in Kenstowicz’s article, is likely yes. Instead of examining language from a large-scale, purely orthographical perspective, as often done in foreign language classrooms, education through generative phonology would beg the question, “For any given language X, what features has it selected from the phonetic alphabet to construct its lexicon?” (Kenstowicz 74) That way, students would be able to understand not only the memorized notion that “rough” is pronounced the way it is, but also that it uses a rounded close-mid back pronunciation of [ʌf] that is also found in the words “enough” and “slough”. Similarly, specific aspects of phonation, such as aspiration, devoicing, and glottal stops could be taught using a simplified version of Gussenhoven’s article – allowing the student to develop native-level oral pronunciation habits that will last with them as their foreign-language vocabulary expands. The potential for phonological-oriented language education is exciting and gives me an optimistic outlook for the future of language acquisition efficiency.