Magdalena Szyszka (Auth.) Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety in Search of An Interplay-Springer International Publishing (2017)

Second Language Learning and Teaching
MagdalenaSzyszka
Pronunciation
Learning
Strategies and
Language Anxiety
In Search of an Interplay
Series editor
Mirosaw 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)

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, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microlms 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 specic 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 ndings in the eld 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 ndings 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 ve chapters, offering both
theoretical clarications and empirical ndings. 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 denitions for the key
terms (pronunciation, language learning strategies and pronunciation learning
strategies) are selected from an array of denitions 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 dened with reference to
stable characteristics (trait anxiety) and transience in specic situations
(situation-specic 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 ndings are dis-
cussed and interpreted with the support of the theoretical models of anxiety
explicated earlier in Chap. 3.
The book nishes with general conclusions stemming from the discussion. The
author provides a description of two tentative proles 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 TeachingA
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 Dening 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-Specic
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 rst 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 learners 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 languageso also its components, such as reading,
writing, speaking, listening skills, as well as grammar, vocabulary and pronunci-
ationare 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 conrmed not only by researchers in Poland (e.g.,
Pawlak, 2003; Szpyra-Kozowska, 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 sufcient attention to pronunciation
teaching: for instance, the lack of teaching materials and time available in the
1
Although the author is aware of Krashens (1981) and Krashen and Terrells (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 researchers experience in teaching pho-
netics to learners who have graduated from secondary schools in Poland conrms
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 condent, less perfect
articulation may lead to a lack of condence 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 Millers (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 speakers 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 rst 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 efcient, resourceful, and flexible, thus acquiring a language
more easily (Tseng, Drnyei, & Schmitt, 2006, p. 78). Therefore, future EFL
teachers equipped with an array of pronunciation learning strategies may become
more efcient 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 dened 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 justiable to assume that the choice
and use of PLS is dependent on one of the ILDlanguage 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 teacherwho is also an
advanced L2 learner, experiencing a high level of language anxietychooses 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 specic 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 qualied 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 ofcial 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 clarications 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 proles 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 denitions 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-rst century, and have only recently begun to play a prominent role in this
eld. 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 denition of language
learning strategies are examined, and later exemplied through various classica-
tions of language learning strategies. The nal part of this chapter focuses on
pronunciation learning strategies, their denitions 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,

6 2 Pedagogical and Psychological Background of Pronunciation
an overview of denitions 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 languagephonetics. 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 denition of pho-
netics, which is a broader concept. The following section of this chapter offers a
number of denitions 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-Kozowska, 2002, p. 19). In this denition, 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) denes phonetics as the study and science of speech sounds, and
enumerates four different aspects of this discipline: physiologicaltaking not only
the articulation of sounds into account but also the processing of the speech signal
in the organs of hearing (p. 51), acousticstudying the transmission of speech
waves from the speaker to the receiver, neurologicaldescribing signal transmis-
sions in the different parts of the speech centres, and psychologicalanalysing
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 rst aspect mentioned above.
The aspect of phonetics related to pronunciation is dened 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 signicant
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 difculties 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 Platts (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 Spencers (2000) denition 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 TeachingA

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, Vitor, 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
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 signicantly 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 drillscontrasts within a sentenceor
paradigmatic drillscontrasts 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 Gattegnos 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 rst 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
gestures, tapped out the rhythm, indicated stress with ngers, 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 insufcient and the proposed classroom
tasks focusing on pronunciation are limited to activities such as exposure to
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
(2011ac) 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, Tromovich & 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 conrmed, 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,
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 simplied
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 rst notion is the extent to which a listener actually understands an utterance
or message (p. 32). The second stresses perception of the level of difculty (how
difcult 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., Gogowska, 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.
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-Kozowska, 2004; Waniek-Klimczak, 1997), and they are not discussed
further here.
The choice of a pronunciation model should largely depend on a learners 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 Queens 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 (Gogowska, 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. 2829).
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) conrm 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 learners 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-Kozowska, 2004; Wach, 2011;
Waniek-Klimczak, 1997; Waniek-Klimczak & Klimczak 2005). The results of
research conrm that the majority of EFL university students and teachers choose
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 prociency levels. A group of 134 teenage students learning
English in Polish high schools responded to a question concerning their preferred
pronunciation model (Szpyra-Kozowska, 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 rst 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 pronunciationeither British or Americanfollow 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 rst
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 learners self
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 authors 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 vowellong 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 (Brya, 2006; Dziubalska-Koaczyk & Przedlacka, 2005;
Gogowska, 2003; Sobkowiak, 2003, 2005; Szpyra-Kozowska, 2003, 2004), who
have elucidated a number of arguments against the implementation of LFC.
Gogowska (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-Kozowska (2003) examined LFCs pedagogical feasibility and the
simplicity of its implementation within the Polish frame of reference in a thorough
analysis of the syllabuss 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 simplies 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 simplied ones. If LFC is introduced in the
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 teachers 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-Kozowska
(2004) and Brya (2006). In the rst study 134 Polish students learning English at
the age of 1617 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 articial, it is over-simplied, 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-Kozowska, 2004, p. 118)and for its perceived sim-
plicity. Szpyra-Kozowska (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. Brya
(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, Brya (2006) concluded that both
groups value[d] good English pronunciation (p. 34) and Jenkinss (2000)
assumptions were not conrmed 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 unied
model is essential for mutual intelligibility and it is useful to model your pro-
nunciation on one varietybut also recognise that this is just one of many equally
acceptable varieties (Hewings, 2007, p. 10).
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). Fleges Speech Learning
Model (cf. Strange & Shafer, 2008) further explains that it may be difcult 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 claries this with
the observation that there are two modes of speech processing: a context-specic
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 learners L2 experience and
the difculty of the input and task. If the L2 message is complex and a task is
demanding, the learners 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.
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 signicantly

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., Drnyei, 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 Drnyei (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 classied 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 rst 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 learners internal characteristics, marginalising the role of the
context for pronunciation learning.
More attention to the environment is given by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), who

view the influence of ILD on ultimate target language pronunciation attainment
from the perspective of effective teaching. They propose another taxonomy of
individual variables important for pronunciation learning: age, exposure to the
target language, quantity and type of prior second-language instruction, aptitude,
attitude, and motivation. They also consider the role of the native language as
influential in the process of phonological acquisition. This nal factor, the native
language of the learner, is also taken into account by Kenworthy (1987), who adds
phonetic ability, identity and concern for good pronunciation to the list of factors
affecting the ultimate success in L2 pronunciation. However, both Celce-Murcia
et al. (2010) and Kenworthy (1987) disregard several factors proposed by Wrembel
(2008), including language anxiety.
Perhaps the most comprehensive classication has been proposed by Zhang
(2009), who offers a precise organisation of those factors that are considered to
exert influence on the acquisition of the target language pronunciation. Generally,
they are divided into internal, in the sense that they derive from the learners
themselves (biological, cognitive and psychological), and external, influenced by
the context of language learning (sociocultural and pedagogical). The internal
variables are conditioned either biologically (in terms of age), cognitively (in
relation to aptitude, learning style, learning strategies) or psychologically (con-
cerning motivation and affective factors, such as identity, beliefs and anxiety). The
external factors refer to the environment in which a learner approaches the learning
of the target language, e.g., a learners native language, exposure to a target lan-
guage, quantity and type of pronunciation instruction. Zhangs (2009) taxonomy is
followed below to organise the discussion on factors affecting pronunciation
learning. Starting with the issue of age that is crucial for educational
policy-making, and for language pedagogy (Ellis, 1994, p. 485), internal factors
are presented before the external ones.
2.1.4.1 Selected Internal Factors: Biological, Cognitive

and Psychological
One of the biological factors apparently affecting L2 pronunciation acquisition is

age. Generally, there are inconsistent views on the influence of the age factor on
pronunciation acquisition. One group of researchers conrms the hypothesis that
younger learners (those before the age of puberty) have a greater chance of
effortlessly acquiring a target second or foreign language native-like pronunciation
(e.g., Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Piske, Flege,
MacKay, & Meador, 2002). However, results from a number of research studies do
not conrm childrens superiority over older learners in foreign language pronun-
ciation acquisition (e.g., Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Bongaerts, Van Summeren,
Planken, & Schils, 1997). Nevertheless, researchers continue to investigate the
threshold period beyond which native-like pronunciation is less achievable, along
with other psychological and social factors linked to the age of learners.
One of the rst researchers to approach the factor of age as potentially affecting
rst language acquisition was Lenneberg (1967). His Critical Period Hypothesis
(CPH) assumes that there is an age beyond which a language cannot be acquired
through mere exposure. This critical period overlaps with the age of puberty, during
which several maturational and neurological changes take place. Lennebergs CPH
is also researched in the context of foreign or second language learning. However,
researchers disagree as to the interpretation of the critical period and its onset (cf.
Pawlak, 2009). Moreover, they distinguish between two terms: critical period and
sensitive period, whose denitions exemplify the discrepancies between approaches
to the process of a second language acquisition. The former implies the age at
which there is a sudden decline in language acquisition, whereas the latter is viewed
as the innate capacity (which) does not suddenly disappear but gradually declines
with age (Pawlak, 2009, p. 338). Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) and Ellis (1994) even
mention several sensitive periods during which different aspects of the language are
acquired.
Abercrombie (1967), Dalton and Seidlhofer (1994), and Ellis (1994) are of the
opinion that effortless acquisition of native-like foreign or second language pro-
nunciation is possible before the brain loses its full plasticity, i.e., before puberty.
Scovel (1988) implies that this period also involves the loss of neuro-muscular
flexibility that locates pronunciation among linguistic abilities strongly affected by a
critical period. As soon as the process of brain lateralization ensues, pronunciation
learning requires a greater effort on the part of learners, even if they want it
[pronunciation] to be no better than merely intelligible (Abercrombie, 1967, p. 21).
Similarly, Kenworthy (1987) claims that before the age of puberty, children have a
chance to acquire native-like pronunciation when exposed to the target language.
She adds that the age of learners beyond puberty does not affect FL pronunciation
acquisition. In other words, 16 and 60 year-old learners have the same chances of
learning FL pronunciation. In Singletons (cf. Ellis, 1994, p. 492) view, the amount
of exposure to a target language among pre-pubescent learners is a necessary
condition for the acquisition of the target language accent. Schumanns (cf. Dalton
& Seildhofer, 1994, p. 8) affective theory also maintains the view that age influ-
ences pronunciation acquisition. Children are more open to learning in general. Due
to psychological factors, learners become more resistant to pronunciation acquisi-
tion with age.
In conclusion, there are several arguments supporting the influence of the age
factor on second language phonological acquisition. The role of age may be
explained not only with reference to the critical and sensitive period hypothesis
based on neurological changes of the brain but also, as Ellis (1994) suggests, by
affective-motivational factors (children are more open and motivated to commu-
nicate with their peers, who are native speakers of the target language), cognitive
factors indicating that children learn more inductively and are in the process of
creating sound categories (Bongaerts et al., 1997), and the amount of input they
receive over an extended time period (Moyer, 1999).
However, there is still no clear evidence for a simple and straightforward link
between age and ability to pronounce a new language (Kenworthy, 1987, p. 6).
Colantoni, Steele, and Escudero (2015) list three reasons why ultimate attainment in
L2 pronunciation may not necessarily be connected with critical or sensitive period.
Firstly, there is evidence that the speech of some learners who commenced their L2
learning after puberty is evaluated as native-like. Secondly, the results of research
have demonstrated a linear and gradual, rather than bi-modal in the sense of pre-
and post-puberty, deterioration in L2 pronunciation acquisition. Finally, failure in
native-like pronunciation attainment among adults may be influenced by the quality
and quantity of input they receive.
The debate on the influence of age on S/FL pronunciation has triggered a dis-
cussion concerning important issues with regard to the pedagogy of pronunciation.
If the age factor is conrmed to determine phonological acquisition, young learners
of a foreign language should be widely exposed to the pronunciation model of the
target language, and teachers should be very well prepared to implement pronun-
ciation teaching at earlier stages of education. Thus, this assumption would initiate
the establishing of high standards for target language pronunciation development in
the teacher training process.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider that unless massive amounts of input are
provided in formal instructional settings, the success may not be warranted (cf.
Singleton, 2014). Undoubtedly, most primary-level school curricula offer a limited
number of hours for foreign language learning in comparison with the amount of L2
exposure that second language learners receive in naturalistic settings. Moreover,
most research on the age factor in pronunciation acquisition has focused on
immigrants, learning their second language in the country where this language is
dominant. Therefore, without further research centred around the formal instruc-
tional setting, any pedagogical implications concerning the age factor in pronun-
ciation teaching are only tentative.
There are several cognitive factors which affect the acquisition of pronunciation:
language aptitude, learning styles, and learning strategies (cf. Wrembel, 2008). Two
of those factorslanguage aptitude and learning stylesare discussed in detail
below; whereas the link between learning strategies and pronunciation is delineated
in Sect. 2.3.2 because of their crucial role in this volume.
Language aptitude is dened as an entity consisting of relatively stable factors
within an individual that promote successful language learning (Leaver, Ehrman,
& Shekhtman, 2005, p. 56). Drnyei (2005) views language aptitude as a variety
of human traits that are involved in thinking, reasoning, processing information,
and acquiring a new knowledge (p. 32) in the context of language learning. Both
denitions refer to a learners individual ability as it is employed in the cognitive
process of target language learning. This general concept of aptitude is divided,
according to Carroll (1981), into four subcomponents: phonetic coding ability,
grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability and memory. The rst
one is directly linked to pronunciation learning, although the memory trait is also
relevant (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 20). Phonetic coding ability is manifested in
an appropriate discrimination of the target language sounds and the formation of
proper symbol-to-sound and sound-to-symbol associations, which are later easily
recalled. Moreover, the above four subcomponents are supplemented with one more
issue linked to pronunciation acquisitionauditory ability (cf. Piasecka, 2008).
Therefore, within the concept of language aptitude two traits are directly connected
with pronunciation: phonetic coding and auditory discrimination abilities. These
two abilities are also regarded by Kenworthy (1987) as referring to the concept of
phonetic ability termed aptitude for oral mimicry. Generally, Gass and Selinker
(2008) claim that aptitude is consistently the best predictor of language learning
success (p. 417). In Purcell and Suters (1980) research aptitude and ability to
mimic are found among the predictors of second language pronunciation
performance.
Other cognitive factors affecting pronunciation acquisition are termed learning
styles. These are dened as characteristic ways in which individuals orientate to
problem-solving (Ellis, 1994, p. 499). They are relatively stable and reveal the
ways a learner perceives and interacts with their environment. Cognitive psychol-
ogy distinguishes several types of learners with specic learning styles, e.g.,
focusers and scanners, or serialists and holists. The learning styles most researched
in SLA, according to Ellis (1994), are those referring to eld dependence (FD) and
eld independence (FI). The former deals with people (usually children or females)
who perceive the surrounding parts of the learning environment as fused, whereas
FI applies to people (usually adolescents or males) who view and organise parts of
the learning context as separate entities. According to Baran (2004), there is a
moderate but statistically signicant difference between the FI learning style and
pronunciation accuracy. She posits that the FI learning style is a predictor of foreign
language pronunciation acquisition; in other words, FI individuals are more accu-
rate in their pronunciation than their FD counterparts. Ellis (1994) also conrms a
moderate positive correlation between sound discrimination, as an element of
aptitude, and FI. Elliott (1995) states that although FI is related to pronunciation
accuracy, it is not the most signicant factor. It is therefore necessary to point out
that the research results into FD and FI are tentative and have beencriticised mainly
due to controversies surrounding the instruments measuring FD and FI.
Another approach to learning styles distinguishes four channels of a learners
perception, which tend to dominate over the others when people interact with
reality (Bukowski, 2003, p. 12). These are visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile
modalities, which differentiate between individuals approaches to learning. Brown
(2000) views them as the stable and consistent preferences of an individual.
Bukowski (2003) draws attention to the importance of considering different
modalities of learners when teaching target language pronunciation. He conrms
after Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) that the majority of pronunciation practice activities
in the classroom are auditory, therefore directed towards auditory learners. Most of
the learners in his study, however, were visual, hence his suggestions for adapting
methods of pronunciation teaching towards individuals learning styles. The
drawback of this study is that it does not provide statistical evidence supporting the
effectiveness of pronunciation teaching and learning based on learners modalities.
Even if learners create a comparatively homogenous group with reference to
such factors as age, aptitude or learning style, considerable differences in
pronunciation can still be found. Other factors which may additionally contribute to
pronunciation and speaking competence belong to the realm of personality, such as
extroversion vs. introversion, or affect, like motivation, empathy, ego-permeability,
inhibition, risk-taking, self-image (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Waniek-Klimczak,
2011).
The most widely researched hypothesis concerning one of the personality
aspects in SLA, according to Ellis (1994), states that extroverts are better at basic
interpersonal communication skills (BICS) than introverts. Although the influence
of this personality dimension on L2 oral performance has been the frequent subject
of several studies (e.g., Gan, 2008; Hassan, 2001; Van Daele, 2005), the results are
tentative and inconclusive. Gan (2008) did not nd statistically signicant corre-
lation between oral performance aspects and extroversion/introversion, although
extroverts speech generally demonstrate[d] a higher level of accuracy and flu-
ency (p. 24). In Van Daeles (2005) study the influence of extroversion on speech
production aspects was not conrmed. On the other hand, Hassan (2001) found
extroversion/introversion a signicant predictor of pronunciation accuracy of
English as a foreign language. His Arabic speaking extrovert participants outper-
formed introvert learners in their English pronunciation accuracy.
Motivation is an affective and psychologically conditioned individual difference
pertaining to the acquisition of the target language pronunciation. It is subdivided
by Lightbown and Spada (1993) into two factors: learners communicative needs
(e.g., when a learner wants to use the language in a range of situations) and attitude
towards the target language community (e.g., when a learner desires contact with
target language users and their culture). Learners pronunciation achievement might
be influenced by both of these factors.
Moyer (1999) has researched motivation as a factor linked to pronunciation,
revealing that motivation was the most important factor in explaining the good but
non-native pronunciation (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 22). Motivation and atti-
tude towards pronunciation have been found to be the second strongest predictor of
mastering foreign language pronunciation in the study of Purcell and Suter (1980).
Bongaerts et al. (1997) have also conrmed the importance of motivation in pro-
nunciation acquisition while investigating highly motivated Dutch learners, who
were rated as native or near native speakers.
Classic studies conducted by Guiora, Beit-Hallahani, Brannon, Dull, and Scovel
(1972b) and Guiora, Brannon, and Dull (1972a) have investigated the relationship
between affective factors and pronunciation attainment. Their hypothesis assumes
that empathy, as a psychological variable linked to ego permeability, is a factor
determining the approximation of the native-like pronunciation of the second lan-
guage learner. Guiora et al. (1972a) are of the opinion that speaking in a foreign
language entails the radical operation of learning and manipulating a new grammar,
syntax, and vocabulary and () modifying one of the basic modes of identication
by the self and others, the way we sound (cited in Celce-Murcia et al., 2010,
p. 20). The way a learner pronounces the target language is connected with the
extent to which they are ready to accept their new self, their new identity, their new
ego. Guiora et al. (1972b) claim that
Essentially, to learn a second language is to take on a new identity. Since pronunciation
appears to be the aspect of language behavior most resistant to change, we submit that it is
therefore the most critical to self-representation. Hence, we propose that the most sensitive
index of the ability to take on a new identity, i.e., the degree of permeability of language
ego boundaries, is found in the ability to achieve native like pronunciation in a second
language (p. 422).
Thus, the ability to flexibly alter ones ego is considered by these researchers as
valuable in achieving native-like pronunciation of a foreign language. The L2
learners who are ready to adapt L2 features (the learners with greater ego perme-
ability) are more likely to acquire better target language pronunciation (cf.
Kenworthy, 1987; Rogerson-Revell, 2011). This is also comrmed in
Waniek-Klimczaks (2011) study, where a weak positive correlation has been
observed between ego-permeability and pronunciation. Thus, if learners adapt their
ego more easily and flexibly, their pronunciation is better in comparison to those
whose attitude to changing ego is more rigid.
Schumann (1986) repeats after Guiora et al. (1972b in Schumann, 1986) that
ego-permeability can be induced by lowering the learners level of inhibition
(p. 384). Therefore, lower levels of inhibition lead to greater openness and adapt-
ability towards the target language context or input, which in turn enhances target
language pronunciation acquisition. To conrm the above hypothesis Guiora et al.
(1972b) employ a very controversial form of manipulation in their research. Having
measured how lowered levels of inhibition influence target language pronunciation,
they conclude that after the application of small amounts of alcohol, learners
pronunciation of L2 sounds may improve, possibly due to relaxation of muscles or
the lowering of inhibition levels. However, pronunciation deteriorates after the
application of greater doses.
Further research by Guiora, Buchtel, Herold, Homburg, and Woken (1983),
focusing on the relationship of affective factors and pronunciation, conrms the
correlation between measurements of hemispheric efciency and levels of
native-like pronunciation. To be more precise, an L2 level of pronunciation is
influenced by the appropriate hemispheric activity. Thus, the authors draw the
conclusion that it is possible to associate affective variables with a specic
neuroanatomical structure (Guiora et al., 1983, p. 1) which affects L2 pronunci-
ation in the process of foreign/second language learning. In other words, excessive
muscular tension of articulators caused by an affective factor such as, e.g., anxiety
may influence the manner of pronouncing utterances.
The affective variable of risk-taking, among others, is investigated with reference
to pronunciation and speaking by Waniek-Klimczak (2011), who nds a weak
negative correlation between risk-taking and pronunciation. The higher the par-
ticipants scored on pronunciation accuracy, the fewer risks they were prepared to
take. The result suggests a possible conflict between the strategies needed for
success in speaking and success in pronunciation (Waniek-Klimczak, 2011,
p. 128). Although the study conducted by Waniek-Klimczak (2011) does not

conrm the relationship between pronunciation and either inhibition or ambiguity
tolerance, it describes these factors as influential for speaking.
Affective factors are considered influential in learners perception of pronunci-
ation improvement. Learners view three barriers which prevent them from raising
pronunciation competence: physiological, sociocultural and psychological
(Pennington, 1994 in Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). The rst of these is linked to the
erroneous preconception on the part of learners that the L2 position of articulators is
difcult, if not impossible, to adjust. The second barrier implies learners attitudes
to a target language culture and motivation. Finally, the psychological barrier is
grounded in personality and affective factors. The perceived influence of affective
variables on L2 pronunciation has been conrmed in Derwing and Rossiters
(2002) attitudinal study collecting participants views on pronunciation needs.
Interestingly, 60% of the respondents conrmed that their accent changed when
nervous or excited.
In conclusion, emotional states should be considered as variables potentially
influencing L2 pronunciation and should be the subject of further research. Ohata
(2005) goes even further suggesting that language ego, researched by Guiora et al.
(1983) as ego permeability linked to L2 pronunciation prociency, might be easily
threatened by a self-perceived incompetence with regard to L2, resulting in a high level
of anxiety. Therefore, it is justiable to assume that pronunciation of L2 learners might
differ depending on anxiety levels. What is more, language anxiety levels may also
trigger ineffective use of learning strategies (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Mihaljevi
Djigunovi, 2000; Park, 2007), which are examined in the following chapter.
2.1.4.2 Selected External Factors: Native Language, Exposure

and Instruction
Sociocultural and pedagogical factors affecting L2 pronunciation learning are

understood by Zhang (2009) as those relating to the external conditions influencing
the process of L2 acquisition. In other words, these factors refer, among other areas,
to a learners native language, the amount of exposure to a target language and
types of pronunciation instruction.
The mother tongue is considered an important factor influencing foreign lan-
guage pronunciation acquisition (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Kenworthy, 1987;
Purcell & Sutter, 1980; Rogerson-Revell, 2011). There have been several theories
investigating the role of the rst language in learning the second language sound
system: for example contrastive analysis, whose proponents claim that the negative
transfer (or interference) of L1 is an important factor influencing the degree of
foreign accent in the target language (Lado, 1957). This thesis has also been sup-
ported by Purcell and Sutter (1980), who found native language to be the most
statistically signicant variable influencing SL pronunciation acquisition. In other
words, the difference between the phonological systems of L1 and L2 may either
help or impede the L2 pronunciation acquisition. It is therefore necessary to realise

that certain L2 pronunciation errors might be caused due to the influence of L1.
According to Rogerson-Revell (2011), one of the critical factors in L2 pro-
nunciation acquisition is exposure to the target language. However, there is dis-
agreement concerning the perception of the level of importance of the amount of L2
exposure. Kenworthy (1987) nds it contributory but not a necessary factor for the
development of pronunciation skills (p. 6). Similarly, exposure to a target language
(a conversation with a native speaker) is placed in the third position of the list of
predictors of pronunciation inaccuracy, with mother tongue and motivation being
more important (Purcell & Sutter, 1980).
Another factor considered influential as far as pronunciation learning is con-
cerned refers to pronunciation instruction. It is still debatable whether explicit
instruction correlates with pronunciation achievement. Purcell and Sutter (1980)
have not found any signicant links between the two. What is more, the results of
their study indicate mimicry, or the ability to imitate, a strong predictor of pro-
nunciation competence. However, this question has also been raised by Wrembel
(2003), who quotes several studies substantiating a statistically signicant rela-
tionship between formal instruction and success in the development of pronunci-
ation. Explicit instruction is also claimed to be an important facilitator for the
development of learners metalinguistic awareness, which in turn might contribute
to better spoken comprehensibility (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 34) and foreign
language pronunciation acquisition in general. For instance, Venkatagiri and Levis
(2007) found a positive correlation between the way their study participants
comprehended speech and their level of metaphonological awareness. Wrembel
(2004) investigated the influence of explicit instruction on pronunciation acquisi-
tion, and conrmed that those more metalinguistically competent participants of her
experiment signicantly outperformed the control group only in the form-focused
i.e., controlledpronunciation task, whereas the perception test results were not
signicantly different.
In conclusion, research ndings concerning the influence of formal instruction
on pronunciation are inconclusive. On the one hand, explicit pronunciation
instruction given to Polish secondary school students is incidental and scarce,
conrmed by a qualitative and quantitative analysis of secondary school classroom
observations of English lessons conducted by Pawlak (2003), as well as diagnostic
studies by Szpyra-Kozowska et al. (2002) and Wrembel (2002). On the other hand,
there is a paucity of studies investigating the effectiveness of pronunciation learning
strategies applied as part of a training programme to pre-service trainee teachers.
Undoubtedly, language and pronunciation learning strategies constitute a promising
but under-researched area, which needs to be investigated for a better understanding
of L2 pronunciation acquisition processes.
2.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)
Language learning strategies (LLS) are not easy to dene although they are, as
Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) voice, something that L2 learners do in order to
enhance the process of L2 learning. The era of LLS research that flourished in the
1990s and progressed into the new millennium was initiated in the 1970s through
investigations into what good language learners do that distinguishes them from
less successful L2 language learners (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Extracting the
strategic behaviours of good language learners inspired scholars to propose LLS
denitions and taxonomies (cf. Grifths, 2013; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
1990, 2011). A range of research has been directed towards strategies applied when
learning L2 skills, such as reading, writing, speaking, listening, vocabulary or
grammar (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Grifths, 2008a; Oxford, 2011). However,
only the minimal number of studies have focused on those strategies employed by
learners when acquiring foreign language pronunciation (Berkil, 2008; Eckstein,
2007; Osburne, 2003; Pawlak, 2008, 2010; Peterson, 2000).
Promising as it is, research into LLS is not devoid of controversy. For example, a
range of proposed LLS denitions have evoked fervent debates, particularly among
those who aimed to attribute LLS to either the behavioural or cognitive realm (cf.
Cohen & Macaro, 2007). In other words, some researchers view LLS as observable
behaviours amongst learners, whereas others treat them as internalised mental
operations (Tseng, Drnyei, & Schmitt, 2006). Further ambiguities in dening
effective deployment of LLS refer to such dichotomies as conscious (Oxford, 1990,
2011; Macaro, 2006) versus automatic (Wenden, 1991) use of LLS, their efcacy
measured best by frequency (Oxford, 1990) or individual orchestration (Macaro,
2006). Not only has it proved difcult to arrive at a precise denition and clear-cut
categorization, but the number of LLS is also an issue open to debate (Oxford,
1990). Nevertheless, LLS have found their distinct place in SLA research (Ellis,
2008; Gass & Selinker, 2008).
The discussion below commences with a presentation of several denitions of
LLS, which exemplify the evolutionary progress towards more recent proposals.
This is followed by an overview of the most widely used taxonomies of LLS and
selected factors affecting their choice, before attention is given to pronunciation
learning strategies (PLS), their typology and role in L2 pronunciation learning.
2.2.1 Dening Language Learning Strategies
Approaches to dening the LLS construct have changed with time. At the early
stage of LLS research various denitions caused confusion resulting in a range of
study designs which generated ambiguous outcomes (Grifths, 2008b). In the
1990s perhaps the most widely cited denitions proposed by OMalley & Chamot
(1990) and Oxford (1990) were supported with taxonomies and tools for measuring
2.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS) 27
LLS. Later, in the rst decade of the twenty rst century, more systematic
approaches to dening LLS were adopted (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Grifths,
2008a, 2013; Oxford, 2011).
Since the 1970s a number of researchers have approached the problem of
dening the concept. Bialystok (1978) views language learning strategies as op-
timal means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a sec-
ond language (p. 71). Although this denition clearly emphasises the intentional
function of LLS use (LLS are used to achieve higher L2 competence), the broad
term optimal means is ambiguous, because it might refer to both those external and
internal operations (behavioural and mental) that a learner uses to arrive at a higher
L2 level. In a similar vein, OMalley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Krupper, and
Russo (1985) dene LLS as operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate
the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information (p. 23). In other words, LLS
deployment triggers cognitive processes within a learner who becomes more
effective and successful in FL learning. Although this denition adds a cognitive
dimension to the effects that LLS should produce, it is still unclear as to whether the
operations and steps are the behavioural or mental actions of an L2 learner.
Likewise, another denition proposed during that period compares LLS to the
techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge (Rubin, 1975,
p. 43). Finally, the early attempts at conceptualising LLS are also imprecise also in
terms of the metalanguage used to describe strategic behaviour. Notions such as
operations, steps, techniques and devices occur interchangeably in various deni-
tions, although their meanings range from more abstract and general to more
specic and concrete (Grenfel & Macaro, 2007).
In 1990 two denitions were postulated which have proved influential and
widely cited in LLS research (OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). One of
these comprises earlier interpretations, positing that LLS are steps taken by stu-
dents to enhance their own learning (Oxford, 1990, p. 1), and adding that they are
operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and
use of information (ibid., p. 8). Later, Oxford (1999) redenes LLS as specic
actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques that students use to improve their own
progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language. These strategies can
facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language (p. 518).
This denition directs the attention towards a few areas of debate. Although the
repertoire of what LLS refer to is broad (actions, behaviours, steps, techniques), the
problem of whether they are used deliberately or partially automatically has still not
been solved. Moreover, there is a lack of information concerning whether strategies
are used intentionally by L2 learners. However, there is clear emphasis on the
facilitative power of LLS linked to cognitive processing stages and language skills,
including pronunciation as a component of speaking.
In a similar vein, OMalley and Chamot (1990) view LLS as referring to lan-
guage processing stages because strategies are special thoughts and behaviours
that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain information (p. 1) as
well as behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that are
intended to influence the learners encoding process (ibid., p. 17). Here learning
strategies are perceived as mental operations and behavioural actions which facil-
itate the process of encoding consisting of selection, when a learner is attentive and
ready to absorb information; acquisition, when the selected information goes to the
short-term memory and is then transferred to the long-term memory where it is
stored permanently; construction, when the internal connections between ideas in
the working memory are built with the aid of schemata from the long-term memory;
and integration, when the learner uses the knowledge from the long-term memory
by transferring it to the working memory (cf. Weinstein & Mayer, 1986 in
OMalley & Chamot, 1990). This denition was later developed into one that
stressed both the behavioural and cognitive nature of learning strategies, dened as
any thoughts, behaviours, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the acquisition,
understanding, or later transfer of new knowledge and skills (Tseng et al., 2006,
p. 80). However, this combination of behavioural and cognitive approaches put
together was perceived as highly unlikely (ibid., p. 80).
Cohens (1998) approach to dening the construct concentrates on the process
that a learner needs to follow:
Language learning strategies include strategies for identifying the material that needs to be
learned, distinguishing it from other material if need be, grouping it for easier learning (i.e.,
grouping vocabulary by category into nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and so forth),
having repeated contact with the material (e.g., through classroom tasks or the completion
of homework assignments), and formally committing the material to memory when it does
not seem to be acquired naturally (whether through rote memory techniques such as rep-
etition, the use of mnemonics, or some other memory technique) (p. 5).
This process requires careful planning and ordering of actions on the learners
part in order to learn a language. Additionally, particular stages of the process
trigger specic decisions to be made, e.g., how to group the material to be learnt
most effectively and which technique to choose for successful memorisation.
Strategic decisions, therefore, entail making conscious choices with regard to
operations or actions from the repertoires available.
Swans (2008) denition of a strategy postulates that it is the way you choose to
deal with questions that arise on the way to obtaining that result (p. 263). This
implies making choices from a range of alternatives in order to arrive successfully
at the desired outcome. A person should choose one way of approaching a problem
from a set of alternatives because strategies are specic methods of approaching a
problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, or planned
designs for controlling and manipulating certain information (Brown, 2001,
p. 210). Therefore, a learner should know a range of such methods, modes or
designs in order to be able to choose from them during the process of learning.
Goal orientation is ascribed to be an identifying feature of learning strategies (cf.
Grifths, 2013). MacIntyre (1994) suggests that a strategy is a plan used inten-
tionally by a student who feels it necessary to employ such an approach in a given
situation. This means that s/he will consciously choose what is in his/her view the
best option from a set of available strategies. Similarly, Macaro (2004), while
sceptical about the possibility of a precise denition, proposes a model of learning
strategies deployment that implies goal orientation. Viewing the use of LLS in
terms of thinking, he locates the construct within the cognitive domain, where
intentional mental action is an essential component of a proposed condition: IF in
a learning situation X, AND when the learning goal is Y, THEN try mental action
Z (p. 4). In other words, the deployment of a strategy is a purposeful mental
activity a learner takes in a specic context in order to achieve a learning goal.
Another important dimension of learning strategies refers to the degree of
automaticity triggered by their usage. The question of whether LLS are used
consciously or automatically has been raised by several researchers, some of whom
insist on the conscious use of strategies, adding that this factor differentiates
strategies from non-strategic behaviour (Cohen, 1998, p. 4). Chamot (2004)
emphasises the notion of awareness by incorporating it in the denition, stating that
learning strategies are the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in
order to achieve a learning goal (p. 14). On the other hand, Wenden (1991)
postulates that learning strategies may also be used automatically, for example
when a learner knows a strategy very well and applies it frequently in a learning
situation. Grifths (2013) tries to reconcile the opposing views by placing the
conscious strategy use on a continuum, stretching from the deliberate to the auto-
matic deployment of learning strategies. Furthermore, she supports her proposal by
pointing out that learners who use a strategy for the rst time need to make
deliberate decisions, whereas experienced learners strategy selections are likely to
be more automatic (pp. 910).
Effective deployment of learning strategies is hypothesized to be well orches-
trated (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007, Macaro, 2006), which means that several learning
strategies appear in clusters (Macaro, 2004) and may be used either simultaneously
or sequentially. This characteristic feature of strategies is observed by Oxford
(2003), who perceives a strategy as effective and helpful when used in accordance
with other relevant strategies, and denes a chain of strategies as a set of inter-
locking, related and mutually supportive strategies (Oxford, 2001, p. 166).
Therefore, L2 learners select not one but a combination of strategies deployed in
logical sequences, which support their effective learning of L2 reading, writing,
listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation (Pawlak, 2008,
p. 317).
Language learning strategies are frequently discussed from the perspective of
educational psychology as being involved in the process of learners self-regulation,
which emphasizes learners innate self-regulatory capacity that fuels their efforts to
search for and then apply personalized strategic learning mechanisms (Tseng et al.
2006, p. 79). This approach underlines the role of those learner differences which
determine learners innate ability to self-regulate. The difference between a good
and a bad learner is that the former is capable of searching for and applying
individualized (innate) strategic learning mechanisms, whereas the latter is not.
Grifths (2013) places language learning strategies among the tools that help L2
learners regulate their learning. Oxford (2011) goes even further, proposing her
Strategic Self-regulation (S2R) Model of language learning, in which the use of
strategies feeds into L2 learners active and constructive learning. Therefore,
according to Oxford (2011), self-regulated L2 learning strategies are deliberate,
goal-directed attempts to manage and control efforts to learn the L2. These
strategies are broad, teachable actions that learners choose from among alternatives
and employ for L2 learning purposes (p. 12). This denition incorporates a
number of LLS characteristic features discussed above, e.g., a degree of con-
sciousness in applying LLS, goal-orientation, choice from among alternative
strategies. Additionally, Oxford (2011) lists other elements of self-regulated L2
learning strategies, such as their manifestation through tactics chosen specically
for a learning purpose and situation, their function in terms of accelerating and
facilitating L2 learning, and their potential for reflecting multidimensional aspects
of an L2 learnercognitive, metacognitive, social, cultural and affective.
Bearing in mind several controversies and inconsistencies concerning the term,
Cohen (2007 in Cohen & Macaro, 2007) conducted a survey whose aim was to
collect views on LLS terminology from the eld of LLS experts. He used a broad
denition in the questionnaire, classifying LLS as conscious mental activities,
which must contain not only an action but a goal (or an intention) and a learning
situation (p. 31). Cohens respondents, i.e., the scholars researching LLS, were to
express their opinions as to whether they agree or disagree with the proposed
denition. Discussions were subsequently raised with regard to a range of areas,
including consciousness of LLS deployment, as a trigger for intentionality, atten-
tion, awareness and control. Cohen and Macaro (2007) conrmed that
any given strategy has to have a metacognitive component whereby the learner consciously
and intentionally attends selectively to a learning task, analyses the situation and task, plans
for a course of action, monitors the execution of the plan, and evaluates the effectiveness of
the whole process (p. 32).
The above statement illustrates the process of applying LLS to a learning task at
a metacognitive level. Such a process consists of several operations and decisions
that must be undertaken by a learner in order to accelerate L2 learning with the help
of LLS.
As a consequence of the thirty-year-old debate concerning LLS, Grifths
(2008b) observes the need for a precise denition. She analyses the most contro-
versial issues concerning LLS and discusses six essential properties before
proposing her own denition of LLS as [a]ctivities consciously chosen by learners
for the purpose of regulating their own language learning (p. 87). Firstly, the term
activities entails both mental and behavioural processes that reflect what L2 learners
do actively. Secondly, LLS deployment is placed on a continuum from more
deliberately to more automatically used strategies, both types, however, entailing
the element of consciousness. Thirdly, LLS are chosen from an array of available
strategies and this choice depends on contextual (teaching/learning method, situa-
tion, task) and individual factors (including motivation, age, gender, anxiety, cul-
ture, nationality). Fourthly, LLS use is intentional and purposeful. Next, learners
use LLS in order to regulate their L2 learning process and become active partic-
ipants in their own learning (p. 86). Finally, the main purpose of LLS use is to
facilitate learning.
Fig. 2.1 The process of LLS use
Generally, the process of LLS use, based on the denitions and deliberations
above, might be expressed in the form of a conditional sentence (Fig. 2.1): If a
learner (L) consciously and intentionally takes/uses/employs/exploits steps/
techniques/devices/operations, then learning/acquisition/storage/retrieval/use of
language/L2 competence is enhanced/aided. This proposal complies with the
argument that the actual student response only becomes strategic if it matches the IF
condition in the pursuit of a goal, that is, if it is appropriate for the particular
purpose (Drnyei, 2005, p. 165).
Considering all the denitions of LLS mentioned above, LLS are perceived in
this volume as conscious actions, steps and operations, which may trigger a lear-
ners use of a range of tactics and devices, chosen intentionally in order to facilitate
the process of learning a language and its components, e.g., pronunciation, at each
of the cognitive stages: input, internal processing and output. The above denition
is in line with that proposed by Grifths (2008b), who views language learning
strategies as [a]ctivities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regu-
lating their own language learning (p. 87). The term pronunciation learning
strategies, is discussed later in Sect. 2.3.
2.2.2 Selected Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies
Since 1990 there have been several attempts to scrutinise the characteristics of LLS.
For example, Ellis (1994) and Cohen (2011) posit two different subcategories:
strategies for learning and strategies for using. An L2 learner deploys a different set
of strategies in these two different circumstances although, in the opinion of Ekstein
(2007), sets frequently overlap, as while applying strategies for using an L2 lan-
guage (for example while communicating a message in L2), a learner can also
activate a number of learning strategies and vice versa. This dissertation focuses on
language learning strategies activated mainly in the process of L2 learning.
Learning strategies are used frequently with reference to two concepts, i.e.,
general approaches and specic actions (Ellis, 1994). A general approach is viewed
as a broad and comprehensive plan a learner carefully prepared by a learner in order

to achieve a learning goal. A strategic plan, according to Macaro (2006), is devised
on the basis of a learners metacognitive knowledge and experience. This plan
entails the deployment of either a single strategy (Oxford, 2011) or a cluster of
strategies (Macaro, 2006) perceived by a learner as optimal to arrive at a goal in a
specic learning situation. As a consequence, a learner takes a specic action,
which is any individual processing technique one uses in service of the plan
(Derry, 1988, p. 2), also compared to the term tactics. In her research on pronun-
ciation learning strategies, Peterson (2000) also distinguishes strategies from tactics,
using strategies as broader umbrella terms for sets of particular tactics deployed in
the process of L2 pronunciation learning.
Sustaining this distinction, a tactic is viewed as a specic, applied way or ways
in which a strategy is being used to meet a goal in a particular situation and
instance (Oxford, 2011, p. 31). More specically, a tactic is an action taken in a
particular situation with the purpose of learning L2 effectively, whereas a language
learning strategy is perceived as a more general plan comprising of either one or
several tactics. Despite this distinction, some researchers use the terms inter-
changeably. For example MacIntyre and Noels (1996) dene a strategy as any
tactic or plan that a learner believes will assist her/him in acquiring some part of the
language (p. 373). Nevertheless, more recent publications in the eld of language
learning strategies distinguish both terms: a strategy and a tactic (cf. Grifths, 2013;
Oxford, 2011), and this is the approach followed in this volume.
Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) are considered to be pioneers in studies on
learning strategies. They both observe and describe good language learners in
terms of personal characteristics, styles and strategies (Brown, 2000, p. 123).
Rubin (1975) identies seven strategies used by good language learners who are
willing to guess and estimate accurately, are motivated to communicate, are not
afraid of making mistakes, and are sensitive to the form of L2. They also seek
opportunities to use L2 and attend to how their speech is perceived.
It is noticed that such learners develop techniques and strategies appropriate to
their individual needs (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978, p. 25). Naiman
et al. (1978) create one of the earliest taxonomies of strategies used by good
language learners, quoted later by Michoska-Stadnik (1996), who enumerates ve
major groups: an active approach to language tasks, viewing language as a system,
viewing language as a means of communication, appropriate emotional balance in
the process of language learning (management of affective demands) and a constant
readiness with regard to the testing and monitoring of target language performance.
It is difcult for one language learner to adopt all of the strategic groups listed
above, and as a result, its suitability for the purposes of teaching might be ques-
tionned (Cohen & Macaro, 2007).
Rubin (1981 in Michoska-Stadnik, 1996, p. 33) divides language learning
strategies into two general categories: those contributing directly and indirectly to
learning. The former are subdivided into the following six subgroups: clarication
and verication, e.g., a learner asks how to use a new word in the target language,
repeats it in order to internalize its meaning and use; monitoring, e.g., a learner
notices and corrects his/her errors; memorization, e.g., a learner takes notes and
uses techniques helping him/her to remember a word or a phrase; inductive infer-
encing, e.g., a learner guesses the meaning of a word or phrase on the basis of
context; deductive reasoning, e.g., a learner compares his/her mother tongue to the
target language; and practice, e.g., a learner experiments with new sounds, imitates
the pronunciation of the target language. The group of strategies which contribute
indirectly to learning consists of two subcategories: creating opportunities for
practising the target language, e.g., a learner seeks opportunities to interact with
native speakers of the target language; and production tricks, e.g., a learner uses
synonyms or context descriptions to avoid communication breakdown in the target
language.
OMalley and Chamot (1990) propose the rst classication of language
learning strategies based not on direct interviews, diaries and observations, but on
research conducted within the frame of cognitive psychology (Table 2.1). They
differentiate between metacognitive and cognitive strategies, and add one more
groupsocial mediation strategies, later on labelled as social/affective strategies.
Metacognitive strategies, referring to knowledge of ones learning processes and
those of others, consist of planning (e.g., advance organizers, direct attention,
functional planning, selective attention and self-management), monitoring (e.g.,
self-monitoring) and evaluation (e.g., self-evaluation). Cognitive strategies directly
operating on the target language material to be learnt include, such strategies as
resourcing, repetition, grouping, deduction, imagery, auditory representation,
elaboration, transfer, keyword method, inferencing, note taking, summarizing. The
nal group of strategiessocial/affective strategiesreflect learning through
interaction with others or ones own attitudes/feelings towards learning the target
language. Cooperation and self-talk are examples of these strategies.
Oxfords (1990) taxonomy has certain limitations, for example it is sometimes
difcult to assign a given strategy to a given category (MacIntyre, 1994, p. 186).
However, it offers perhaps the most comprehensive classication of learning
strategies to date (Ellis, 1994, p. 539) and is most frequently cited (Ellis, 2008).
Oxford collects and divides sixty-two language learning strategies, categorising
them as either Direct (Table 2.2) or Indirect (Table 2.3). The former are those
strategies used by the learner when mental processing required for learning a new
Table 2.1 OMalley and Chamots (1990) preliminary taxonomy of language learning strategies
(based on OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 47)
Generic strategy Representative strategies
classication
Metacognitive selective attention, planning, monitoring, evaluation
strategies
Cognitive strategies rehearsal, organisation, inferencing, summarising, deducing,
imagery, transfer, elaboration
Social/affective cooperation, questioning for clarication, self-talk
strategies
Table 2.2 Direct language learning strategies (based on Oxford, 1990, p. 38)
Direct strategies Representative strategies
Memory Creating mental linkages (grouping, associating and elaborating, placing
strategies new words into a context)
Applying images and sounds (using imagery, semantic mapping, using
keywords, representing sounds in memory)
Reviewing well (structured reviewing)
Employing action (using physical response or sensation, using
mechanical techniques)
Cognitive Practicing (repeating, formally practicing with sounds and writing
strategies systems, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining,
practicing naturalistically)
Receiving and sending messages (getting the idea quickly, using
resources for receiving and sending messages)
Analysing and reasoning (reasoning deductively, analysing expressions,
analysing contrastively, translating, transferring)
Creating structure for input and output (taking notes, summarizing,
highlighting)
Compensation Guessing intelligently (using linguistic and other clues)
strategies Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing (switching to the mother
tongue, getting help, using mime and gesture, avoiding communication
partially or totally, selecting the topic, adjusting or approximating the
message, coining words, using a circumlocution or synonym)
Table 2.3 Indirect language learning strategies (based on Oxford, 1990, p. 136)
Indirect strategies Representative strategies
Metacognitive Centring your learning (overviewing and linking with already known
strategies material, paying attention, delaying speech production to focus on
listening)
Arranging and planning your learning (nding out about language
learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose
of a language task, planning for a language task, seeking practice
opportunities)
Evaluating your learning (self-monitoring, self-evaluation)
Affective Lowering your anxiety (using progressive relaxation, deep breathing or
strategies meditation, using music and laughter)
Encouraging yourself (making positive statements, taking risks wisely,
rewarding yourself)
Taking your emotional temperature (listening to your body, using a
checklist, writing a language learning diary, discussing your feelings with
someone else)
Social strategies Asking questions (asking for clarication, verication or correction)
Cooperating with others (cooperating with peers and procient users of
the new language)
Empathizing with others (developing cultural understanding, becoming
aware of others thoughts and feelings)
language takes place, and these belong to the following three groups: Memory
(aiding the recall or retrieval of information), Cognitive (facilitating the processing
of the language input) and Compensation (used for substituting lack of language
competence) strategies.
The Indirect LLS are connected with a learners indirect way of managing and
controlling the process of learning, and they are described within such groups as
Metacognitive (referring to language learning planning, monitoring and
self-evaluation), Affective (controlling the levels of emotions and motivation) and
Social (focusing on learning and cooperating with others). Each of the six groups is
subdivided by Oxford (1990) into sets and later into particular strategies.
Apart from an array of general LLS included in the above taxonomies, it is of
vital importance to note that there are strategies deployed for learning specic L2
language skills and sub-systems. A number of skill-specic strategies have been
investigated so far: listening, reading, oral communication, writing, vocabulary,
grammar and pronunciation learning strategies, which are discussed in the research
overviews in Berkil (2008), Cohen and Macaro (2007), Drodzia-Szelest (2004),
and Piasecka (2008). However, for the purposes of this dissertation more attention
is given only to pronunciation learning strategies, the taxonomies of which are
discussed in detail in Sect. 2.3.1.
2.2.3 Factors Affecting the Choice of Language Learning

Strategies
Language learning strategies have been researched in reference to many factors that
contribute to their selection and deployment (cf. Grifths, 2013, Oxford & Nyikos,
1989). The choice of strategies depends, according to Ellis (1994), on individual
learner differences as well as situational and social factors, also known as contextual
factors. The former comprise beliefs about language learning, affective states,
learning experience and learner factors such as age, aptitude, learning style and
motivation. Grifths (2013) adds to the list such individual variables as anxiety,
self-efcacy and self-esteem. Moreover, Takeuchi, Grifths and Coyle (2007)
include personality types, culture and language achievement in the set of individual
variables which might affect the selection of strategies. Contextual factors
influencing the choice of strategies take into account the learning situation and the
learners environment. According to Ellis (1994), they comprise the task performed,
the setting and the target language. Grifths (2013) also considers teaching and
learning methods, which might trigger the use of different sets of strategies.
Additionally, she emphasises one further factor determining the choice of strategies:
the purpose for L2 learning. For example, a learner who studies L2 for a written
exam would probably use a different set of strategies to one who acquires L2 purely
for communication. Therefore, L2 learning for a particular goal might also affect the
selection of strategies. The list of those factors is long; therefore, for the purposes of
this book only a few selected examples have been discussed in greater detail below.
There is evidence that prociency levels are associated with the choice of LLS
(Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Grifths, 2013). Learners of higher prociency levels use
a larger array and number of learning strategies. However, Oxford and Ehrmans
(1995) research suggests that the correlation between LLS and prociency ratings is
signicant but low. In some studies (e.g., Park, 1997) cognitive and social strategies
are more predictive of the prociency scores, while in others (e.g., Nisbet, Tindall,
& Arroyo, 2005) only metacognitive strategies are reported to correlate signicantly
with language prociency results. Lan and Oxford (2003 in Cohen and Macaro
2007) draw the conclusion that in a group of children learning L2, affective
strategies are highly correlated with prociency. Although there are studies con-
rming that the choice of strategies correlates with language prociency, it is still
not agreed how strong this dependence is and which direction it takes. The question
of whether the prociency level influences the choice of strategies or the use of
certain strategies lead[s] to () an improved ability level (MacIntyre, 1994,
p. 188) remains under discussion. The results of the studies are inconclusive.
Gender is another factor investigated in reference to the use of learning strate-
gies. Here, the results of studies are not as consistent as is the case with those
concerning the prociency level. A number of studies have revealed that males use
fewer strategies than females (Chang, Liu, & Lee, 2007; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989;
Ghee, Ismal, & Kabilan, 2010; Green & Oxford, 1995; Hashemi, 2011). In most of
these studies, females make greater use of particular types of strategies, e.g.,
compensation and affective strategies (Ghee et al., 2010; Hashemi, 2011); cognitive
strategies, metacognitive strategies and social strategies (Chang et al., 2007); or
communicative and interactional strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). However,
other ndings do not conrm signicant differences in the number of learning
strategies used by males or females (Grifths, 2003) or even state that males use
LLS more frequently than females (Tercanlioglu, 2004; Tran, 1988).
Very few researchers have investigated the interaction between the use of lan-
guage learning strategies and one of the affective factors: language anxiety
(Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 2000; Park, 2007; Pawlak, 2011a). Mihaljevi Djigunovi
(2000) found a negative correlation between anxiety and communicative strategies,
as well as a positive one between anxiety and socio-affective strategies among adult
L2 learners. Parks (2007) research results indicated that language anxiety triggered
a less frequent use of learning strategies. Pawlak (2011a) reported weak though
statistically signicant negative correlations between language anxiety measured
with the Foreign Classroom Language Anxiety Scale developed by Horwitz,
Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and a range of strategies, such as cognitive, metacog-
nitive and social, collected with the instrument proposed by Oxford (1990), the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Interestingly, most of these
research ndings have indicated a weak negative or positive correlation that might
imply that language anxiety is another factor interplaying with the choice of
strategies, but there is still need for further investigations (cf. Grifths, 2013). This
area has denitely not been thoroughly researched, although:
Fig. 2.2 Factors affecting LLS use in a social-psychological model of language learning strategies
use (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996, p. 375)
for anyone who is convinced of the importance of anxiety and strategies in the process of
learning foreign languages, and most theorists, researchers, methodologists and teachers
clearly still are, this is a promising line of inquiry which is undoubtedly worth pursuing
(Pawlak, 2011a, p. 161).
Additionally, the social-psychological model of Language Learning Strategies

use, as proposed by MacIntyre (1994) and developed by MacIntyre and Noels
(1996), endeavours to explain how language learning strategies are used in L2
learning and what factors influence this process (Fig. 2.2). Following this model,
there are three factors which affect the application of LLS in L2 learning. The rst is
a learners knowledge of strategies. The awareness of a particular strategy and an
inner belief in ones ability to use it determine the use of the language learning
strategy. The second factor in the model refers to a learners reason for using it. In
other words, an individual should expect that a strategy will be helpful and effective
in L2 learning. This assumption is based upon previous successful experience with
the strategy used in the L2 learning process. Thus, the more positive a learners
prior experience with the strategy is, the stronger will be their reasons for
employing it while L2 learning.
The third factor determining the use of LLS is not having a reason not to use it;
that is, there is nothing which prevents the use of the strategy (MacIntyre & Noels,
1996, p. 374). While verifying the model, the researchers operationalized this factor
in terms of difculty of a strategy to be used and the feeling of anxiety that prevents
an individual from implementing it. Therefore, if a strategy is too difcult, a learner
has a reason not to use it. Similarly, if a learner feels anxious about using a strategy
while learning L2, he/she may decide not to employ it because, as the model
indicates, this emotion is a reason for not using the strategy. In the
social-psychological model for implementation of LLS, the strategy use is depen-
dent on prior knowledge of it, which is a necessary condition for other factors: a
reason to use and a reason not to use LLS. However, the last two items are
independent, in the sense that a learner may believe that a strategy is effective, and
that there is therefore a reason for using it, but at the same time may feel anxious
about using it while learning. The model predicts that a strategy is used most
frequently when a learner nds it extremely helpful and at the same time does not
have any reasons against its use (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996).
2.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS)
Although LLS have been broadly researched since the 1990s, little attention has
been given to the strategies that L2 learners employ when approaching target
language pronunciation. Hence, there has been a limited amount of research into
pronunciation learning strategies and, in consequence, few attempts to dene
pronunciation learning strategies (PLS).
Peterson (2000) proposes a denition of PLS, in which she mirrors Oxfords
(1990) denition of learning strategies, by describing pronunciation learning
strategies as steps taken by students to enhance their own pronunciation learning
(p. 7). These steps are general approaches to pronunciation learning viewed by
Peterson as strategies which comprise specic actions, or tactics used as specic
tools for successful strategic learning. In other words, this denition assumes that a
strategy is a broader design or plan for approaching a high-level goal and it
coordinates a set of tactics (Drnyei, 2005, p. 165).
Pronunciation learning strategies are also dened by Pawlak (2010) as delib-
erate actions and thoughts that are consciously employed, often in a logical
sequence, for learning and gaining greater control over the use of various aspects of
pronunciation (p. 191). In other words, PLS consciously chosen by a learner are
not only used in the process of learning, i.e., in the development of a learners
declarative knowledge, but also in the use of pronunciation aspects in communi-
cation, i.e., contributing to procedural knowledge (Pawlak, 2010). This denition
will serve as a working denition for the purposes of this research, as it points to the
conscious aspect of PLS as employed by learners at different stages of pronunci-
ation learning and use. Hence, only those learners who are aware of their actions
and thoughts activated in the processes of improving their pronunciation may
consciously analyse their PLS deployment.
2.3.1 The Typology of Pronunciation Learning Strategies
Pronunciation learning strategies are conscious actions and thoughts, frequently

used in a logical sequence (Pawlak, 2010). The sequentiality of PLS is also
emphasised by Peterson (2000), who compares PLS to steps L2 learners take to
acquire L2 pronunciation. In order to take these steps, which might be both
behavioural and mental (Drnyei, 2005, p. 167), students should be aware of them,
able to choose those which are most suitable and use them appropriately in order to
2.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS) 39
improve the process of learning (Drodzia-Szelest, 1998, p. 18) and language

usage. However, recent state-of-art papers devoted to pronunciation and learning
strategies either ignore the relationship between the two altogether or gloss over this
issue with a brief comment (Pawlak, 2006, p. 125). In other words, pronunciation
learning strategies are marginalized in both research and classications of language
learning strategies. However, some attempts to approach PLS categorisation have
recently been made. Below are presented the taxonomies of PLS as devised in
chronological order by Caka (2011), Eckstein (2007), Osburne (2003), Pawlak
(2010), Peterson (2000) and Wrembel (2008).
Peterson (2000), when researching the area of pronunciation learning strategies,
makes a distinction between strategies and tactics, perceiving PLS as general
approaches and pronunciation learning tactics as specic actions supporting the
effectiveness of more general strategies. Having analysed a few studies investi-
gating pronunciation learning strategies (Naiman et al., 1978; OMalley et al., 1985;
Rivers, 1979), the author collected twenty-two pronunciation learning tactics.
Additionally, Peterson (2000) carried out research in which twenty-one new tactics
that had perhaps never before been documented as pertaining specically to
pronunciation learning (p. 10) emerged. Forty-three pronunciation learning tactics
have then been classied by Peterson on the basis of Oxfords (1990) taxonomy
into twelve pronunciation learning strategies, as follows: representing sounds in
memory, practicing naturalistically, formally practicing with sounds, analysing the
sound system, using proximal articulations, nding out about target language
pronunciation, setting goals and objectives, planning for a language task,
self-evaluating, using humour to lower anxiety, asking for help, and cooperating
with peers (Table 2.4).
The rst strategy, i.e., representing sounds in memory, refers to Oxfords direct
memory strategy and is exemplied by one tactic mentioned by Peterson (2000):
inventing songs or rhythms in order to remember how to pronounce words. The
Table 2.4 Petersons (2000) classication of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) within the
framework of Oxfords (1990) learning strategies (LS)
No. Petersons PLS (and No. of pronunciation tactics) Oxfords LS
1. Representing sounds in memory (2) Memory
2. Practising naturalistically (15) Cognitive
3. Formally practising with sounds (11)
4. Analysing the sound system (3)
5. Using proximal articulations (0) Compensation
6. Finding out about a target language pronunciation (2) Metacognitive
7. Setting goals and objectives (3)
8. Planning for a language task (1)
9. Self-evaluating (1)
10. Using humour to lower anxiety (1) Affective
11. Asking for help (2) Social
12. Cooperating with peers (2)
strategies of practicing naturalistically, formally practicing with sounds and ana-

lysing the sound system are grouped within Oxfords direct cognitive strategies,
and here Peterson provides a longer list of twenty-nine pronunciation tactics used
by pronunciation learners. The last direct group of strategies (compensation
strategies) is represented by one pronunciation strategy, i.e., the use of proximal
articulations, without any instances of pronunciation tactics. Oxfords indirect
metacognitive strategies are represented by Petersons four pronunciation strategies:
nding out about target language pronunciation, setting goals and objectives,
planning for a language task and self-evaluating (with the number of pronunciation
tactics reaching seven). Another pronunciation strategyusing humour to lower
anxiety (indirect affective strategy)is exemplied by one pronunciation tactic:
having a sense of humour with regard to mispronunciations. The nal two pro-
nunciation strategiesasking for help and cooperating with peersrepresent
Oxfords group of indirect social strategies with four pronunciation tactics men-
tioned (asking someone else to correct ones pronunciation, asking someone else to
pronounce something, studying with someone else and teaching or tutoring
someone else).
Petersons attempt to classify pronunciation strategies reveals a considerable
imbalance in the number of tactics belonging to a particular PLS. The largest
number of pronunciation tactics are used within the cognitive group of strategies.
Affective pronunciation strategies are represented by just one tactic, and not even a
single tactic has been found within compensation pronunciation learning strategies.
However, Peterson emphasises that the number of learner pronunciation tactics
remains open and requires further investigations.
Another attempt towards the classication of PLS is devised by Osburne (2003)
on the basis of interviews and think-aloud protocols conducted among advanced L2
learners. There are eight PLS listed, which focus on the following aspects: global
articulatory gesture (e.g., I have to open my mouth wide), local articulatory
gesture or single sound (e.g., a reference to the articulatory position of a sound),
individual syllables (e.g., focus on syllable division), clusters below syllable level
(e.g., reference to clusters not existing in L1), prosody (e.g., attention to stress,
intonation, and rhythm), individual words (e.g., focus on pronunciation of particular
words), paralanguage (e.g., clarity, volume, and speed of speech), and memory and
imitation (e.g., mimicking the interviewer). This attempt in categorising PLS is
grounded in content analysis of data from retrospective protocols. The procedure
consists in the search for tentative groupings conducted by raters until a mutual
agreement has been reached.
Eckstein (2007) offers a PLS taxonomy based on Kolbs (1984 in Eckstein,
2007) learning cycle construct, in which the initial concrete experience of learning
should be followed by reflection on this experience. Reflection triggers the process
of abstract conceptualisation, which is then checked or tested by the learner.
Eckstein compares the four stages of learning to the four stages of pronunciation
acquisition within SLA theory. Therefore, the rst stage of a concrete experience
corresponds with input/practice, the second one refers to noticing/feedback, and
abstract conceptualisation is compared to hypothesis forming, whereas testing of a
Table 2.5 Kolbs (1984) learning cycle, Ecksteins (2007) equivalent stages of pronunciation
acquisition and examples of pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) used at each stage
Kolbs (1984) Ecksteins (2007) Ecksteins (2007) examples of PLS
learning cycle pronunciation acquisition
construct construct (number of PLS)
Concrete Input (7) Intent listening, active listening, eagerly
experience listening to new sounds
Practice (9) Reading aloud, practicing new sounds,
mimicry of native speakers, talking aloud,
memorising the pronunciation of words
Reflection on Noticing (7) Focusing on suprasegmentals, intent
observation listening, distinguishing errors among
other speakers
Feedback (7) Self-monitoring, using phonetic symbols,
active listening, asking for help
Abstract Hypothesis forming (5) Monitoring and eliminating negative
conceptualisation interference, self-correcting, acquiring a
general knowledge of phonetics, nding
out about target language pronunciation
Action based on Hypothesis testing (8) Repeating new words according to new
new hypotheses, skipping difcult words,
conceptualisation rehearsing sounds, using proximal
articulations, using a slower rate of
speech, lowering anxiety
new concept reflects the process of hypothesis testing (Table 2.5). Consequently,
during the process of pronunciation acquisition a learner uses sets of PLS at dif-
ferent stages.
The four areas of learning trigger the application of different pronunciation
learning strategies, which may potentially contribute to pronunciation
learning/acquisition. For the input stage seven PLS are suggested, such as intent
listening, focusing on the articulatory gestures of others, active listening, eagerly
listening to new sounds, ensuring optimal possibilities for contact with L2 pro-
nunciation (e.g., use of resources such as TV, movies, radio), representing sounds
in memory and focusing on individual syllables. Concrete experience is reflected
also in the practice stage, where nine PLS are potentially used. These are reading
aloud, practising new sounds, imitating native speakers and L2 prosody, talking
aloud, memorising the pronunciation of words, using facial muscles for practising
L2 pronunciation, practising sounds in isolation and later in context, and repeating
after recordings.
The second phase of learning refers to noticing and feedback. These enhance the
application of seven PLS. In the process of noticing a learner may use, according to
Eckstein (2007), the following strategies: noticing the intricate differences between
L1 and L2 pronunciation, focusing on suprasegmentals of language, intent listen-
ing, identifying errors among other speakers, focusing on the articulatory gestures
of others, listening and inferring key sounds, and acquiring a general knowledge of
phonetics. Seven other PLS operate within the feedback stage, e.g., self-monitoring,
focusing on suprasegmentals of own L2 speech, using phonetic symbols and
transcriptions, monitoring and eliminating negative interference, active listening,
seeking help, cooperating with peers.
The third stage, abstract conceptualisation, corresponds with hypothesis form-
ing, which involves mental processing consisting in the devising of new concep-
tualisations of the target language properties based on available input (Ellis, 1994).
A learner may use here such PLS as monitoring and eliminating negative inter-
ference, self-correction. He or she may also try to acquire a general knowledge of
phonetics, perform special exercises for sounds which are non-existent in the
learners native language, and research the target language pronunciation.
Hypothesis testing, which is the equivalent of Kolbs action based on a new
conceptualisation, comprises eight PLS. At this stage a learner may facilitate pro-
nunciation acquisition through use of proximal articulations, slower rate of speech
or clear speech. Moreover, a learners newly formed conceptualisations concerning
target language pronunciation may be tested through repeating new words in
accordance with the new hypothesis, rehearsing sounds, and skipping difcult
words, as well as increasing or decreasing speech volume. One of the PLS men-
tioned at this stageinteresting in terms of the scope of this volumeis the
lowering of language anxiety. The drawback of this taxonomy is that certain PLS
overlap and can occur at different stages, e.g., acquiring a general knowledge of
phonetics is connected with the act of noticing as well as with the hypothesis
forming phases. There is therefore a danger with the interpretation of this strategy.
Wrembel (2008) classies both PLS and pronunciation teaching strategies
(PTS) together. Her proposed categorization springs from OMalley and Chamots
(1990) taxonomy of LLS, which divides general learning strategies into cognitive,
metacognitive and socioaffective. The rst group, according to Wrembel (2008),
comprises such PLS and PTS as repetition (e.g., drills, imitating the articulatory
gestures of native speakers or teachers, and dialogue reading), practicing (e.g.,
giving speeches or presentations, talking aloud to oneself), resourcing (e.g., using
transcription, consulting a dictionary to check pronunciation), memory (e.g.,
inventing rhythms, colour associations), imagery (e.g., learning based on vowel
charts, drawing intonation contours), directed physical feedback (e.g., tapping out a
rhythm, kinaesthetic feedback), deduction (e.g., acquiring general knowledge of
phonetics, contrastive analysis) and grouping (e.g., consciously applying rules,
colour associations). Metacognitive strategies consist of four PLS, such as
self-management of pronunciation (e.g., through establishing pronunciation prior-
ities, and planning pronunciation learning), self-monitoring/self-evaluation (e.g.,
through recording and listening to ones pronunciation), selective attention, which
might be associated with ear training or discrimination exercises, and directed
attention focusing on intent listening or pronunciation training in language labo-
ratory. The last socioaffective group refers to affective strategies, such as lowering
anxiety, and social ones involving interaction with others while learning pronun-
ciation. Wrembels (2008) taxonomy combines both strategies for learning and
teaching pronunciation. The main objective of this proposal is to raise awareness

not only among learners but also teachers who may incorporate pronunciation
strategy training into their teaching contexts. However, there is a need for making a
clear distinction between PLS and PTS, which this taxonomy fails to indicate.
Additionally, this proposal offers a long list of cognitive and metacognitive PLS,
whereas affective PLS are represented by only one tactic: that of using humour to
lower anxiety. The potential for more L2 learner affective approaches to pronun-
ciation acquisition has therefore clearly not been exhausted.
The most recent proposal for a PLS taxonomy (Table 2.6) is provided by Pawlak
(2010), who takes four dimensions into account when constructing his PLS clas-
sication: the taxonomy of LLS, which reconciles Oxfords (1990) and OMalley
and Chamots (1990) proposals; Oxfords (1990) SILL statements adapted to PLS;
the suggestions of pronunciation teaching publications; and previous PLS research
outcomes.
Pawlaks (2010) PLS grouping complies with Drnyeis (2005) proposal of LLS
taxonomy modication:
Cognitive strategies, involving the manipulation or transformation of the
learning materials/input (e.g., repetition, summarizing, using images).
Metacognitive strategies, involving higher-order strategies aimed at analysing,
monitoring, evaluating, planning, and organizing ones own learning process.
Social strategies, involving interpersonal behaviours aimed at increasing the
amount of L2 communication and practice the learner undertakes (e.g., initiating
interaction with native speakers, cooperating with peers).
Affective strategies, involving taking control of the emotional (affective) con-
ditions and experiences that shape ones subjective involvement in learning.
(p. 169)
Table 2.6 Pawlaks (2010) pronunciation learning strategies taxonomy

PLS Pronunciation learning strategic devices and tactics
1. Metacognitive Deciding to focus on particular pronunciation features, looking for
opportunities to practice new sounds, recording oneself to self-evaluate
ones pronunciation, etc.
2. Cognitive Using phonetic symbols or ones own codes to remember sounds, forming
and testing hypotheses about pronunciation rules, noticing similarities and
differences between the sound systems of L1 and L2 or other known
languages, making use of articulatory descriptions (e.g., charts, diagrams,
etc.), memorizing the pronunciation of new words, using colour or sound
associations, repeating after the teacher or a recording, reading aloud, using
rhythmic gestures that accompany speech practice, looking up
pronunciation in a dictionary, deliberately using words that are difcult to
pronounce in spontaneous communication, etc.
3. Affective Using relaxation techniques when encountering problems with
pronunciation, rewarding oneself for making progress in phonetics, etc.
4. Social Practising aspects of pronunciation with other students, asking others for
correction of pronunciation errors, etc.
As a result, PLS are divided into four major groups: cognitive, metacognitive,
social and affective; whereas Oxfords (1990) compensation and memory strategies
are subcategorised into cognitive strategies. Each of these consists of more specic
strategic devices, or tactics, which are concrete actions taken up by the L2 pro-
nunciation learner, e.g., using phonetic symbols or ones own codes to remember
sounds or recording oneself to self-evaluate ones pronunciation. Of all the above
PLS taxonomies, Pawlaks proposal is the most comprehensive, because his general
PLS categories are broad enough to encompass all pronunciation learning tactics,
even those that have not yet been discovered. Nevertheless, for the analyses of
various PLS research data in this research, separating memory and compensation
PLS from cognitive PLS may be valuable and practical due to the large number of
pronunciation learning tactics belonging to these categories.
The analysis of PLS classications, summarised in Table 2.7, indicates that most
of the proposals are based on either Oxfords (1990) or OMalley and Chamots
(1990) language learning taxonomies, or on taxonomies derived from both of them.
Moreover, all of them, with the exclusion of Ecksteins (2007), overtly adapt four
broad LLS categories to PLS: cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective. In one
taxonomy (Peterson, 2000) memory and compensation strategies constitute a sep-
arate set, whereas in another (Pawlak, 2010) they exist as aspects of cognitive PLS.
Oxfords (1990) and Petersons (2000) taxonomies constitute a springboard for
the PLS classication proposed by Caka (2011), who sustains a broad division into
Table 2.7 A summary of selected taxonomies for pronunciation learning strategies

Study Based on Main characteristics
Peterson Oxford (1990); Research Oxfords (1990) 6 LLS (memory, cognitive,
(2000) study compensation, metacognitive, affective and social)
comprising 12 PLS, 43 pronunciation learning tactics
within 12 PLS
Osburne Think aloud protocols 7 PLS (memory and imitation, paralanguage,
(2003) research study individual words, global articulatory gesture, prosody
and individual sounds)
Eckstein Kolb (1984) Kolbs learning cycle with its equivalent 4 stages of
(2007) pronunciation acquisition (input/practice,
noticing/feedback, hypothesis forming and hypothesis
testing); PLS used at each of the stages
Wrembel OMalley and Chamot 14 broader pronunciation learning and teaching
(2008) (1990) strategies within OMalley and Chamots (1990)
cognitive, metacognitive and socioaffective LLS
Pawlak Oxford (1990), OMalley 4 major PLS: cognitive, metacognitive, affective and
(2010) and Chamot (1990), social; an open list of pronunciation learning devices
PLS research studies, and tactics
Oxfords (1990) SILL
Caka Oxford (1990), Peterson Oxfords (1990) 6 LLS (memory, cognitive,
(2011) (2000) compensation, metacognitive, affective and social)
comprising 18 narrower PLS and 40 tactics
direct memory, cognitive and compensation strategies, as well as indirect

metacognitive, affective and social ones. Each of these groups consists of more
specic PLS and tactics. There are four memory strategies: representing sounds in
memory (with four tactics, e.g., using phonetic symbols or ones own coding
system), reviewing well (e.g., pronouncing new words), employing action (e.g.,
transcribing vocabulary lists) and rote-learning (e.g., repetitions of words).
Cognitive strategies, similar to Oxford (1990) LLS, comprise practising pronun-
ciation (e.g., in the form of repetitions, drills and imitations), receiving and sending
messages on pronunciation, analysing and reasoning and creating structure for input
and output (e.g., taking notes on pronunciation rules). Compensation strategies
focus on intelligent guessing of pronunciation and overcoming limitations. Three
metacognitive PLS refer to centring ones learning (with a tactic of, for example,
revising theoretical knowledge of phonetics), arranging and planning ones learn-
ing, and self-evaluation (e.g., recording ones own pronunciation). Lowering anx-
iety, self-encouragement, and assessing ones emotional temperature (e.g.,
discussing feelings with others) belong to the group of affective strategies. The nal
category, social strategies, consists of asking questions (e.g., asking for help) and
cooperating with others (e.g., peer tutoring). In most cases this taxonomy mirrors
that devised for LLS by Oxford (1990). Although Caka offers clear subcategories
within each PLS category, a researcher following this typology may face problems
with assigning individual pronunciation learning tactics to the proposed subcate-
gories. For instance, Cakas tactic of using phonetics symbols contained in the
category of representing sounds in memory may be deployed by an L2 pronunci-
ation learner for reviewing, which is a different subcategory of memory PLS in this
taxonomy. Generally, without an investigation into either the context or the lear-
ners intention for the deployment of a pronunciation learning tactic, matching this
tactic with Cakas subcategory of PLS may be problematic.
The general groups of PLS are, in three cases (Caka, 2011; Peterson, 2000;
Wrembel, 2008), divided into more detailed subcategories, the numbers of which,
however, differ (12 PLS in Peterson, 2000; 14 in Wrembel, 2008; 18 in Caka,
2011), and they are labelled differently. For example, Petersons (2000) metacog-
nitive PLS include nding out about target language pronunciation, setting goals
and objectives, and planning for a language task and self-evaluation, whereas
Wrembel (2008) assigns to metacognitive strategies such PLS as directed attention,
selective attention, self-monitoring or self-evaluation and self-management, and
following Oxford (1990), and Caka (2011) labels them as centring ones learning,
arranging and planning ones learning, and evaluating ones learning. Eckstein
(2007) and Pawlak (2010) do not distinguish between subcategories of PLS.
The categorisations analysed above mention pronunciation learning tactics,
although they differ in terms of description and the way they have been matched to
broader categories, as well as in quantity. For instance, Eckstein (2007), Peterson
(2000) and Wrembel (2008) list acquiring a general knowledge of phonetics; but
the rst two researchers refer to this as a pronunciation learning tactic, whereas
Eckstein (2007) labels it as PLS, activated at the stage of noticing within the
pronunciation acquisition construct. The same tactic may serve as an example of
differences in assigning to PLS. Peterson (2000) matches it with metacognitive

(nding out about target language pronunciation), and Wrembel (2008) with cog-
nitive (deduction) PLS. Finally, the number of tactics varies within ve taxonomies.
Caka (2011) mentions 40 tactics with additional subcategories, e.g., under the label
of a tactic termed formally practising with sounds there are 14 subcategories. Both
Peterson (2000) and Eckstein (2007) enumerate 43 tactics (the latter researcher
labels them as strategies), Wrembel (2008) provides a table with 45 teaching and
learning strategies, Pawlak (2010) provides several examples of specic pronun-
ciation learning devices and tactics, claiming that their number is still an open issue.
The discrepancies among the taxonomies listed above conrm that those pro-
nunciation learning tactics researched so far are not nite in number, mainly
because PLS research is still in its infancy (Berkil, 2008), and the taxonomy
should be regarded as tentative and open to modication in response to the ndings
of further research (Pawlak, 2010, p. 196). Therefore, it is justiable to leave PLS
categorisation as broad as possible and underpin it with narrower tactics used by
individual pronunciation learners.
In this volume, the taxonomy of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
based on Oxfords (1990) six general LLS categories (Table 2.8) has been adopted
for many reasons. First of all, particular pronunciation learning tactics are assigned
to direct (memory, cognitive and compensation), and indirect (metacognitive, social
and affective) pronunciation learning strategies. These PLS categories are broad
enough to subsume all pronunciation learning tactics that emerge through data
collection. Thus, any further division into subcategories or problems connected
with assigning tactics to these subcategories are avoided, unlike in the taxonomies
provided by Peterson (2000), Eckstein (2007), and Caka (2011). Furthermore, in
contrast to the taxonomy proposed by Pawlak (2010), Oxford distinguishes mem-
ory, cognitive and compensation PLS as separate categories. This could prove
valuable in the case of pronunciation, because rote learning and repetition has had a
long tradition in instructed pronunciation learning, as indicated in Sect. 2.1.1. L2
pronunciation learners may therefore be well acquainted with these strategies and
use them amply. As for compensation PLS, these refer to ways of approaching and
avoiding pronunciation difculties that may play a role in researching L2 pro-
nunciation learners with the different levels of language anxiety that this book
focuses on. Finally, the fty-two pronunciation learning tactics proposed in this
taxonomy constitute the largest collection of all tactics enumerated in the research
studies discussed above.
The taxonomy takes six broad categories of PLS into account. The memory
category of PLS comprises using phonemic transcription and other codes, singing
songs and creating rhymes, forming associations with already known pronunciation
of English and Polish words, recalling others pronunciation, and repeating to
enhance pronunciation memorisation. Cognitive PLS entail miming, silent and loud
repetition, self-speaking, reading aloud, practising sounds in isolation and context,
detecting pronunciation mistakes, noticing and miming lip movements, focusing on
pronunciation while listening and speaking, formulating hypotheses about pro-
nunciation and verifying them, slowing down the pace of speaking for clear
Table 2.8 Pronunciation learning strategies (PLS) and tactics based on Oxford (1990)
PLS based on Pronunciation learning tactics
Oxford (1990)
1. Memory Using phonemic transcription and other codes, singing songs and
creating rhymes, forming associations with already known
pronunciation of English and Polish words, recalling others
pronunciation, and repeating to enhance memorisation of
pronunciation
2. Cognitive Imitating native speakers or/and teachers pronunciation, silent and
loud repetition, self-speaking, reading aloud, speaking silently to
oneself, practising sounds in isolation and context, detecting
pronunciation mistakes, noticing and miming lip movements, focusing
on pronunciation while listening and speaking, formulating
hypotheses concerning pronunciation and verifying them, slowing
down the pace of speaking for clear enunciation, noticing and
identifying English accents, recording voice in order to hear ones
pronunciation, mentally rehearsing pronunciation before speaking,
noticing differences between Polish and English pronunciation
3. Compensation Avoiding words with problematic pronunciation, using gestures and
facial expressions to support pronunciation of difcult words,
substituting ambiguous word pronunciation with other words and
synonyms, resorting to dictionaries, electronic devices and other
works of reference for help
4. Metacognitive Learning about English pronunciation and its rules, focusing on model
sounds and picking them up, planning for pronunciation performance
5. Affective Maintaining a sense of humour with regard to pronunciation mistakes,
playing with Polish and English accents, encouraging oneself, taking
risks in pronunciation, paying more attention to pronunciation after
being praised by others
6. Social Asking others for pronunciation correction, speaking English and
learning pronunciation with others, teaching pronunciation to other
people
enunciation, noticing and identifying English accents, recording ones voice in

order to hear pronunciation, silently formulating the pronunciation of statements
before uttering them, and noticing the differences between Polish and English
pronunciation. The set of compensation PLS consists of avoiding words with
problematic pronunciation, using gestures and facial expressions to support pro-
nunciation of difcult words, substituting ambiguous word pronunciation with other
words and synonyms, resorting to electronic devices and other forms of reference
for help. The group of indirect PLS opens with the following metacognitive PLS:
learning about English pronunciation, focusing on model sounds, planning for
pronunciation performance. This is followed by a set of ve affective PLS: main-
taining a sense of humour with regard to pronunciation mistakes, playing with
Polish and English accents, encouraging oneself, taking risks in pronunciation,
paying more attention to pronunciation after being praised by others. Finally, there
are social PLS: asking others for pronunciation correction, speaking English and
learning pronunciation with others, teaching pronunciation to other people. By no
means can this collection be considered exhaustive with regard to the repertoire of
pronunciation learning tactics deployed by L2 pronunciation learners; however, it
provides a solid foundation for the quantitative and qualitative investigation
described further in this book.
2.3.2 The Role of Pronunciation Learning Strategies

in Pronunciation Learning
There is no doubt that strategies can increase learners language prociency,

self-condence and motivation (Oxford, 1990, p. 236). Thu (2009) points out two
reasons explaining the importance of strategies: the rst is that LLS research has
shed more light on the cognitive, social and affective processes of L2 learning; the
second underlies the value of strategic training, which may help learners to become
more autonomous and efcient. Studies investigating the area of PLS (Berkil, 2008;
Bukowski, 2004; Eckstein, 2007; Osburne, 2003; Pawlak, 2006, 2008, 2010;
Peterson, 2000; Samalieva, 2000; Sheppard et al. 2007; Thu, 2009; Vitanova &
Miller, 2002; Wrembel, 2008) conrm the considerable value of learning strategies
in the process of L2 pronunciation acquisition.
Not only is pronunciation learning connected with the socio-affective dimension
of L2 acquisition (Vitanova & Miller, 2002), but there is also a link between the use
of PLS and the affective domain. For example, in Berkils (2008) research the most
frequently used PLS belong to the affective category because, as she explains, they
may reflect the idea of a learners identity in pronunciation. Moreover, a conscious
use of effective PLS is believed to influence motivation and condence in L2
pronunciation learning (Wrembel, 2008), which are also generally important in L2
learning (Drnyei, Csizer, & Nemeth, 2006).
Some PLS may serve as predictors of pronunciation performance. Eckstein
(2007) nds three PLS to be signicant predictors of pronunciation: noticing oth-
ers mistakes, adjusting facial muscles and seeking pronunciation help. In other
words, the participants whose pronunciation score is high use the above PLS more
frequently than others. Tominaga (2009) investigates successful pronunciation
learners in search for, among others, effective PLS. As reported, strategies based on
frequent imitation of native speakers, combined with independent pronunciation
practice are used among good pronunciation learners. The strategies enumerated
may serve as tools for enhancing teaching and learning processes in the classroom.
Being both teachable and learnable (Bukowski, 2004; Eckstein, 2007; Vitanova
& Miller, 2002), PLS can be directly introduced in pronunciation training. They
may serve as effective devices for more learner-centred and autonomous pronun-
ciation acquisition. In the process of PLS training, students become aware of an
array of PLS, and as a result are able to choose those PLS which are most helpful
for individual learners (Vitanova & Miller, 2002), or those which they nd most
useful in L2 pronunciation acquisition (Wrembel, 2008). In general, the use of PLS
fosters autonomy in pronunciation learning, so that learners equipped with PLS are
able to use them to improve their pronunciation outside the classroom in an
independent way.
Bearing in mind that pronunciation acquisition is a complex process, frequently
viewed as more dependent on factors pertaining to learners than teaching (Jones,
2002; Tominaga, 2009), it is vital to investigate how learners approach pronunci-
ation learning. One such approach is linked, according to Otlowski (2003), to
learner strategies. Oxford (2003) claims that appropriate strategy use may result in
more independent learning, which plays an immense role in pronunciation learning,
because of the limited time allotted to pronunciation teaching in the classroom in a
Polish context (cf. Pawlak, 2006). Besides, Oxford (2003) adds that
If there is harmony between (a) the student (in terms of style and strategy preferences) and
(b) the combination of instructional methodology and materials, then the student is likely to
perform well, feel condent, and experience low anxiety. If clashes occur between (a) and
(b), the student often performs poorly, feels uncondent, and experiences signicant
anxiety (pp. 23).
Although the statement above is an overgeneralisation not supported by research

results, it implies the relationship between the use of strategies and L2 performance,
as well as the importance of a learners anxiety level in the classroom, this nal
aspect forming the focus of the study presented in this book. Moreover, anxiety is
also reported as one of the most relevant learner-related factors in Smits (2002)
study on motivation in pronunciation learning. Therefore, it is justiable to view
learning strategies in the context of general personality factors such as () anx-
iety (Cohen, 1995, p. 10), among others. Hence there is a need for studies
investigating learning strategies in the context of personality-related factors, e.g.,
gender, ethnicity, degree of language learning experience, motivation and anxiety.
The aim of the research presented in this volume is to verify the link between
language learning anxiety levels, and the choice and use of language learning
strategies and tactics which focus on pronunciation. It is necessary to point out that
although learning strategies and the way they are employed have been researched
from the perspective of a variety of the language subsystems, the strategies and
tactics used in foreign language pronunciation learning still leave a lot of research
questions open to discussion. Moreover, the area investigating PLS in relation to
language anxiety is almost completely unexplored. This direction of investigation,
however, aligns with Chamots (2004) statement that an area of basic research in
second language acquisition is the identication and description of learning
strategies used by language learners and the correlation of these strategies with
other learner variables (p. 14). Language anxiety is one of the most crucial
affective learner variables (Ellis, 1994).
Chapter 2 provided the theoretical background concerning a range of peda-
gogical and psychological aspects of pronunciation acquisition and pronunciation
learning strategies. Initially, the term pronunciation was dened, and different
diachronic approaches to teaching it were presented. Subsequently, current issues
referring to pronunciation models and various perspectives on teaching them were
discussed. This was followed by a presentation of selected individual learner fac-

tors, which influence the way individuals learn to pronounce L2. These include
language learning strategies, which were more thoroughly reviewed with a focus on
pronunciation learning strategies. Within their framework, both a working deni-
tion and taxonomy of PLS and tactics were selected from an array proposed by a
number of researchers interested in L2 pronunciation acquisition.
The following chapter discusses the theoretical background for the construct of
language anxiety. First, general anxiety, its denition and selected models are
outlined for a better understanding of its functioning. Next, a denition of language
anxiety as it occurs in L2 learning contexts, including its constituents and causes,
provides a framework for a discussion. In Chap. 3, the author also speculates on the
hypothetical paths for the interaction between language anxiety and both pronun-
ciation and pronunciation learning strategies.
Chapter 3
Foreign Language Anxiety in the Context
of Foreign Language Oral Performance,
Language and Pronunciation Learning
Strategies
The aim of this chapter is to provide a theoretical background for the concept of
language anxiety, emphasising the context of L2 oral performance and pronunci-
ation. Thus, the construct of general anxiety is rst explored and the denition of
anxiety is analysed. Subsequently, the term foreign language anxiety is examined
for the purpose of establishing its working denition. Next, a typology of causes of
language anxiety experienced by L2 learners is proposed in order to fully grasp the
complexity of the construct. Additionally, the link between oral performance,
comprising the pronunciation competence of an L2 learner and foreign language
anxiety is discussed. Finally, theoretical models describing the roles of language
anxiety and language learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition/Learning
are provided in order to establish possible links not only between language anxiety
and language learning strategies but also between language anxiety and pronun-
ciation learning strategies.
3.1 The Concept of Anxiety as a Psychological Construct
The link between more complex emotions, such as anxiety, or emotion schemas,
and the application of strategies has recently been noticed by Izard (2011 in
MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012), who posits that emotion schemas always involve
interactions among emotions, feelings and higher order cognitionthoughts,
strategies (p. 372). Hence, emotion schemas, understood as dynamic processes of
appraisal and variation which occur in social learning (Shuman & Scherer, 2014),
also emerge in L2 learning, and may trigger the synergy between anxiety and
pronunciation learning strategies. Consequently, it may be inferred that a rela-
tionship exists between language anxietywhich belongs to the realm of negative
emotionsand pronunciation learning strategieswhich are higher order cogni-
tions, devised while learning L2 pronunciation. The aim of this volume, then, is to
endeavour to shed more light on this area, bearing in mind that L2 pronunciation
52 3 Foreign Language Anxiety in the Context of Foreign Language
learning places considerable affective demands upon a learner and how strongly
these demands make themselves felt will depend on a combination of motivation,
instructional situation, social attitudes, and personality factors, such as () anxiety
(Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994, p. 8). Therefore, beyond doubt, it is of vital importance
to focus on the role of language anxiety in L2 learning, including L2 pronunciation
learning, starting from an understanding of the universal concept of anxiety, from
which language anxiety stems.
The etymology of the word anxiety is derived from the Indo-European or
Indo-Germanic (Zeidner, 2014, p. 266) word angh, which later entered the Greek
lexicon as angkito translated as squeeze, choke or constrict; and then came into
Latin as anxietas meaning worry, fear, feelings of apprehension, threat vigilance,
and danger anticipation (Corr & Fajkowska, 2011). The meaning of the construct
places anxiety under a broader umbrella term of affect referring to emotions.
Frequently affect and emotions are terms used interchangeably. However, Shuman
and Scherer (2014), for instance, dene the former as a broader category referring
not only to emotions but also to moods, whereas they perceive the latter to be
short-lived episodes triggered by a range of stimuli and characterised by several
components, such as subjective appraisal, goal-directed action tendency, and motor
or physiological aspects. Therefore, an individual may subjectively appraise a
stimulus as either positive or negative, which later leads him or her to the choice of
action tendencies, for example avoidance or approach, and to the activation of the
motor component of emotions, for example in the form of a smile or other facial
expressions. Simultaneously, the physiological component is activated and
observed via, among others, amygdala activity, sweating hands, or changes in blood
pressure.
While it is not the intention of the author to discuss the vast realm of emotions in
this volume, pegging the phenomenon of anxiety in this domain aids an under-
standing of the complex and multidimensional nature of this construct. For
example, Perkun and Perry (2014) place anxiety among achievement emotions,
described as affective arousal in the context of studying and its outcomes. They
propose a three-dimensional taxonomy. The rst dimension is an object focus of
achievement emotions, referring to either activity emotions (emotions activated in
the process of studying) or outcome emotions (emotions connected with achieve-
ment outcomes). The second dimension is valence, indicating a group of
positive-pleasant and negative-unpleasant emotions. The nal dimension describes
activation, reflecting physiological body reaction. In this taxonomy anxiety is
placed among the outcome, negative, activating emotions. In other words, anxiety is
a negative emotion that may occur when an individual focuses, for example, on the
outcomes of his or her pronunciation learning and evaluates them negatively. This
subjective evaluation results in muscle tension, so the speech organs that should be
flexible for clear pronunciation become tense, limiting the articulatory potential of
the speaker, who in turn perceives his or her pronunciation as worse than expected.
Allocated among negative emotions (Arnold & Brown, 1999), anxiety is also
viewed as a basic human emotion (Zeidner, 2014) referring to an uncomfortable
emotional state in which one perceives danger, feels powerless, and experiences
3.1 The Concept of Anxiety as a Psychological Construct 53
tension when faced with an expected danger (Aydin, 2013, p. 64). It occurs when
an individual faces an unavoidable situation, which is personally threatening, either
physically or psychologically.
Another denition proposed by Zeidner (2014), states that anxiety consists of
cognitive, affective, somatic arousal, and behavioural components, which interplay
as a result of the subjective mental perception of a situation as being threatening and
dangerous. Thus, anxiety is experienced by individuals when they subjectively
perceive and interpret either internal (muscular activation) or external (threat)
stimuli as highly apprehensive. In consequence, mental and bodily reactions to a
threatening situation are activated (Grs, Antony, Simms, & McCabe, 2007).
The levels of anxiety in one context may differ among individuals because their
mental representations of a potential threat vary, whereas objective, external cir-
cumstances are similar. Anxiety is therefore generated by internal, real or imag-
ined dangers, the sources of which may be conscious or unconscious (Lesse, 1988,
p. 332), and the level of anxiety depends on the way an individual perceives and
evaluates a situation that one has to face. He or she may manage to deal with this
situation either through the function of ght, which prepares an individual for
approaching it, freeze, which activates passive behaviour, or flight, triggering
avoidance behaviour.
The construct of anxiety is associated with cognitive as well as affective com-
ponents entailing physiological and behavioural reactions (e.g., Piechurska-Kuciel,
2008; Zeidner, 2014). Liebert and Morris (1967) discriminate two components of
anxietyworry and emotionality. The former is cognitive in its nature and is
dened as cognitive concern about the consequences of failure (p. 975). An
anxious person may experience irrational thoughts, generate worst possible images
and scenarios when facing a situation perceived as apprehensive. For instance, an
individual may anticipate his or her L2 pronunciation performance in front of others
with a high level of apprehension. Then he or she creates an irrational vision of total
failure in communicating the intended message due to his or her poor intelligibility.
Thus, the L2 pronunciation learners thoughts are xated on worrying.
The second component of anxietyemotionalitybelongs to an affective aspect
of anxiety and refers to the anxious individuals awareness of bodily arousal or
tension (Tth, 2010, p. 7). Anxiety as a state of emotional arousal entails physical
or physiological changes as the body reacts in a visible and describable way to the
situation which has caused their anxiety. For example, shortness of breath,
hyperventilation, dry mouth, instances of palpitations, sweating, dizziness, gas-
trointestinal problems, chills or cold, clammy hands and muscle tension can be
observed, although they vary among those who experience anxiety (Rink, 2002).
Furthermore, tense muscles may affect the way a person speaks (Scovel, 1978). In
other words, a high level of anxiety may lead to neuromuscular problems with
sounds, for the production of which flexibility of speech organs is required in order
to attain an appropriate articulatory setting. Therefore, the process of sound artic-
ulation may be affected by muscle tension causing changes in pronunciation, [f]or
instance, physiological changes associated with anxiety may increase the tautness
of laryngeal and vocal fold muscles which increases the pitch of the voice (Laukka
et al., 2008, p. 208). What is interesting, this tension of the speech muscles caused
by an anxiety-inducing situation may affect not only such vocal parameters as pitch
(Laukka et al., 2008) but also frequency of sounds and the vowel spectrum
(Goberman, Hughes, & Haydock, 2011).
The behavioural component of anxiety refers to the way an individual reacts to a
situation towards which they experience apprehension. An individual may become
aggressive, passive, or avoid undesirable situations, escaping from similar situa-
tions perceived as provoking anxiety in the future. An apprehensive persons
behaviour may also be reflected in an increased dysfluency of speech (Laukka et al.,
2008) or avoidance of speech (Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009).
From a neurological perspective, anxiety is a complex construct connected with
an arousal of the autonomic nervous system (Zheng, 2008, p. 2), where an
almond-shaped part of the human brain, called the amygdala, mediates the pro-
cessing of anxiety stimuli (Asan, Steinke, & Lesch, 2013; Schumann, 1999).
Sensory input generated during the process of subjective appraisal of an
anxiety-inducing experience reaches the amygdala through the thalamus, which is a
structure located under the cortex playing an important role in the assessment of a
situation (Mates & Joaquin, 2013). Two other regions in the brain also contribute to
the process of stimulus appraisal: the orbitofrontal cortex and the body proper. Like
the amygdala, the orbitofrontal cortex is linked to the hypothalamus and the
brainstem, which are located in the body proper and play a role in the processing of
emotional stimuli (Levens, Devinsky, & Phelps, 2011). The hypothalamus, being
activated by the amygdala, triggers the production of hormones, which are injected
into the body. The brainstem that controls the autonomic nervous system affects,
among others, physiological reactions, such as an increase in respiration and heart
rate, muscle tension and body movement. As a result of the subjective appraisal of a
stimulus, parts of the brain prepare the body for its reaction through the activation
of the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine system and the musculo-skeletal
system (Schumann, 1999).
An understanding of the nature of anxiety requires a deeper insight into anxiety
typologies. Hence the following section discusses trait, state, situation-specic and
performance anxieties that play a role in the explanation of the language anxiety
construct.
3.1.1 Anxiety Types: Trait, State, Situation-Specic

and Performance
In approaching the construct of anxiety, psychologists distinguish a range of

typologies. For the limited scope of this dissertation, only a few types of anxiety are
discussed in order to exemplify this complex construct. Therefore, the concepts of
trait anxiety, state anxiety (Spielberger, 1966), and situation-specic anxiety are
discussed in more detail. Denitions and their theoretical underpinnings are
provided before a short debate concerning the interplay of these anxiety types with
other factors. In addition, the concept of performance anxiety is briefly addressed as
the background for further references in the discussions pertaining to language
anxiety from the perspective of pronunciation acquisition.
The term trait anxiety was coined by Spielberger (1966), who conceptualised it
as a stable, individual disposition to confront situations perceived as threatening. It
has been dened as an individuals likelihood of becoming anxious in any situ-
ations (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991b, p. 87) or an individuals predisposition to
be anxious (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 42). It therefore tends to be a rather stable
and permanent personality characteristic. While each person perceives a threatening
situation differently, for more anxious individualsi.e., those with higher levels of
trait anxietythe same situation may induce far more apprehension and worry than
in the others.
Scholars have proposed several theories for trait anxiety (cf. Eysenck, 1997)
which posit various interesting assumptions. For example, Spielberger (1966)
describes trait anxiety as a personality trait deriving from frequent, repetitive past
experiences of transient anxiety states. Eysenck (1997) observes the interplay
between trait anxiety and genetic factors. He follows the assumption that an indi-
viduals level of trait anxiety largely depends on hereditary predispositions, which
determine differences in trait anxiety via physiological functioning of brain struc-
tures, e.g., the amygdala and the hippocampus. Eysencks cognitive theory of trait
anxiety underlines the function of anxiety which allows an individual to detect a
potentially dangerous situation. High trait anxiety individuals are swift to perceive
an impending threat due to, among other factors, their attentional system connected
with hypervigilance. This involves a high rate of environmental scanning, a
broadening of attention prior to the detection of a threat-related or task-relevant
stimulus, and a narrowing of attention when such a stimulus is being processed
(p. 13). High trait anxiety is also connected with a greater concern over a social
evaluation (Eysenck & Van Berkum, 1992). Frequently, people with high levels of
anxiety are troubled with the issue of how they are perceived. They are afraid of
being judged negatively, and in consequence may avoid a situation in which they
could be exposed to others (Warren, 2004). Finally, there is a signicant difference
in negative interpretation of an ambiguous situationalso termed as interpretive
biasbetween individuals who display high and low trait anxiety (e.g., Calvo &
Castillo, 2001; Calvo & Eysenck, 1998).
State anxiety, on the other hand, is an emotional response to a particularly
apprehensive situation occurring at a dened moment, and this may fluctuate in
terms of time and intensity (Spielberger, 1983 in Ellis, 2008). It is a
moment-to-moment, transient experience associated with an arousal of the auto-
nomic nervous system. Even an individual low in trait anxiety may cognitively
appraise a situation as threatening and experience short-lived state anxiety
accompanied by a physiological reaction.
Experiencing temporal state anxiety may interplay with an individuals trait
anxiety. The higher the level of trait anxiety an individual experiences, the more
likely he or she is to face momentary state anxiety. Spielberger (1983) has found a
moderately strong correlation between trait and state anxieties, conrming that
people of high trait anxiety, who are prone to react nervously, also experience
higher anxiety levels in particular situations. In other words, trait anxiety is per-
ceived to be interrelated with state anxiety in the sense that the former refers to a
stable susceptibility or a proneness to experience state anxiety frequently (Grs
et al., 2007, p. 369). Hence, trait anxiety moderates state anxiety. McCroskey
(1984) places trait and state anxieties at the far ends of two extreme poles, although
they do not occur in pure forms because they exert mutual influence. Exemplifying
the difference between these two types of anxiety, some researchers (Tovilovi,
Novovi, Mihi, & Jovanovi, 2009) employ a metaphor linked to energy: trait vs.
state anxiety is compared to potential vs. kinetic energy. Potential energy, similarly
to trait anxiety, is an internalised feature of the individual; whereas kinetic energy,
like state anxiety, can be encountered in transient states.
Apart from Spielbergers (1966) two-dimensional conceptualisation of anxiety,
the third dimension emerges in the form of a situation-specic approach, based on
trait and state anxiety (Ellis, 1994). This perspective derives from the assumption
that certain situations are more anxiety-breeding than others, similarly to occur-
ences of state anxiety, and an individual may perceive them differently, as is the
case with trait anxiety. So situation-specic anxiety exemplies a persons level of
apprehension, while facing a threatening situation in a given place at a given time
(McCroskey, 1984). Therefore, situation-specic anxiety could be dened as a
personal predisposition or tendency to become anxious in one type of situation, that
is, a trait of anxiety applied to a particular context (Tth, 2010, p. 8). In other
words, situation-specic anxiety is a function of trait and state types of anxiety. For
example, if an individuallow or high in trait anxietyperceives a dened context
as non-threatening, then he or she will be low in situation-specic anxiety.
However, if another specied situation is repeatedly recognised as dangerous by the
same individual, then the level of situation-specic anxiety will be high. Public
speaking, tests and foreign language learning belong to these specic situations, in
which repeated states of anxiety may solidify into situation-specic anxiety
(Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 43). It follows that repeated negative experiences
encountered in the SLA process lead to the formation of situation-specic anxiety
in this specic context, for instance, in the L2 pronunciation learning context.
The next type of anxiety discussed here is performance anxiety (PA), which
together with interaction anxietytriggered by fears in communicative situations
belong to the realm of social anxiety (Whiting et al., 2014). PA involves an indi-
viduals fear and worry of being perceived and evaluated negatively by others. It is
triggered by external cues and situational demands that involve concerns about
others evaluations of ones behaviour (Hook, Valentiner, & Connelly, 2013,
p. 203). Therefore, PA is conned to contexts in which individuals are exposed to
possible external negative evaluation by other participants. Whiting et al.
(2014) provide a few examples of those situations, which include eating in public,
taking tests, public speaking. Piechurska-Kuciel (2008) adds to the list musical
performance, stage fright and L2 language learning. In the SLA context, L2 learners
are exposed to the evaluation of teachers and peers, and they may feel apprehensive
about how their L2 performance, including L2 pronunciation, is evaluated.
There are several characteristics of PA. Firstly, there is evidence implying that it
may either stem from traumatic past experiences entailing performance situations,
or it can be transferred from parents to children as a predisposition, or both (cf.
Bgels et al., 2010). Secondly, links between PA and such personality character-
istics as shyness (Chavira, Stein, & Malcarne, 2002) and behavioural inhibition
(Schwartz, Snidman, & Kagan, 1999) have not been found; therefore, PA may not
be predicted on the basis of these factors. Thirdly, PA comprises subtypes of
anxieties experienced in various performance contexts, for example, communica-
tion apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation.
Communication apprehension is observed in oral communication contexts and is
dened as an individuals level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or
anticipated communication with another person or persons (McCroskey, 1984,
p. 13). Communication apprehension is also perceived as the fear or anxiety an
individual feels about orally communicating (Daly, 1991, p. 3). These denitions
view the construct exclusively from the perspective of oral communication.
However, it may refer to general communication as well (McCroskey, 1984).
Nevertheless, the above interpretation emphasises the situation in which an inter-
locutor, irrespective of the language used, feels uneasy because he or she needs to
transfer a message to the receiver.
There are several hypotheses concerning the origins of communication appre-
hension (Daly, 1991). The rst considers a genetic predisposition towards anxiety.
In other words, it underlies hereditary inclinations referring to levels of general
apprehension. The second is based on behavioural assumptions, taking punishments
and reinforcements into account. If an individuals action linked with communi-
cation is repetitively reinforced by positive feedback, communication apprehension
is low. However, if a child is punished several times for his or her communicative
endeavours, there is a danger of developing high levels of anxiety in contexts of
communication. Similarly, inconsistency in awards or punishments leads to a
childs withdrawal and the development of communication apprehension, which is
the third explanation. A persons early experiences in communication are also
hypothesised to contribute to the level of anxiety. Furthermore, an individual who
has opportunities to acquire communication skills early in life and is provided with
positive models of communicating experiences lower levels of apprehension later in
life (Daly, 1991).
Communication apprehension can be viewed from trait, state and situational
perspectives (McCroskey, 1984); however, it is important to bear in mind that all
three perspectives may interact with one another. Trait-like communication
apprehension refers to a personality characteristics, which is a relatively enduring,
personality-type orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide
variety of contexts (McCroskey, 1984, p. 16). An individual is anxious in any
communicative situation. The state-like perspective is limited to some contexts.
Fear of speaking in public, for instance stage fright, or fear of speaking in class,
represent generalised context type for communication apprehension, which is
additionally affected by trait-like anxiety. The last type, situational communication

apprehension, is dened as transitory orientation toward communication with a
given person or group of people (McCroskey, 1984, p. 18). It therefore occurs as a
result of a recipients behaviour and is viewed as person-group communication
apprehension.
The second type of performance anxiety occurring in evaluative contexts is test
anxiety. Its characteristic features are an excessive degree of fear, worry, and
apprehension before, during, and/or after test situations, with symptoms of physi-
ological reactivity and concern regarding (the consequences of) poor performance
(Bgels et al., 2010, p. 168). A test taking context is perceived as inducing
apprehension. It therefore triggers physiological reactions and self-deprecating
thoughts. For instance, an individual taking an oral test on his or her L2 pronun-
ciation competence may experience a high level of performance anxiety. This
testing situation may be perceived by such a learner as highly apprehensive. In
consequence, his or her thoughts are preoccupied with worst possible scenarios
concerning the negative outcomes of the test, and the articulatory muscles, indis-
pensable for clear pronunciation become tense. This type of anxiety is discussed in
more detail in the section devoted to language anxiety.
Fear of negative evaluation or social-evaluative anxiety (Piechurska-Kuciel,
2008, p. 64) is encountered when an individual dreads being evaluated in a range of
social situations. Erroneous assumptions are reached when faced with a social
situation, especially if this situation is viewed as requiring high standards of per-
formance, and the bearing of potential consequences of inadequate performance,
triggering negative self-perception (Magno, 2008). These assumptions lead to the
perceived danger of being negatively evaluated by others. These three types of PA:
communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation, are
related to language anxiety. Therefore, they are discussed more thoroughly in
sections describing this construct (Sects. 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3).
To summarise, the above selected typologies of anxiety provide the description
of anxiety characteristics indispensable for understanding language anxiety, which
is here the core concept. For the same reason, the theoretical background of general
anxiety is delineated below to grasp a broader perspective within which the nar-
rower construct of language anxiety functions.
3.1.2 Selected Theories and Models of Anxiety
While an array of theoretical accounts and models explicating the complex nature
of anxiety have been proposed (cf. Zeidner, 2014), the following section presents
those few which have delved into the cognitive effects of anxiety in evaluative
contexts. These provide the background for further discussions on anxiety expe-
rienced in language learning contexts, which entail both cognitive demands and
evaluation. Firstly, processing efciency theory is discussed before attentional
control theory. Subsequently, an integrated model of anxiety and perceptual-motor
performance is delineated. Finally, models of skills decit and self-regulation are

presented.
In their processing efciency theory, Eysenck and Calvo (1992) postulate that
anxiety debilitates processing efciency to a greater extent than performance
effectiveness. They dene processing efciency as the outcome of the interplay
between performance quality (e.g., its accuracy), viewed as performance effec-
tiveness, and mental effort put into achieving this quality via the use of available
resources. Clearly, processing efciency is high when performance quality is high
and the effort to attain it is low; however, processing efciency deteriorates when
performance effectiveness is low and a large amount of effort and resources are used
to compensate for performance quality (cf. Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).
Following this line of argument, anxiety affects processing efciency more than
performance effectiveness, particularly when the latter is low in quality. More
specically, individuals high in anxiety may experience processing inefciency.
Therefore their thoughts, which are task-irrelevant and worrisome, trigger their
motivation to deploy available strategies to compensate for inadequate performance
(Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009). According to Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and
Calvo (2007), the effects of worry are twofold: it interplays with cognitive pro-
cessing and reduces working memory capacity, and it also raises motivation to
reduce anxiety by
promoting enhanced effort and use of auxiliary processing resources and strategies. Thus,
potential performance impairments caused by the preemption of working memory resources
can be compensated for. If auxiliary processing resources are available, impaired perfor-
mance effectiveness is less likely to occur but at the cost of reduced efciency. If these
resources are unavailable, then performance effectiveness will be impaired (p. 337).
Therefore, the anxiety effect may be more tangible when addressed towards
processing efciency than performance effectiveness, which has been conrmed in
studies using neuroimaging detecting effects of anxiety on cognitive processes,
rather than in studies determining the interplay between anxiety and performance,
where the results are inconclusive (Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).
The above explanation seems crucial, since it provides a plausible link between
the concept of strategies, tactics and anxiety. Worry, being a component of anxiety,
may negatively affect cognitive processing efciency and effectiveness of perfor-
mance; however, if supportive processing resources, for example, strategies
accelerating cognitive processes are at hand, the effectiveness will not decrease.
Nevertheless, it is important to be aware of research outcomes, which support the
claim that cognitive processing efciency is reduced by anxiety more than per-
formance effectiveness (cf. Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009).
Processing efciency theory also addresses the issue of the interplay between
anxiety and the working memory system, consisting of the central executive (re-
sponsible for planning, strategy selection, attentional control) and two subordinate
components: the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad (Derakshan &
Eysenck, 2009). According to Friedman and Miyake (2004), the executive system
fulls three functions. First, the inhibition function uses attentional control for
restraining task-irrelevant stimuli in order to avoid disruption of performance.

Second, the shifting function is responsible for optimal transfer of attention to
task-relevant stimuli. Third, the updating function updates and monitors informa-
tion processed by the working memory. Eysenck and Derakshan (2011) speculate
that anxiety impairs the inhibition and shifting functions. In other words, an anxious
individuals performance suffers because of impaired functioning of inhibition in
the central executive system. In consequence, the attentional control no longer
blocks task-irrelevant stimuli. Moreover, anxiety disrupts proper functioning of
optimal shifts in the central executive, which means that attention is not optimally
transferred to the task. Therefore, not only do the external stimuli distract the
attention of an anxious individual, but she or he also has problems with focusing
attention on the task. Additionally, anxiety also modestly affects the two subordi-
nate components (1) the phonological loop (used to rehearse verbal material and to
store it briefly) and (2) the visuo-spatial sketchpad (used to process and store
transiently visual and spatial information) (ibid., p. 955). In summary, when there
are high demands on the working memory system, anxious individuals
task-irrelevant processing affects this system, by disturbing the functioning of its
components, such as the central executive, the phonological loop and the
visuo-spatial sketchpad, which nally results in impaired performance.
In attentional control theory, Eysenck et al. (2007) explain the negative influence
of anxiety on performance via top-down and bottom-up processing mechanisms.
According to Corbetta and Shulman (2002), the top-down system is determined by
the goals, expectations and knowledge of an individual who experiences anxiety,
whereas the bottom-up entails apprehension of stimuli. When the anxiety level is
high, stimulus-driven bottom-up cognitive processing is increased at the expense of
goal-directed top-down processing. In other words, a highly anxious persons
attentional systems are imbalanced, so that the top-down focus on a task decreases
and the bottom-up focus on a stimulus rises, leading to less efcient processing and
less effective performance (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck, 1979). Thus, the
anxiety level stemming from an individuals appraisal of a situation incorporates
attention focus systems divided between task-related and stimulus-driven processes.
All in all, the cognitive component of anxietyworryis responsible for hindering
attention control and triggering distraction processes (Marcos-Llinas & Garau,
2009).
An integrated model of anxiety and perceptual-motor performance is proposed
by Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2012), who make attempts to consolidate several,
often opposing models of anxiety. Before introducing the model, the authors
preliminary assumption needs to be addressed. One of the premises concerning the
effects of anxiety that Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2012) follow is that it affects
attention (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011; Eysenck
et al., 2007), which in turn may lead to a reduced control of task-related bodily
movements. Not only is anxiety related to attention, but also to the interpretation of
perceived stimuli (Blanchette & Richards, 2010) and behavioural responses to them
(Lavender & Hommel, 2007). In their attempt to embrace a complex construct of
anxiety, Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2012) propose a model which indicates the
interplay of the above mechanisms, providing an integrated perspective on the

various ways through which anxiety may affect goal directed action (p. 754). This
model explicates negative effects of anxiety at three operational levels:
threat-related attention, threat-related interpretation and threat-related response
tendencies. On the one hand, these levels are triggered by the anxious individuals
stimulus-driven processes. On the other hand, they interplay with goal-directed
performance depicted as a perception-selection-action cycle (ibid., p. 753).
Firstly, anxiety leads to increased attention to a threat-related stimulus. In line with
Eysenck et al.s (2007) attentional control theory, an individual who experiences a
high level of anxiety divides his attention between task-relevant and
threat-relevant/stimulus-driven thoughts. The increased attention to a stimulus
perceived as threatening leads to the switching off of automatic processes during
performance of a task or an action.
In a similar vein, Beilock and Carrs (2001) execution focus model explicates
that attention resulting from anxiety is directed inwards, which means that an
anxious individual starts controlling his or her movements explicitly, and this in
turn leads to switching off automatic processes. In consequence, performance
deteriorates because it is based on automatic operations such as, for example, the
production of sounds. Furthermore, anxiety affects threat-related interpretation.
More specically, even though an anxious individuals attention is focused on the
goal-directed task, he or she may misinterpret it, which leads to distorted perfor-
mance. Finally, several behavioural responses are generated by anxiety. These are,
for example, increased heart rate, blood pressure and muscle tension, which lower
the efciency of bodily movements, and consequently also the movements of
speech organs.
Additionally, Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2012) model of anxiety and
perceptual-motor performance depicts three paths for an anxious individual who
attempts to maintain performance through investment of greater mental effort. First
of all, in order to channel cognition effectively, he or she may increase effort in
using compensation strategies to focus on goal-directed processes. This can be
done, for example, through deliberate visual attention training (cf. Nieuwenhuys &
Oudejans, 2012). Next, negative effects of anxiety can also be reduced by inhibiting
or precluding threat-related thoughts. For instance, an individual may deliberately
stop or distract thoughts related to a threatening stimulus. Finally, through breathing
and imagery an individual may attempt to lower anxiety or to prevent it. Generally,
the model shows that the anxiety level is dependent upon situational factors, e.g.,
the task and context, and dispositional factors, e.g., individual differences. An
individual approaches a complex task (situational factor) that he or she perceives as
demanding and involving pressure. This judgement may be formed on the basis of
his own past experiences (dispositional factors), which in turn leads to an adequate
level of anxiety (Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2012). Both of these stressors may also
influence the type of an extra effort or strategies chosen to compensate for anxiety
effects.
A different line of inquiry is followed in the skills decit models, elucidating that
anxiety interplays with skills deciency, which leads to impaired performance
(cf. Culler & Holahan, 1980; Tth, 2010; Zeidner, 1998). In these models there are
two reasons for not applying effective skills in a situation requiring their employ-
ment. First, an individual has not acquired them, and is therefore unable to use
them. Second, although the skills are learnt, an individual does not or cannot
execute them properly because of a high anxiety level (nem, 2012), which places
anxiety as a factor both triggered by poor skills and causing their inefcient usage.
These models are applicable in evaluative settings, for instance, social interactions
(Tth, 2010) and studying (Culler & Holahan, 1980; Zeidner, 1991), both of which
are important in SLA. The second context, referring to academic performance, is
analysed more carefully because it incorporates the concept of study skills, which
might be broadly interpreted as learning strategiesfundamental for the purposes
of this research.
Zeidner (1998) presents several causal paths linking anxiety, decient skills and
performance. For instance, poor study skills are connected with lower intake and
inadequate organisation of studying, which results in inefcient performance. In this
path anxiety may not appear initially but may emerge as a result of repetitive
performance failures caused by poor study habits. An alternative perspective
assumes that low ability individuals are taken into account in the proposed second
causal path of the skills decit model. Their study skills are more decient at the
level of acquisition, organisation and retrieval, leading to poor performance.
Therefore, aware of those deciencies and poor chances of success, they become
anxious. Yet another conceptualisation of the skills decit model posits that anxiety
functions as a mediating factor in poor skillsa poor performance chain. Namely,
inferior acquisition and retrieval caused by ineffective study skills bring about
awareness of poor chances to succeed. These in turn generate self-deprecating
thoughts (e.g., feelings of uncertainty and low academic self-efcacy) triggering
anxiety, which affects performance. In this approach, anxiety is an antecedent of
performance.
Nevertheless, a number of limitations in the skills decit models have been put
forward (Hopko, Crittendon, Grant, & Wilson, 2005). The models do not account
for instances when an individual, despite an appropriate repertoire of skills,
develops a high level of anxiety and performs poorly. Additionally, individuals may
not be aware of their skill decits and may perceive their skills as efcient, even if
they are not. That is why, stemming from the skills decit models, a bidirectional
model (Covington & Omelich, 1988 in Zeidner, 1998) is proposed. More speci-
cally, an individual perceiving his or her skills as inefcient suffers from anxiety
which affects study habits. Those in turn limit encoding processes resulting in poor
performance. Additionally, performance is impaired by problems with retrieval
caused by worry, a component of anxiety experienced during performance, and an
awareness of being inadequately prepared. In time, if repeated, this cause-and-result
chain accumulates into a self-defeating process (Zeidner, 1998, p. 75).
The concept of self-regulation and its link with anxiety is visible in Carver and
Scheiers (1991, 1998) control-system self-regulation model of anxiety. They view
self-regulation as a system regulating actions with respect to diverse kinds of goals
() so that lifes many incentives are successfully approached and threats avoided
(Carver & Scheier, 2014, p. 56). In other words, this model integrates anxiety
within the system of processes for attaining goals in evaluative contexts. It assumes
that individuals set goals and have standards for achieving them. Those standards
are treated as guidelines or principles against which individuals confront their
existing actions and behaviours performed on the way towards achieving the goals.
These confrontations or rather comparisons are necessary in order to adjust the
behaviour and reach the goal. These processes operate via the feedback control
system, the basic unit of which is a behavioural negative feedback loop. More
abstractly, a negative feedback loop consists of several processes like sensing
some existing condition and comparing it to a desired or intended condition
(Carver & Scheier, 2014, p. 57), or adjusting perceived discrepancies between
sensed and referenced conditions by changing behaviour leading towards goal
attainment. Those feedback loops are repeated over time. If the process moves
towards achieving the goal, the discrepancies between existing and desired con-
ditions diminish forming smaller and smaller loops (discrepancy-reducing,
approach action). However, there are impediments that prevent individuals from
making these adjustments necessary in order to move towards their goal. These may
be, among others, skill decits (Zeidner, 2014). In this case, the loops do not
decrease and the progress on the way to achieving the goal is not made or
regression may even occur (discrepancy-enlarging, avoidance action). Carver and
Scheier (2014) postulate that what determines the rate of this progress is an affect
loop, which runs automatically, simultaneously with the behaviour-producing
process, and in parallel to it (p. 58). In the case of discrepancy-reducing, approach
action, when an individual perceives this rate as acceptable or intended, a positive
affect is triggered; whereas negative affect emerges when the sensed progress is
below an individuals expectations. In this model, anxiety occurs at the level of the
affective loop when an individual senses that he or she is doing poorly when
approaching a threatening situation.
The theoretical assumptions and models of anxiety discussed above provide a
framework for a better understanding of the complex concept of anxiety, which
may be experienced in various contexts. Since this book focuses on the educational
setting of L2 learning, it is of paramount importance to scrutinize how the phe-
nomenon of anxiety is addressed in the L2 learning environment. Thus, the term
foreign language anxiety needs to be dened, its constituents specied and causes
described.
3.2 Foreign Language Anxiety
Foreign language anxiety (LA) is perceived as a relatively stable, negative emo-

tional reaction in SLA (Horwitz, 2010; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre
& Gardner, 1991a). Generally, there are two approaches to dening LA (MacIntyre,
1999). On the one hand, the construct is conceptualised as strictly connected with
anxiety experienced in other contexts, so language anxiety reflects the concept of
general anxiety. This is an anxiety transfer approach (Chastain, 1975; Young,

1991). On the other hand, language anxiety is viewed as an experience referring
exclusively to language learning. It is unique and distinct from other anxiety types
(MacIntyre and Gardner, 1991b). This approach has predominated in recent
research into language anxiety (Gkonou, 2011; MacIntyre, 1999) because it pre-
cisely calibrates the concept of anxiety interwoven with L2 learning processes. For
example, even those learners whose general anxiety levels are very low may feel
very anxious when they start L2 learning. The second approach, perceiving LA as
restricted to L2 learning is followed in this volume and reflected in the denitions
discussed below.
One of the classic denitions of language anxiety is provided by Horwitz et al.
(1986). They view language anxiety as a distinct complex of self-perceptions,
beliefs, feelings, and behaviours related to classroom language learning and arising
from the uniqueness of the language learning process (p. 128). What is emphasised
here refers to the subjectivity of a learners self-related perspective while learning a
foreign or second language in the classroom. This in turn may lead to discomfort
and inhibitions in their ability to comprehend and produce the foreign language.
Thus, language anxiety is frequently associated with language performance and the
skills of listening and speaking (Horwitz et al., 1986).
MacIntyre and Gardner (1994a) dene language anxiety as the feeling of ten-
sion and apprehension specically associated with second language contexts,
including speaking, listening, and learning (p. 284). Language anxiety may occur
when an L2 learner is supposed to perform in the second or foreign language. An
L2 performance may take either a written or oral form, including speaking and,
therefore, pronunciation. Consequently, an individual perceiving a classroom sit-
uation as highly apprehensive may experience problems in L2 pronunciation, for
instance in discrimination and production of L2 sounds.
MacIntyre (1999) conceptualizes language anxiety as the worry and negative
emotional reaction aroused when learning or using a second language (p. 27). In
other words, language anxiety is triggered by the L2 learning context. It is also
understood as an emergent, coordinated emotion with feeling, arousal, purposive
and expressive phenomena (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012, p. 195). An individual
responds to a perceived threatening language learning situation with feelings of
tension, nervousness and worry. The manifestation of language anxiety is coordi-
nated by the nervous system. Therefore, a physical reaction is visible in terms of an
increased heart rate, muscle tension and sweating. This tension may also affect the
muscles of the speech organs, lowering their flexibility and leading to pronunciation
inaccuracies while performing in L2.
Another multidimensional denition views language anxiety as the unique
feelings of tension and apprehension experienced in the SLA process in the
classroom context, arising from the necessity to learn and use a FL that has not been
fully mastered (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 59). Here a few aspects are taken into
account: the psychological nature of anxiety, the classroom as a learning context for
a foreign language, and the sociological aspect linked to a learners awareness of
their imperfection in the use of L2, implying their self-perception of their own
3.2 Foreign Language Anxiety 65
competence level, and their ability to confront this with peers or a teacher. In other
words, individuals experience anxiety in a language classroom where a range of
social and communicative dimensions of language learning take place (MacIntyre,
1995). All of these interact and influence the outcome of foreign language learning.
This last denition serves as the working denition because it comprises an array of
relevant dimensions: a foreign rather than a second language in-class learning
setting, apprehension stemming from the teacher trainees necessity to acquire an
L2 aspectEnglish pronunciationand awareness of imperfect English
pronunciation.
3.2.1 Constituents of Language Anxiety
Although language anxiety is seen as an independent construct, several links have

been noted between it and other types of general anxiety. For example, Horwitz
(2001) delineates its low correlation with trait anxiety. Therefore, a learner prone to
experience higher levels of trait anxiety may also feel more anxious in a learning
situation when speaking, pronouncing utterances, writing, reading or listening in a
foreign language. Moreover, the feeling of worry and apprehension which is
experienced in the language classroom may be initially a transitory state. Initially,
an L2 learner may experience state anxiety. Later, if this experience is repeated, it
may change into a solidied reaction concerning language learning and language
performance. Hence, it may be viewed as situation-specic language anxiety
(MacIntyre, 1999). Generally, in the process of L2 learning, trait and state anxiety
types may solidify into an L2 learners more or less stable predisposition in relation
to their anxiety level in a language class.
Apart from trait and state anxieties there are other general anxiety types which
are strongly associated with the concept of language anxietythese are perfor-
mance anxieties. They are experienced in evaluative contexts associated with
individuals performance. The L2 learning environment provides numerous
opportunities for learners to perform in their second or foreign language, which
involves an evaluation of the performer by his or her teacher or peers. Speaking,
giving presentations and testing are all examples of such performances entailing
evaluation. Horwitz et al. (1986) distinguish three universal anxiety processes as
being linked to performance: communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of
negative evaluation, which were outlined in Sect. 3.1.1. These may also operate in
the L2 learning context and may interplay with L2 pronunciation (Shams, 2006).
Therefore, more attention is given to them in the following sections. More
specically, language anxiety may be triggered by communication apprehension
when a learner fears that a communication breakdown is imminent because of his or
her poor pronunciation. What is more, a learner may experience test anxiety as a
result of being evaluated while speaking in the classroom. If the speaker fears what
others may think of the way she sounds (p. 55), their level of language anxiety
may increase drastically due to the prospect of negative evaluation.
3.2.1.1 Communication Apprehension
An L2 learners pronunciation may be related to all three performance anxieties:

communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation.
Deciencies in pronunciation may impede communication while simultaneously
raising the level of the interlocutors communication apprehension. An evaluative
situation may raise the feeling of anxiety if a learner is aware of incompetence in his
or her command of L2, for example, phonological or strategic. Similarly, pro-
nunciation which is negatively self-perceived may lead to feelings of fear of neg-
ative evaluation by peers, native speakers and teachers, because highly anxious
learners constantly compare[d] themselves with others and fear[ed] humiliating
themselves in front of them (Baran-ucarz, 2011, p. 506).
In language learning contexts, communication apprehension is manifested in the
anxiety or fear a learner experiences while interacting in a foreign language.
Moreover, in the context of L2 language learning, a person taking part in a com-
municative process is aware of a limited competence of his or her L2 use, which
may be a potential cause of growing levels of apprehension. For instance, an
imperfect use of L2 pronunciation features, such as individual sounds, stress
placement or intonation, may also contribute to communication apprehension.
A learner may fear that poor pronunciation obscures the meaning of his message
(Shams, 2006, p. 55).
Communication apprehension occurs in those language learning contexts which
entail interpersonal communication situations. The awareness of incompetence in
the use of L2 together with the need for mutual comprehension among learners may
lead to different reactions, e.g., many otherwise talkative people are silent in a
foreign language class [or] inhibited speakers may nd that communicating in a
foreign language makes them feel as if someone else is speaking and they therefore
feel less anxious (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 127). In general, the reasons for com-
munication apprehension in the classroom might be twofold. Firstly, there are those
reasons which do not refer to anxiety, e.g., being unprepared, uninterested, or
alienated. Secondly, there are reasons which derive from apprehension, e.g., being
afraid of communicating in a foreign language (Daly, 1991), or being afraid of
miscommunication caused by erroneous pronunciation. Therefore, the tendency for
learners who are communicatively apprehensive is to avoid or withdraw from
interaction. This may be the explanation why they are frequently perceived as poor
communicators (Goberman, Hughes, & Haydock, 2011).
A learner may feel more anxious and concerned with the way they speak and
pronounce utterances when communicating with one person, for instance, with a
native speaker (Von Wrde, 2003) or a teacher. Woodrow (2006) notes an example
in the words of an interviewee:
I feel anxiety when I talk with native English speakers because I know my Englishmy
speaking Englishis not correct, so maybe it makes the native English speakers confused
and maybe sometimes what Im speakingwhat Im talking about is not interesting to
native speakers. I think so these kinds of things (p. 320).
Nevertheless, the same individual may be less apprehensive when interacting

with another L2 learner or learners, whose linguisticand consequently pronun-
ciation competenceis comparable (Feigenbaum, 2007). Therefore, social distance
and familiarity between interlocutors is a major factor here.
3.2.1.2 Test Anxiety
Test anxiety or apprehension over academic evaluation (MacIntyre & Gardner,

1989, p. 252) appears in contexts of evaluation when an L2 learner experiences
feelings of worry, hyper-arousal, inattention and social humiliation (Bgels et al.,
2010), which in turn influence the whole process of learning (Aydin, 2009). It is
dened as a learners tendency to view with alarm the consequences of inadequate
performance in an evaluative situation (Aida, 1994, p. 157). In other words, an
individual experiences a feeling of apprehension and worry while being under
pressure of evaluation because of potential failure. A classroom situation in which a
teacher and other students make judgements about an individuals L2 speech,
including pronunciation, may be perceived as evaluative for a learner who is not
fully competent.
Evaluative situations may raise the level of language anxiety due to many L2
learner internal and external factors. Aydin (2013) divides these into three cate-
gories: subject variables, independent variables, and extraneous variables. The rst
category covers areas which include learners age, gender, economic and educa-
tional background, as well as achievement and prociency level. These are
objective features dening a learner and providing his or her biographical data. The
second group of variables comprises attitudes towards L2 learning, study skills and
test-related factors, such as test validity, length, formats, techniques, and testing
environment. Teachers, course books, language teaching methods and techniques
belong to the last set of variables affecting test anxiety levels (for an extensive
overview cf. Aydin, 2009, 2013; Wigeld & Eccles, 1989).
In a testing situation, a learner has to use the language, including such a lan-
guage subsystem as pronunciation of L2, which is still being learnt. This fact may
lead to an increased feeling of worry with regard to committing too many mistakes,
also pronunciation mistakes. Moreover, in evaluative circumstances vocal pro-
duction becomes signicantly more difcult to control with increasing stress, and
coping becomes harder and more demanding (Nesic et al., 2012, p. 2547). Being
evaluated over a limited time and being aware of further consequences, such as
getting a bad grade, may contribute to higher levels of anxiety (Ohata, 2005).
Additionally, an anxious learner faces different types of pressures, for example
self-deprecating thoughts about their imperfect L2 enunciation abilities, language
studying constraints, such as lack of phonological knowledge, problems with
speech perception, or an inadequate repertoire of learner strategies. Destructive
negative thoughts, which are task-irrelevant, are reported to be the sources of high
levels of test anxiety (Sarason, 1984). A highly anxious learner is preoccupied with
the concerns over his or her inadequate competence and others higher potential.
Therefore, instead of concentrating merely on performing a task, a learner divides

their attention between feelings of worry and the task (Aida, 1994), which is
supported by Eysenck et al.s (2007) attentional control theory and Nieuwenhuys
and Oudejanss (2012) integrated model of anxiety and perceptual-motor perfor-
mance outlined in Sect. 3.1.2. In consequence, the test performance is low, even if a
learner possesses appropriate study skills (McKeachie, Yi-Guang, & Middleton,
2004). In other words, the study skills potential, which may refer to the deploy-
ment of a range of language learning strategies, including pronunciation learning
strategies, is not maximised due to a learners feelings of worry, which distract their
focus on the task.
Learners may experience higher levels of test anxiety for other reasons, which
may include the way they prepare for an evaluative situation. Mealey and Host
(1992) differentiate three types of test anxious learners. The rst may have inef-
fective study habits and, thus, may be unable to process and organise necessary
information effectively before a test. For instance, such a student may not know
effective pronunciation learning strategies, and is therefore unable to apply them
while learning before an L2 pronunciation evaluation. In consequence, an indi-
vidual experiences high test anxiety. The second type of a test anxious learner
knows, for example, a range of pronunciation learning strategies but is unable to
apply them in evaluative situations, which might indicate the link between the use
of strategies and levels of language anxiety. The third group is convinced that the
strategies and study habits they deploy are appropriate, but in fact, they employ
them inadequately. Therefore, the actual and expected results differ causing higher
test anxiety. The direction of the relationship between test anxiety and strategy use,
however, is not known, so either the anxiety level blocks the use of effective
strategies, or ineffective strategy use causes higher anxiety (McKeachie et al.,
2004). All in all, conscious deciency in knowledge, a blockage of the use of
effective pronunciation learning strategies or faulty pronunciation strategy usage
resulting in unrealistic expectations may be linked with increased levels of test
anxiety which, in consequence, are reflected in lower pronunciation performance in
evaluative situations.
3.2.1.3 Fear of Negative Evaluation
In the EFL learning context, fear of negative evaluation is observed when foreign
language learners feel incapable of making the proper social impression and it is an
apprehension towards evaluations by others (Aydin, 2008, p. 423). Being afraid of
the judgement of peers or a teacher in the classroom situation, an anxious student is
passive and withdrawn (Aida, 1994). This type of anxiety is generated by a
learners uncertainty of foreign language competence and frustration connected
with their inability to express ideas in the way the person would like to in order to
be accepted within a language learning group (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989).
When performing with minimal control of the situation in the classroom and
using a second or foreign language imperfectly, a learner is constantly subject to
either peer or teacher monitoring, which creates the feeling of uneasiness (Ohata,
2005). Thus, comparing ones pronunciation to that of othersnot only that of
peers but also of a teacher or native speakersmay contribute to aggravation of
anxiety in the classroom because the way one speaks has a great deal to do with
the impression he or she wants to create in a particular context (Jones, 2002,
p. 184). Therefore, an in-class L2 learners pronunciation undergoes the judgement
of the listeners and this fact may raise an individuals level of anxiety. For instance,
Gregersen and Horwitz (2002) quote a highly anxious learner, who confesses that
I am bothered a little [about my errors] because I get nervous, and I think that the other
person thinks that I dont know how to speak. It happens a lot. I try to pronounce the best I
can, and when I try to pronounce better, my pronunciation gets worse, because I get
flustered. That is, I get flustered because I sometimes pronounce words badly. I try so hard
to pronounce perfectly. For example, I have a classmate who is very calm when he speaks.
He gets mixed up sometimes, but he untangles himself quickly. But not me. I get mixed up
and then I get even more mixed up. I get into even deeper trouble (p. 567).
This example shows that striving to pronounce utterances correctly in the

presence of others is interwoven with a feeling of apprehension. A learner who is
aware of his or her imperfect L2 pronunciation worries because of an unfavourable
impression he or she might make on others. Additionally, the way a person pro-
nounces L2 affects intelligibility in interactions and may serve as a basis for
negative social evaluation and discrimination (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p. 385).
Not being understood, or being misunderstood leads to a breakdown in commu-
nication, triggering fear of negative evaluation.
Moreover, a learners perception of others pronunciation may generate negative
thoughts about his or her own pronunciation. Mller (2013) observes that an
individual who negatively evaluates another speakers pronunciation may worry
about being harshly judged himself by others, which sometimes leads to avoidance
of speaking. Similarly, those who are highly concerned about the impressions that
others form of them tend to behave in ways that minimize the possibility of
unfavorable evaluations (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002, p. 562). Therefore they
rarely interact, so as to avoid negative judgement.
Not always, however, does concern about how interlocutors perceive a speakers
pronunciation lead to speech avoidance. Sometimes the pressure of an evaluative
situation may be reflected in a learners way of speaking. For example, a desire to
become a member of the clubdened as a desire to be accepted and evaluated
positively by a group (cf. Krashen, 1985, 2012)may lead to L2 pronunciation
which conforms to norms accepted by other club members. Therefore, the learners
pronunciation may deteriorate purposefully so as to avoid negative judgement on
the part of peers. This phenomenon is termed by Murphy (1991) as [p]honological
backsliding and affective resistance to change (p. 59) or an indicator of in-group
afliation (Jones, 1997). Consequently, learners who feel accepted by their class-
mates due to, among other factors, impoverished pronunciation are less embar-
rassed by their own mistakes and more inclined to cooperate with others in the
learning process (Phillips, 1991, p. 8).
Summarising, language anxiety is grounded in three performance anxieties, i.e.,

communication apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation, which
may occur in the L2 learning pronunciation environment. L2 learners may perceive
their in-class L2 pronunciation learning process as apprehensive because of many
reasons which stem from the three performance anxieties discussed above.
Therefore, the complex picture of language anxiety phenomenon calls for scrutiny
of the possible causes of language anxiety.
3.3 Causes of Language Anxiety
There are a number of different classications of language anxiety sources

(cf. Ohata, 2005; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008; Young, 1991); nevertheless, they all
comprise causes of language anxiety which are either grounded internally or
externally for the learner. For example, learner beliefs about language learning are
the sources of language anxiety generated by a learner, therefore they are termed
internal. Other learner-internally-grounded sources of language anxiety are, among
others, identity-based causes, self-perception causes and competitiveness.
Additionally, language anxiety is described as originating in learners difculties in
foreign language learning, such as developmental dyslexia. Learner-externally-
grounded factors affecting levels of language anxiety refer to instructors beliefs
about learning and teaching, instructor-learner interactions, classroom procedures
and language testing (Young, 1991; Ohata, 2005).
The division between internal and external sources of language anxiety is out-
lined below. First, learner-internally-grounded causes are discussed, together with a
subsection on specic language learning difculties. Next, learner-externally-
grounded causes of language anxiety are presented with a focus on the teacher and
classroom environment.
3.3.1 Internally Grounded Causes of Language Anxiety
The sources of language anxiety as linked to the learner may originate from social
anxiety, which occurs when people become concerned about how they are being
perceived and evaluated by others (Leary & Kowalsky, 1995, p. 6). These may
include performance anxieties, such as communication apprehension, stage fright,
speaking anxiety and fear of negative evaluation, some of which have been dis-
cussed earlier in detail. In other words, learners who feel anxious when performing
in any social context may experience language anxiety in the classroom as well.
While speaking in the classroom, they may be anxious about, for instance, how
their pronunciation is appraised by others. Moreover, anxiety may stem from the
fear of being laughed at by peers for using imperfect structures or inadequate
sounds, intonation patterns or word stress in the classroom (Price, 1991).
3.3 Causes of Language Anxiety 71
In a similar vein, Krashen (1985) perceives language anxiety as entangled with

group or club membership. The feeling of apprehension entails the degree to which
the learner needs to become a member of the group that uses an L2 as a native
language. When this drive to become a member is high, the affective lter, as well
as language anxiety, is lowered and the process of language learning is optimal. In
other words, a learner who displays a low level of language anxiety, and who wants
to be afliated with the target group of, for example, native English speakers,
creates optimal conditions for L2 learning. This may apply to a range of language
learning areas, including adequate deployment of pronunciation learning strategies
and the achievement of high standards of pronunciation. Therefore, the high
motivation of an L2 learner striving to belong to the target group correlates with
good pronunciation (cf. Moyer, 1999). Krashen (1985 in Young, 1992) compares
the need for group membership to Schumanns acculturation model and Lambert
and Gardners integrative motivation, while Young (1991) associates it with
Guioras concept of language ego permeability discussed earlier in Sect. 2.1.3.1.
More specically, a learner who wants to be perceived as a target language group
member would
subconsciously acquire all the aspects of the groups behaviour that mark [him or her] as a
member of the group. With respect to language acquisition, this means all the aspects of
language that may not contribute much to communication, but that are very important as
markers of group membership, such as accent (Krashen in Young, 1992, p. 159).
Krashen implies that, for example, foreign language pronunciation may be

subconsciously absorbed when a learner strives to be a target language group
member, acquiring the language competence of an L2 native speaker, and the level
of language anxiety is therefore low. Levis (2005) conrms this, stating that
speakers speak the way they do because of the social groups they belong to or they
desire to belong to (p. 374). Therefore, peer-pressure may affect the way a learner
pronounces utterances in L2, because he or she endeavours to subscribe to mem-
bership of a group. Otherwise, the learner may be subject to growing levels of
anxiety induced by the groups influence.
A different peer-pressure perspective on the idea of group membership is fol-
lowed by Stroud and Wee (2006), who suggest an identity-based cause of language
anxiety described as a desire to maintain particular group relationships, such as
acceptance by ones peers or a desire to avoid ridicule from them (p. 300). This
time, language anxiety may be manifested in worries that, while using a foreign
language in the classroom, a learner might fail to conform to the groups expec-
tations. Thus, high language anxiety may result, for example, in maintaining a
learners native pronunciation of the target language accent in the monolingual
classroom to sustain group relationships. In such cases, sounding non-target-like
vis--vis () pedagogical target norms (Lefkowitz & Hedgcock, 2002, p. 240) is
preferred to complying with the groups expectations. In other words, pronunciation
is one of the aspects that may be harshly criticised by peers, and therefore social
pressure may lead to a speakers deliberate adjustment to the groups pronunciation
instead of making efforts to achieve L2 pronunciation.
With reference to L2 pronunciation, the outcomes of the group/club membership

phenomenon in the context of language anxiety may take the following forms: an
L2 learner desires to be afliated to the target language speakers, and therefore
perfects his or her pronunciation. However, classroom peers negative evaluation of
his or her pronunciation, distant from those of the L2 learning group members, may
raise the language anxiety level. In another case, an L2 learner may feel a strong
need to conform to a group of peers, to be a club member of a group of L2 learners,
so his or her pronunciation will be far from L2-like, but the level of language
anxiety affected by peers may be low. Nevertheless, it is important to underline that
the above cases present a rather simplistic view, because L2 learning processes
interplaying with language anxiety entail an array of factors, not just a perception of
peer evaluation.
The sources of language anxiety also comprise language learners beliefs about
language learning which have been recognized as a signicant contributory factor
in the learning process and ultimate success (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005, p. 1). In
other words, what students believe about themselves as learners and what their
attitude towards learning is might influence their levels of language anxiety, and
this in turn may lead to language learning success or failure. If learners believe that
they are able to acquire desirable target language pronunciation and they have a
deep concern with regard to learning it, their ultimate pronunciation performance
will be satisfactory (Suter, 1976) due to, among others, their lower levels of anxiety.
However, the discrepancy between their beliefs and reality may lead to high levels
of anxiety. For example, a beginner level learner can view pronunciation as the
most signicant aspect of the target language learning, but the reality is that most
beginning students, unless they are highly motivated, will not sound like a native
speaker (Young, 1991, p. 428). Therefore, the learner may end up frustrated and
disappointed, which generates high language anxiety levels.
Learners beliefs and self-perception may also entail a competence-based source
of anxiety, which means that learners feel anxious because of their perceived
incompetence in language learning abilities (Gkonou, 2013; MacIntyre & Noels,
1994; Stroud & Wee, 2006). Hence, if self-evaluation of pronunciation aspects is
low, higher levels of language anxiety might be expected (cf. Szyszka, 2011). The
feeling of being incompetent in using a foreign language, for instance its segmentals
and suprasegmentals, serves as a source of apprehension in the classroom. A learner
is worried that his or her L2 pronunciation will be poorly evaluated by a teacher or
peers, and in consequence, the level of anxiety rises.
Language anxiety may stem from the way a learner perceives himself or herself
either in a language learning context or in the face of other learners or a teacher.
Then low self-esteem, dened as the degree to which individuals feel condent
and believe themselves to be signicant people (Ellis, 1994, p. 518), may be the
source of a higher level of language anxiety. Therefore, a learner with low
self-esteem may perceive his L2 pronunciation competence as inadequate or worse
than that of others, which in turn may raise the level of language anxiety. Moreover,
competitiveness and perfectionism (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002) are also reported
to cause language anxiety. When a learner is highly competitive and compares, for
example, his or her language achievements or pronunciation to others, language

anxiety may result from this behaviour (Bailey, 1983; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008;
Young, 1991). Apart from the sources of language anxiety discussed above, there
are others which focus on specic language learning difculties experienced by L2
learners with learning decits.
High language anxiety is often experienced by learners who demonstrate specic
language-encoding difculties in L1, such as poor sound discrimination skills or
low sound-symbol mapping abilities, because of their either innate or acquired
language acquisition decits. Those learners, for example students with develop-
mental dyslexia, have problems in learning their native language, which affects
foreign language processing (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991). The Linguistic Coding
Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) proposed by Sparks and Ganschow (1991)
assumes that the source of language anxiety stems from deciencies in cognitive
processing in L1. These scholars claim that low motivation, poor attitude, or high
levels of anxiety are, most likely, a manifestation of deciencies in the efcient
control of ones native language, though they are obviously correlated with dif-
culty in FL learning (p. 10). In other words, higher levels of language anxiety are
triggered by problems in learning L1 and are then transferred into L2. Nevertheless,
these high levels of language anxiety block cognitive processing as well. A learner
experiencing a high anxiety level because of L1 learning problems may be mentally
blocked to perform in L2. This fact may further lead to failure in L2 learning that
causes greater anxiety. Thus, the downward-spiralling nature of this phenomenon
locates language anxiety as both its cause and effect (MacIntyre, 1995).
As already indicated, the authors of LCDH posit that linguistic coding decits of
an L2 learner, comprising phonological, syntactic and semantic competences in L1,
are transferred from the native to a target language. Of all three, phonological
coding is reported the most plausible cause of difculties in L2 learning (Sparks &
Ganschow, 1993). Furthermore, on the basis of LCDH it is claimed that learners
L1 skills regarding phonological processing, for example, sound-symbol discrim-
ination and sound perception/recognition abilities, affect both L1 and L2 learning
processes. Therefore, LCDH proposes that L1 and L2 learning may depend on
basic language learning mechanisms that are similar to both languages (Sparks,
Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2009, p. 227). Consequently, L2 learners with L1
learning difculties caused, for instance, by dyslexia experience deciencies in
phonological processing (Nijakowska, 2007) both in L1 and L2. Their difculties
stem from imperfect phonological awareness, which is the ability to identify, dis-
criminate and manipulate the sounds of language (Scarpino, Lawrence, Davison, &
Hammer, 2011). Hence, dyslexics encounter problems with distinguishing sounds
and decoding sound-letter representations. According to Nijakowska (2007), the list
of these problems includes difculty in segmenting words into phonemes and
keeping strings of sounds in short-term memory, a slower rate of speech, or
problems with phoneme-manipulation games, to mention but a few. Generally,
following the line of LCDH, decits in the phonological processing of learners with
specic L1 learning difculties result in poor L2 sound decoding and manipulation
while learning and using target language pronunciation. This in turn may lead to
higher levels of anxiety in the context of foreign language learning.
3.3.2 Externally Grounded Causes of Language Anxiety
The second major group of language anxiety sources focuses on external learner
factors. These may augment the language anxiety level through learners percep-
tions of external stimuli. Therefore, the way L2 learners view teachers, their
behaviours in the classroom, their teaching styles, classroom procedures and testing
is of vital importance.
Teachers perceptions of their roles in the classroom and their beliefs concerning
teaching are crucial for the behaviours and procedures they adopt in front of their
learners (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 69). These in turn may interplay with lan-
guage anxiety levels among learners. If the teaching style of a teacher is far from
learners beliefs, the language anxiety level may rise. For example, if an authori-
tarian role is considered to be appropriate and adopted by the teacher, this may
trigger higher levels of anxiety among these learners who believe otherwise.
Additionally, if the delicate balance () between praise and criticism (Brown,
2001, p. 203) in the classroom is violated and leans more towards criticism, the
level of language anxiety among learners may also rise.
Other teacher behaviours contributing to higher language anxiety levels are
persistent error correction, the manner of error correction (Gkonou, 2013; Pawlak,
2014; Von Wrde, 2003), overuse of teacher talking time, and the lockstep type of
interaction in the classroom (Young, 1991). For instance, the teacher-fronted
interaction for highly anxious learners may lead to less accurate pronunciation
(Feigenbaum, 2007). Beyond doubt, lower levels of anxiety are observed when the
instructor is supportive, encouraging, and ready to assist and help (Piechurska-
Kuciel, 2011a).
Apart from teacher perceptions of their roles and approaches to error correction,
the presence of native speakers in the classroom may be a source of language
anxiety (Von Wrde, 2003). Moreover, the native speaker factor, or the amount of
the native speaker input, to be precise, is recognised as a variable interplaying with
L2 pronunciation attainment (cf. Ioup, 2008). Therefore, the mere presence of the
native speaker teacher may contribute to increased levels of language anxiety,
which may affect L2 pronunciation learning processes. What is more, some
out-of-class issues, including experience of visiting foreign countries
(Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, & Daley, 1999), and frequency of using a foreign language
through, for example, extracurricular use or stronger socialisation within a foreign
language context (Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008) may also interplay with
the level of language anxiety. In a similar vein, the amount of L2 use and awareness
of social identity influence L2 pronunciation ability (cf. Flege et al., 1999; Hansen,
2008).
The next potential sources of language anxiety are learners perceptions of

classroom procedures and language testing (Gkonou, 2013). Procedures inducing
high levels of anxiety are mainly those which require performance in front of other
learners and a teacher on the part of the learner who does not feel competent enough
to use the target language freely. Generally, oral presentations in a teacher-fronted
class situation are reported to be anxiety provoking and detrimental to an indi-
viduals speech (Bailey, 1983; Feigenbaum, 2007; Price, 1991; Young, 1990).
Additionally, language testing triggers test anxiety, which solidies into a form of
language anxiety as discussed earlier. An increased anxiety level is a reaction to
unfamiliar test items, specic test formats or question types, or to the novelty and
ambiguity of the testing situation (Young, 1991).
Finally, Onwuegbuzie et al. (1999) discuss seven predictors of foreign language
anxiety complying with those mentioned above, which account for 40% variance.
These are age, overall academic achievement, visiting foreign countries, prior high
school experience with foreign languages, perceived competence, perceived
self-worth, and early age of onset (the younger learners start foreign language
acquisition, the lower the level of language anxiety they experience). Therefore, in
creating a prole of a highly anxious L2 learner, it might be purported that this
person starts his or her L2 learning experience late, avoids contact with native
speakers, perceives his or her L2 aptitude as low, does not use L2 frequently, and
does not want to socialise in L2. All these factors might contribute to lower
attainment in L2 pronunciation, which may trigger a downward spiralling effect on
language anxiety levels.
In conclusion, potential sources of language anxiety may be grounded not only
within a learner, but may also stem from the external circumstances a learner
encounters inside and outside the classroom. Several individual learner factors such
as personality, prociency level, age and motivation are found to provoke language
anxiety (Ohata, 2005). Price (1991) adds to this list personal perception of language
aptitude, a perceived level of difculty of the L2 language used in class, perfec-
tionism, fear of public speaking, and stressful classroom experiences as being
potential sources of language anxiety. Surprisingly enough, some of the variables
which potentially affect language anxiety levels interplay with L2 pronunciation
attainment: for example age, aptitude, the length of exposure to L2, and motivation
(Ioup, 2008; Purcell & Suter, 1980).
3.4 The Impact of Language Anxiety on L2 Learning
Having discussed the sources of language anxiety, it is of paramount importance to

consider its effects on the L2 learning processes. Language anxiety (LA) has com-
paratively recently been recognised as signicant in the process of L2 learning. In
the past, some theories of SLA diminished the role of affect, within which LA
operates. For example, cognitive theories perceived L2 learning as learners indi-
vidual mental processes, independent of social context and affect. However, scholars
have noticed that language acquisition entails not only cognitive but also affective
issues crucial for L2 learning outcomes (Bown & White, 2010), and the full potential
of an L2 learner can be activated only if cognition, sociocultural context and affect
are taken into account. Foreign language learning imposes cognitive, sociocultural
and affective demands upon a learner (Brown, 2000). Therefore, the nal outcome
depends not only on external learner factors (e.g., input and interaction processes),
psycholinguistic processes (e.g., L1 transfer), characteristics of the learner language
(e.g., errors), and neurolinguistic accounts, but also on individual differences of L2
learners (Ellis, 2008) such as language anxiety.
Since the 1970s, anxiety and its effects on L2 learning have attracted the
attention of ESL practitioners and theorists in SLA. For example, in his Community
Language Learning method of L2 teaching, Curran draws attention to the impor-
tance of reducing students anxiety and fears in the process of L2 learning, claiming
that optimal affective conditions maximise the whole-person learning. In a similar
vein, in the principles of Suggestopedia, Lozanov postulates lowering levels of
anxiety and fear while L2 learning, because these negative emotions limit learners
abilities (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 2000). One of the earliest theories recognising the
impact of anxiety on the language learning processes is proposed by Krashen
(1981). His Affective Filter Hypothesis refers to optimal affective states that
learners need to experience in order to acquire a language most effectively. If this
condition is violated, for instance, by high levels of anxiety, the whole process of
language acquisition suffers. If learners are anxiousor not motivated, they may
understand the input but it will not reach those parts of the brain that help us acquire
language (Krashen, 1981, p. 56).
A decade later, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) proposed a model explaining the
impact of language anxiety on the process of L2 learning at different stages of L2
development. They postulated that at the initial stage of L2 learning, anxiety plays
a negligible role in prociency because, even if anxiety is present, it is not the
foreign language anxiety (p. 110), it is a general trait/state anxiety. Therefore, at
this stage a debilitative effect of language anxiety on L2 performance is not
expected. In time, however, learners language anxiety develops from emotions,
feelings and beliefs, which are formulated on the basis of repetitive negative
classroom learning experience. Learners beliefs concerning, for example, their
imperfect L2 pronunciation and fear of its negative evaluation by peers, teachers or
native speakers may contribute to higher levels of language anxiety and poor
performance, which triggers the down-spiralling effect.
Language anxiety interplays with language learning outcomes at different pro-
ciency levels (Aida, 1994; Daley, Onwuegbuzie, & Bailey, 1997; MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1994a; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1999; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008; Saito &
Samimy, 1996). Higher levels of anxiety are experienced by those learners whose
achievement is lower, implying the debilitative role of language anxiety in the
process of language learning. Thus, it is often claimed that more procient language
learners are less anxious (Chamot, 2004; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clement, 1997).
Nevertheless, even more advanced language learners are reported to experience
various levels of language anxiety (Liu, 2006). MacIntyre et al. (2003) state that
3.4 The Impact of Language Anxiety on L2 Learning 77
anxiety is a greater problem for more advanced learners. Increasing communica-

tion opportunities and challenges in the language classroom likely provoke anxiety,
which help to determine whether a student speaks up or remains silent (p. 603).
Therefore, regardless of L2 learners prociency levels, the feeling of apprehension
emerges as an important individual learner characteristic intertwined with the
process of language learning (Drnyei, 2005).
Language anxiety is reported to interplay with oral performance or speaking in
L2 (Horwitz et al., 1986; Liu, 2006; Stephenson Wilson, 2006; Woodrow, 2006).
Learners feel apprehensive when giving speeches in class, interacting with a native
speaker, or being evaluated while speaking (Mak, 2011). Gardner and MacIntyre
(1993) state that the outcomes of the studies on language anxiety suggest that
anxious students will have lower levels of verbal production () and will be
reluctant to express personally relevant information in a second-language conver-
sation (p. 6). Therefore, there is evidence supporting Horwitz et al.s (1986) claim
that speaking and listening may be placed among the sources of language anxiety.
Moreover, Drnyei (2005) is of the opinion that the measurement of language
anxiety in one way or another is likely to remain an indispensable background
variable component of L2 studies focusing on language performance (p. 201).
These statements support Horwitz et al.s (1986) claim that oral performance cor-
relates with language anxiety.
The link between language anxiety and oral performance or the production of
speech is delineated by Piechurska-Kuciel (2011b). She follows Bygates (2001 in
Piechurska-Kuciel, 2011b) interpretation of Levelts (1989) model of speech pro-
duction, in which the process of speaking involves several consecutive stages:
conceptualisation, formulation, articulation and self-monitoring. Piechurska-Kuciel
explains how anxiety interplays with each of them. While planning what to say at
the conceptualisation stage, a learner may experience anxiety because of insufcient
knowledge of the target language context or knowledge of the topic. Thus
the feeling of apprehension may affect oral performance at the very beginning of
the speaking process. The second stage, formulation, requires the choice of
appropriate lexical and phonological items to convey the meaning of an intended
concept. Lack of linguistic knowledge to full the requirements of this stage may
also trigger feelings of apprehension. For instance, even if a learner knows the
appropriate L2 lexical item to express their ideas, he or she may not know how to
pronounce it. This may raise the level of anxiety. The succeeding stage, articulation,
directly refers to the position of speech organs adjusted to the target language,
which may cause problems because of the discrepancies between the mother tongue
and L2 sound features. Piechurska-Kuciel (2011b) adds that [i]ncorrect pronun-
ciation or incoherent communication attempts are likely to cumulate, leading to
more negative emotions identied in the FL learning process (p. 208).
Self-monitoring is the last aspect of speech production, during which a learner may
monitor, inspect and modify the outcomes at each stage of their speech production
(Kormos, 2006). This process, however, requires, among other aspects, internalised
linguistic knowledgefor example appropriate L2 sounds representationwhich
less advanced learners frequently lack. Thus, their deciencies in L2 knowledge,
once noticed, may lead to high levels of anxiety. Similarly, L2 oral performance
may be affected by language anxiety interplaying with the three L2 information
processing stages: input, processing and output, as proposed in Tobias (1979 in
MacIntyre, 1999) model discussed in Sect. 3.4.1.
Apart from the cognitive effects of language anxiety on L2 learning, MacIntyre
(1999) also adds L2 learners personal, social and academic perspectives. The rst
of these explains the impact of language anxiety on an individuals psychological
and physiological reactions. An anxious learners thoughts are overloaded with
various preconceptions, which may include the fear of being negatively evaluated
and excessive worry about inadequate performance. His or her palms start sweating,
blood pressure is raised, and muscles become tense. The social perspective refers to
how an anxious student perceives communicative situations where L2 is used. An
L2 learner who experiences a high level of language anxiety may fear and, in
consequence, avoid any social interactions that require communication in L2. The
academic effects of language anxiety encompass interference with students course
grades and approaches to or avoidance of studying. As Piechurska-Kuciel (2008)
states, anxious students are found either to avoid studying, skip classes or over
study to decrease their anxiety (p. 76). However, those who over study are
reported to deploy shallower language learning strategies, such as rote learning,
mnemonics or repetition (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995).
Despite the recorded predominant negative impact of language anxiety on L2
learning, language anxiety may also affect L2 learning processes in a positive way
(Oxford, 1999; Scovel, 1978). This might be explained by Yerkes-Dodson (1908)
law implying a linear, inverted U-shaped, relationship between performance and
arousal resulting from anxiety linked to task difculty. Following this, low levels of
anxiety facilitate L2 learning (cf. Ellis, 2008), preparing the individual to face or
ght the challenge of a task through approach behaviour (Piechurska-Kuciel,
2008, p. 39), whereas higher levels of anxiety may hinder the process of L2
acquisition and trigger, among other responses, avoidance behaviour. A distinction
is frequently made between facilitative or benecial and debilitative or inhibitory
anxiety (cf. Madsen, Brown, & Jones, 1991). Benecial anxiety is exemplied by
lower levels of anxiety, triggering an individuals adaptive reactions in terms of
alertness, which facilitate, among others, foreign language learning and use.
Therefore, a moderate level of arousal is benecial to performance in an appre-
hensive environment. Inhibitory anxiety, however, is chained to high levels of
anxiety, which hinder mental processes (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989). Thus,
excessive arousal could lead to confusion, blocking out information, and decre-
ments in performance (Young, 1994, p. 12). These negative effects of language
anxiety may take place at different stages of L2 cognitive processing as described
below.
3.4.1 Language Anxiety at Input, Processing, Output Stages

and Pronunciation
The place of language anxiety in L2 cognitive processing may be explained with

reference to Tobiass (1979 in MacIntyre, 1999) model, which takes three stages of
L2 information processing into account: input, internal processing and output. An
individual experiencing a high level of language anxiety is prone to facing a form of
mental block which affects the way he or she processes L2 information when it is
encountered for the rst time at the input stage, while making connections between
existent and new knowledge at the processing stage, and while demonstrating the
acquired material at the output stage.
Each of these stages may interplay with pronunciation acquisition. Following
Manolopoulou-Sergi (2004), the input stage of linguistic processing is associated
with pre-perception, perception and attention. First, pronunciation learners need to
be alert to perceive the input. In other words, they should be prone to involvement
in L2 pronunciation learning even before the input is provided. If they are therefore
predisposed to intentionally perceiving the stimulus, several factors, such as their
prior phonetic and phonological knowledge, exposure to L2, their appraisal of the
value of the to-be-perceived input, their feelings of competence (ibid., p. 433),
may determine this perception. Moreover, attention may also play a role at this
stage. Due to its limited capacity, only a part of the input may be attended to.
Therefore, even if a pronunciation learner fulls the conditions necessary for
optimal input perception, he or she may be able to attend only to certain elements of
a complex phonetic stimulus. Complexity and perceived difculty of the stimulus
may overload learners attentional capacity (ibid., p. 434). Next, memory systems
are activated at the central processing stage. Here, an acoustic signal of the input is
decoded, analysed and compared with the internalised phonetic categories (Strange
& Shafer, 2008). In the working memory L2 sounds and prosody are also matched
with their semantic representations, which are supportive in organising the infor-
mation and storing it in the long-term memory (Wingeld & Titone, 2005). At the
output stage, pronunciation learners produce L2 sounds and prosody that they have
acquired at the earlier stages. These processes may be affected by, among other
factors, the language anxiety that occurs at every stage of linguistic processing.
Language anxiety experienced at the input stage may limit the potential for L2
pronunciation acquisition. Input anxiety, dened as the apprehension affecting the
students ability to attend to, concentrate on, and encode foreign language mes-
sages (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 77), blocks some of the messages to be taken in
at this stage. An L2 learner is distracted by anxious thoughts and is unable to attend,
notice, receive and understand linguistic stimuli (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a). In
consequence, the intake is hindered because of the limited attention that is divided
between a more demanding L2 phonetic input and worrisome thoughts.
Interestingly, when pronunciation learners face a challenging L2 input, which may
trigger higher levels of language anxiety, their attention is occupied by trying to
comprehend the semantic intent of the message, [and] they may fail to differentiate
non-native phonetic contrasts that, under simpler conditions, they can discriminate
(Strange & Shafer, 2008, p. 174). Therefore, more complex phonetic stimuli may be
blocked by input anxiety, and some pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
may not be applied. An L2 student may have problems with attending to, perceiving
and later processing sequences of L2 sounds, their contrasts, pitch and rhythm at the
input and later at the processing stages of cognitive processing.
A reduced amount of intake caused by input anxiety is further processed at the
second stage of central processing that entails short-term, working and long-term
memory systems (Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004). The difculties in performing cog-
nitive operations at this stage may stem from high language anxiety and the
complexity of the task (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). The anxiety occurring at
this stage is viewed as apprehension, activated when an L2 student performs
cognitively demanding operations (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). Pronunciation
learning may be perceived as cognitively demanding, particularly for novice
learners. At this stage such a learner may have problems with L2 speech perception
processing for various reasons, including the fact that it employs greater cognitive
resources than in the case of L1 perception (Strange & Shafer, 2008). Here
assigning L2 sounds to appropriate mental phonological categories may be
impaired; in other words, an anxious learner may incorrectly interpret L2 sounds.
More elaborate processing is inhibited by the fear of misunderstanding an L2
message. It is interesting to note that, according to Manolopoulou-Sergi (2004),
deeper cognitive processing implies the learners deployment of learning strategies.
Therefore, processing anxiety may interplay with the use of pronunciation learning
strategies. The speed of cognitive processing (MacIntyre, 1999), short-term mem-
ory and the process of retrieval from the long-term memory are all affected by
processing anxiety (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a). Phonological information that is
processed at this stage may be misinterpreted for various reasons, including the
distorted functioning of the short-term memory. According to Wingeld and Titone
(2005), a listener formulates a phonological representation of a message before
assigning meaning to it. The memory for this representation is very short-lived, and
the faster the semantic meaning is attached to it, the more precise is the interpre-
tation of the message. This process takes place in the working memory. If pro-
cessing anxiety disrupts the working memory capacity, as Eysenck et al.
(2007) posit, an anxious L2 learner may have problems with prompt matching of L2
sounds and prosody to their semantic representations. In consequence, he or she
may be unable to memorise, organise and retrieve the information from the
long-term memory, simply, to process a message more deeply and associate it with
already existing knowledge (MacIntyre, 1999). In the processing efciency theory,
discussed in Sect. 3.1.2, Eysenck and Calvo (1992) postulate the investment of
more effort and additional processing resources in order to compensate for this
deciency. Additional time for processing and pronunciation learning strategies
activating memory capacity, organisation, storage and retrieval may serve as sup-
portive remedies. Otherwise, the production of L2, including L2 speech production
at the output stage suffers.
The output stage of L2 cognitive processing is associated with a learners

demonstration of knowledge acquired at the previous stages (Manolopoulou-Sergi,
2004). The anxiety experienced at this stageoutput anxietymainly affects
speaking, and it is understood as apprehension when demonstrating the ability to
use the previously learnt material (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 77). However, it is
important to remember that if the anxiety arousal takes place at the previous stages,
it additionally limits the capacity of the output stage. An anxious L2 student may
have problems with the retrieval of L2 chunks from the memory, his speech may be
disfluent and his pronunciation strongly accented (MacIntyre, 1999). If phonetic
aspects of L2 are not noticed, decoded, assigned to appropriate mental categories
and memorised at the input and processing stages, the speaker is not able to apply
them at the output stage. Additionally, the effects of output anxiety on the muscle
tension of the articulators may be particularly visible at this stage. A learner wor-
rying about his or her oral performance in L2 may be unable to relax the muscles
which are needed for L2 sounds, the articulation of which frequently requires
different speech organ positions from those in L1.
Undoubtedly, language anxiety is an individual learner factor affecting the way
L2 is processed and acquired. As the scope of the present dissertation encompasses
L2 pronunciation and the interplay between language anxiety and pronunciation
learning strategies, in the following subsections the role of language anxiety is
discussed in the context of pronunciation and language learning strategies.
3.4.2 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation
Although language anxiety has received considerable attention in studies on SLA

(Ellis, 2008), little attention has been given to how it interacts with the process of
L2 pronunciation learning (Baran-ucarz, 2011). Nevertheless, pronunciation, as a
part of L2 speaking competence, is reported to be associated with the feeling of
anxiety (Baran-ucarz, 2013b; Horwitz et al., 1986; Price, 1991; Tanveer, 2007).
Horwitz et al. (1986) acknowledge that an L2 learner may be particularly prone to
experiencing anxiety while communicating in the target language because of their
imperfect ability to perform in L2. As a result, he or she may have problems with
producing and discriminating the sounds of a target language. Tanveer (2007)
researched the opinions of ESL/EFL teachers, citing the following example:
[p]ronunciation is an important issue across language groups because of its immediate
effect on interaction. When you feel somebody does not understand you, you need to
improve your pronunciation within a second, which is often hard and stressful (p. 47).
In other words, a failure in communication caused by faulty pronunciation is a

highly apprehensive situation, during which a learner seeks immediate remedies, for
example they may apply a range of pronunciation strategies to reduce the com-
munication breakdown. The relationship between pronunciation as an aspect of oral
performance (Pawlak, 2011) and foreign language anxiety is still an
under-researched area (Feigenbaum, 2007). There are only a few studies providing
evidence for the link between pronunciation and language anxiety (e.g., Baran-
ucarz, 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Horwitz & Young, 1991).
Interestingly, in qualitative studies anxious foreign language learners address
several problems pertaining to pronunciation. For example, they complain about
difculties with discriminating the sounds () of a target language (Horwitz
et al., 1986, p. 126), which aligns with Tobias model, showing the influence of
language anxiety at the input stage in L2 processing and problems with sounds
perception. There is also sparse evidence for the interplay of language processing
anxiety and pronunciation at the output stage, as learners perceive a change in their
pronunciation when feeling nervous (Derwing & Rossiter, 2002).
Additionally, the social aspect of language anxiety plays a role in L2 pronun-
ciation, as discussed earlier in greater detail. Learners feel embarrassed because of
their pronunciation errors (Price, 1991) and fear of being ridiculed by other
classmates, as one of them reports in an interview: I always make pronunciation
errors while speaking in the target language and observe a humiliating manner on
my classmates faces. This makes me angry (Suba, 2010, p. 43). Thus, because
of peer-pressure and group afliation they need to adapt their pronunciation to their
groups expectations (Lefkowitz & Hedgcock, 2002); otherwise their levels of
language anxiety grow. Moreover, not surprisingly, when performing in front of the
teacher, learners notice their deterioration in pronouncing L2 utterances as they
compare their speech to their teachers model (Young, 1991).
Language anxiety in L2 pronunciation learning has been observed by Baran-
ucarz (2013b). She proposes a model of Phonetic Learning Anxiety (PLA), which
supports the view that pronunciation learning achievements, both at segmental and
prosodic levels, interplay with L2 learners apprehension levels. Pronunciation
anxiety is dened here as a construct referring to in-class L2 pronunciation learning,
which subsumes beliefs about the nature of foreign language pronunciation learn-
ing, International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) test anxiety, and fear of negative eval-
uation shaped by
three relatively independent factors, i.e., general apprehension for oral performance and
concern over FL pronunciation mistakes, pronunciation self-image related to ones
appearance (the way one thinks he/she looks and sounds like) when speaking in a FL and
acceptance of the perceived self-image, and nally pronunciation self-efcacy and
self-assessment, i.e., beliefs about ones abilities needed to master a FL pronunciation and
ones perceived level of pronunciation, both estimated usually in reference to that of other
classmates (p. 62).
Hence, learners of L2 pronunciation who score high on the Phonetic Language

Anxiety Scale (PhLAS) designed by Baran-ucarz for the purposes of measuring
PLA, perceive their L2 pronunciation as poor, and are afraid of a negative evalu-
ation on the part of their peers and/or a teacher. Although the preliminary empirical
study outcomes sustain the assumptions of the model, as the author implies, the
construct still needs to be veried.
Furthermore, language anxiety causes physiological changes in an L2 learners
body, tensing the muscles responsible for articulation of sounds. The feeling of
apprehension affects the motor activity of those speech mechanisms the learners
activate when speaking. Pronunciation encompasses the meaningful use of sounds
and prosody produced with the help of respiratory, phonatory and articulatory
speech organs (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). The articulation of phonological features,
represented both by segmentalssuch as vowels and consonantsand supraseg-
mentalsfor example weak forms, linking, assimilation, stress, rhythm and into-
nationmay be physically affected by the feeling of apprehension. Language
anxiety causes emotional arousal, triggering physical changes or tensions in the
muscles, which may affect the way a learner pronounces L2 sounds (Scovel, 1978).
In other words, high language anxiety experienced while speaking causes stiffness
of muscles, which in turn results in a learners poor pronunciation. Thus, neuro-
muscular problems stemming from the feeling of language anxiety may physically
impede a foreign language learners appropriate speech articulation. Unfortunately,
as in a vicious circle, poor pronunciation caused by tense articulatory organs may
induce growing levels of language anxiety.
These instances of self-perceived and physiology-generated pronunciation
problems concerning apprehensive learners call for further investigations into
whether and to what extent language anxiety interplays with pronunciation and its
learning processes.
3.4.3 Language Anxiety, Language Learning

and Pronunciation Learning Strategies
The existence of a link between language anxiety and language learning strategies
has been posited in the Socio-educational Model of Second Language Learning
(Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997), and Yan and Horwitzs (2008)
Grounded-Theory Model of English Learning. The interplay between these two
variables has also been the subject of several research studies which will be
reviewed in the following chapter. These models are discussed in order to trace the
relationship between language anxiety and language learning strategies in the
process of SLA.
Gardner et al. (1997) present the Socio-educational causal Model of Second
Language Learning, taking several learner variables into account: language anxiety,
language aptitude, attitudes and motivation, eld dependence/independence, lan-
guage learning strategies and self-condence. This model (Fig. 3.1) implies that
language attitudes contribute to motivation, which in turn influences
self-condence. Language anxiety is, in this model, included in the measure of
self-condence because self-condence consist[s] of perceptions of condence in
the L2 as well as an absence of anxiety about learning or using the language
(Gardner et al., 1997, p. 346). Thus, motivation interplays with language anxiety.
Moreover, the model indicates that motivation is a factor also triggering the use of
language learning strategies, including pronunciation learning strategies, which
Field Dependence/Independence Language Attitudes
Language Learning Strategies
Language Aptitude Motivation
Language Achievement
Self-Confidence
(including Language Anxiety)
Fig. 3.1 The simplied socio-educational model of SLA (based on Gardner et al., 1997, p. 354)
together with motivation and language aptitude directly contribute to language

achievement. The model further implies that the nal variable, language achieve-
ment, modies self-condence, and therefore also language anxiety.
Simultaneously, the effective use of language and pronunciation learning strategies
contributes to a high level of language achievement, which boosts self-condence
and lowers the anxiety levels of a learner. In other words, an L2 learner, who
exploits, among other possibilities, appropriate pronunciation learning strategies,
may experience lower anxiety levels because of growing self-condence caused by
better linguistic outcomes.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the theoretical causal model suggests a
negative correlation between language learning strategies and language achieve-
ment. It means that a greater number and frequency of strategies employed while
learning a language does not necessarily imply higher language prociency. The
authors explain that this complies with the statement that many unsuccessful
language learners use a vast number of strategies but in an unorchestrated, random
way (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995 in Gardner et al., 1997, p. 354). In contrast, high
achievers devise a narrower but more effective set of strategies.
Another strong negative correlation in the model is proposed between language
achievement and language anxiety. Since the former causes the latter here, learners
whose language achievement is low are prone to experiencing higher levels of
anxiety. In the causal model discussed above, language achievementaffected by a
range of factors, including language learning strategiesplays a role in experi-
encing language anxiety.
The Grounded-Theory Model of English Learning proposed by Yan and
Horwitz (2008) reveals possible pathways for the interplay between language
anxiety and other learning factors, such as learning strategies, interest and moti-
vation, or peer comparison, to mention but a few. The model is rooted in a qual-
itative analysis of perceptions amongst EFL high- and low-anxiety learners.
Language learning strategies, perceived as techniques and methods the students
used to complete language learning tasks and to further develop their English
competence (p. 158) serve here a causal role. In other words, an ineffective use of
LLS results in higher anxiety reported by learners, whereas, less anxious learners
are satised with the effectiveness of the strategies they use. Although Yan and
Horwitz are aware of the bidirectional relationship between language anxiety and
several of the analysed variables, the model fails to indicate, for example, how the
use of inefcient learning strategies might affect language anxiety.
Some theoretical considerations relating the two research areas: language anxiety
and pronunciation learning strategies, have been proposed in this chapter. Anxiety
models, delineated in Sect. 3.1.2, show some potential links between anxiety and
strategies. In particular, Eysenck and Cavalos (1992) processing efciency theory
emphasises the role of compensation strategies in coping with high levels of anx-
iety. Moreover, the models of language learning presented in Sect. 3.4.3 indicate
the plausible relationship between foreign language anxiety and pronunciation
learning strategies. It is also deliberated that language anxiety affects cognitive
processes at the input, central processing and output stages of L2 pronunciation
learning. Deeper cognitive processes, which are associated with the deployment of
certain cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (Grifths, 2013), may be
blocked by high levels of language anxiety. Hence, the deployment of pronunci-
ation learning strategies amongst learners exhibiting different levels of language
anxiety may vary. For instance, a high level of language anxiety may activate only
shallow cognitive processing, associated with the strategies that Grifths (2013)
terms lower order strategies. Following this line of enquiry, the focus here is on
investigating the interplay between foreign language anxiety and pronunciation
learning strategies of Polish trainee teachers.
The objective of this chapter was to introduce and discuss the concept of lan-
guage anxiety and its role in L2 learning processes with regard to oral performance,
pronunciation and language learning strategies. Firstly, the concept of general
anxiety as a psychological construct and its constituent factors were presented to
establish the background for the construct of language anxiety. Secondly, a working
denition of foreign language anxiety, taking the social and communicative
dimensions of L2 learning into account, was selected. Thirdly, communication
apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation as three subcomponents
of foreign language anxiety were shown from the perspective of an L2 pronunci-
ation learner. This was followed by a description of language anxiety causes which,
together with the assumptions of the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis,
added to the understanding of the construct. Finally, the role of anxiety in L2
learning contexts was reviewed from the perspective of oral performance, pro-
nunciation and language learning strategies.
The following chapter of the book includes the overview of research studies into
language learning strategies with a focus on pronunciation learning strategies, and
language anxiety as interrelated with oral performance and pronunciation. The aims
and the results of the studies are presented in order to show current developments in
this area, and to establish areas for further investigations into the interplay between
pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety. Both the quantitative and
qualitative designs followed in the empirical research on pronunciation learning
strategies pave the way for adapting the mixed approach proposed for the purpose
of the study presented in this volume.
Chapter 4
A Review of Selected Empirical Research
on Pronunciation Learning Strategies
and Language Anxiety
The previous chapter has outlined the concept of language anxiety, together with its
sources and impact on L2 learning processes, particularly in the realm of L2 pro-
nunciation acquisition. In this chapter, a review of recent empirical studies on
pronunciation learning strategies, foreign language anxiety and oral performance
encompassing L2 pronunciation is discussed in order to delineate the background
for the empirical research assumptions and the directions taken during their
investigation.
Despite theoretical assumptions concerning the interplay between language
learning strategies and language anxiety as discussed in Chap. 3, very few studies
inquire into the relationship between these two individual learner characteristics.
Moreover, existing studies focus on general language learning strategies, rather than
on pronunciation learning strategies. Therefore, it is justiable to propose a study
which may broaden knowledge concerning the process of L2 pronunciation
learning as related to language anxiety. In particular, it is interesting to investigate
pronunciation learning strategies as devised by advanced language learners, for
instance, English trainee teachers acquiring their L2 in a foreign language setting.
They are subject to foreign language anxiety as any L2 learners. Their status as
advanced English language learners does not change the fact that they may expe-
rience different levels of language anxiety (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, &
Donovan, 2003) in the process of perfecting their L2 pronunciation. Therefore, it
may be interesting to research how language anxiety levels interplay with pro-
nunciation learning strategies, and what type of pronunciation learning strategies
are used by those L2 learners who exemplify higher and lower language anxiety
levels.
In the rst section of this chapter, a review of learning strategy and language
anxiety research methods functions as a prelude to the account of recent studies on
pronunciation learning strategies. The outcomes of the selected empirical research
on language anxiety in the context of oral performance and pronunciation are then
considered. Finally, studies focusing on the relationship between language anxiety
and language learning strategies are examined.
88 4 A Review of Selected Empirical Research on Pronunciation
4.1 Research Methods in Language Anxiety

and Pronunciation Learning Strategies
Language anxiety is a multidimensional phenomenon which has inspired many

scholars to approach the construction of a reliable tool for measuring it.
Consequently, most investigations into language anxiety follow the quantitative
approach. In the 1970s, Gardner, Smythe, Clement, and Gliksman (1976 in
Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008) developed one of the rst instruments for measuring
foreign language anxiety. They proposed the French Class Anxiety Scale, con-
sisting of ve items as a part of a broader scale pertaining to attitudes and moti-
vation. Although this tool took language anxiety of French language learners into
account, it located this phenomenon among other constructs. In other words, it
simultaneously measured language anxiety, attitudes and motivation. Thus, Gardner
and his colleagues made the rst attempt to measure language anxiety in the context
of foreign language learning. The scale that treated language anxiety as an isolated
independent construct, comprising communication apprehension, test anxiety and
fear of negative evaluation, was offered by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986).
Their Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), discussed further in
Sect. 5.2.2, is reported to be reliable and valid in measuring the students per-
sistent trait anxiety in the FL classroom, not a temporary condition (state)
(Piechurka-Kuciel, 2008, p. 99). It is also most widely used and frequently adapted
to different cultural settings (e.g., Tth, 2008). For these reasons, the FLCAS has
been chosen as an instrument for measuring levels of language anxiety in the study
presented in the following chapter. In the last decade of the previous century,
MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) developed an instrument to calculate language
anxiety levels experienced at different cognitive processing stages. These scholars
created a model explaining how language anxiety interplays with different stages of
language processing, on the basis of which they devised the Input Anxiety Scale,
the Processing Anxiety Scale and the Output Anxiety Scale, as discussed in detail in
Sect. 5.2.2. The tool turned out to be valid, and further analyses conrmed
MacIntyre and Gardners three-stage model of language anxiety (cf. Bailey,
Onwuegbuzie, & Daley, 2000). This instrument has also been applied in this study
to complement the FLCAS.
Although the author is aware of a bulk of research on language learning
strategies (LLS) with reference to such variables as nationality (cf. Grifths, 2003),
language prociency (cf. Park, 1997), age (cf. Peacock & Ho, 2003), gender (cf.
Hashemi, 2011), and motivation (cf. Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), a thorough account
of them is beyond the scope of this book. Furthermore, empirical research on
learning strategies recounts strategies deployed for learning language skills, lis-
tening (cf. Macaro, Graham, & Vanderplank, 2007), reading (cf. Erler &
Finkbeiner, 2007), writing (cf. Manchn, Roca De Larios, & Murphy, 2007),
grammar (cf. Oxford & Lee, 2007; Pawlak, 2009), and vocabulary (cf. Nyikos &
Fan, 2007; Piasecka, 2001). Perhaps the most neglected area in studies on LLS
refers to the process of L2 pronunciation learning. Since pronunciation learning
4.1 Research Methods in Language Anxiety and Pronunciation Learning 89
strategies (PLS) are the focus of this study, a more in-depth approach to reviewing
the available research literature on PLS is adopted.
Despite a vigorous debate questioning the precision with which the construct of
language learning strategies has been dened (Drnyei, 2005), empirical research
on LLS has flourished since the 1990s (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Grifths, 2013;
Oxford, 2011). For the measurement of LLS and PLS as deployed by L2 learners,
both quantitative (e.g., Berkil, 2008; Caka, 2011; Eckstein, 2007; Grifths, 2008;
Oxford, 1990; Pawlak, 2008) and qualitative (e.g., OMalley & Chamot, 1990;
Pawlak, 2006, 2008, 2011b; Peterson, 2000) approaches have been followed.
The quantitative approach has often applied a standardised questionnaire known
as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) proposed by Oxford
(1990), which is without doubt the most widely used instrument in language
learner strategy research (White, Schramm, & Chamot, 2007, p. 95), and is dis-
cussed in detail in Sect. 5.2.2.1. Although there have been attempts to challenge the
reliability of this instrument (Robson & Midorikawa, 2001), the SILLs consistency
has been supported in a conrmatory factor analysis (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) and
widely used in empirical research (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Ellis, 2008; Grifths,
2008).
Apart from the SILL, general LLS and strategies deployed while learning
specic language skills have also been measured by other questionnaires, for
example the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI) (Grifths,
2008), the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001), and
the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) (Vandergrift, Goh,
Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006), to mention a few. The ELLSI consists of 32
items on language learning strategies generated from the students, and it is
designed, as the author implies, to match her students learning situation more
effectively. It is therefore directed towards students acquiring an L2 in a dened
socio-cultural environment. The SORS is also ne-tuned, but to a language skill,
rather than the learning context. Its aim is to elicit data on the use of 30 learning
strategies deployed while reading academic texts. Similarly to the SILL, both of
these instruments use a 5-point Likert scale. The last survey mentioned above, the
MALQ, operates on a 6-point Likert scale, and measures the awareness and ability
to self-regulate L2 learners listening comprehension processes. Although these
instruments aim at generating data on language learning strategies for acquiring
various L2 skills, they all follow the pattern of the SILL, where L2 learners read a
number of statements, each describing a strategy use, and their responses are
marked on a Likert scale, indicating frequency.
Moreover, there have been attempts to construct instruments measuring pro-
nunciation learning strategies, mainly following Oxfords (1990) taxonomy and
adapting SILL. For example, Berkil (2008) created the Strategy Inventory for
Learning Pronunciation (SILP), sustaining the categories of memory, cognitive,
compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies, which was based on
both Oxfords (1990) and Petersons (2000) taxonomies. Similarly, following
Oxfords (1990) taxonomy of LLS, Caka (2011) proposed a PLS questionnaire,
which is discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.2.
Eckstein (2007), whose PLS taxonomy is described in Sect. 2.3.1, designed the
Strategic Pronunciation Learning Scale (SPLS) measuring the frequency of PLS use
at four stages corresponding with Kolbs learning cycle: concrete experience,
reflection on observation, abstract conceptualisation and action based on new
conceptualisation. This construct explains the steps a learner takes in the process of
L2 learning, which, according to Eckstein (2007), correspond with the stages of L2
pronunciation acquisition. For instance, at a concrete experience phase a learner is
exposed to the pronunciation of a new word, and input is provided. This leads to a
reflection on observation or noticing directed towards the comparison and contrast
of the new sound or sounds within the existing inventory. The learner then forms a
hypothesis which is the mental process that attempts to bridge the gap between
actual pronunciation and target pronunciation (p. 33). This phase is a counterpart
of the abstract conceptualisation stage in Kolbs construct. Finally, the hypothesis is
tested by pronouncing a word with implemented adjustments of sounds. Eckstein
(2007) assumes that each stage of pronunciation acquisition triggers a different set
of PLS. Therefore, SPLS measures PLS frequency of use at four different stages:
input, noticing, hypothesis forming and hypothesis testing.
Of particular interest is also Pawlaks (2010) pilot study regarding the con-
struction of a research instrument measuring the use of PLS, known as the
Pronunciation Learning Strategy Survey (PLSS). The innovative approach to
measuring PLS via PLSS is that it contains both closed and open-ended items,
allowing for both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data. The PLSS 60
closed-ended items are divided into four subscales referring to metacognitive,
cognitive, affective and social PLS, and are supplemented with open-ended ques-
tions inviting respondents to share their opinions on favourite approaches to
studying L2 sounds and prosody as well as problems they face while learning L2
pronunciation. Promising as it is, the instrument is still under construction and, as
such, has not been included in this account of the project. Following the assumption
that the above closed-item questionnaires comprise a nite selection of learning
strategies, excluding other individualised approaches to the process of L2 learning,
researchers generally opt for administering mixed-methods in studies on LLS.
The scholars following the qualitative approach in LLS and PLS investigations
use instruments such as interviews (e.g., OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Peterson,
2000; Samalieva, 2000), oral protocols (e.g., Osburne, 2003; Wrembel, 2011) and
written diaries (e.g., Bukowski, 2004; Halbach, 2000; Pawlak, 2011b; Peterson,
2000). These instruments may generate valuable data conrming and supple-
menting the quantitative data. What is more, other learning strategies, not discov-
ered earlier, may be revealed and noted. A qualitative perspective may also shed
more light on learning processes connected with the application of a strategy or a
set of strategies, also known as clusters or chains, in a specic context. While there
are limitations on whether the insights into learning strategies derived from these
research approaches are comprehensive, both quantitative and qualitative methods
are employed to investigate and analyze strategy use in order to provide inter-
pretive clarity and to avoid the criticism that the method predetermines the results
obtained (White et al., 2007, p. 94). Following Komorowska (2014), a qualitative
4.1 Research Methods in Language Anxiety and Pronunciation Learning 91
approach addresses the context that underlies an individuals perspective, a dia-

logue between a participant and a researcher that enables immediate clarications,
and a critical reflection on, among other areas, the application of pronunciation
strategies.
The quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigating pronunciation
learning strategies and language anxiety discussed above provide a picture of the
research tools that have been developed. This overview helps to justify the choices
of instruments and directions taken in the present study in order to collect reliable
data in triangulation, an approach comprising both qualitative and quantitative
measures. The following section is an examination of recent research into pro-
nunciation learning strategies.
4.2 Research on Pronunciation Learning Strategies
Only a small number of empirical studies have focused on strategies employed by a

learner when approaching foreign language pronunciation. Bearing in mind the fact
that nationality may be a signicant variable in research on learning strategies
(Grifths, 2003; Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 2000), the recent empirical studies con-
ducted in a Polish context are rst presented in chronological order, and the out-
comes of recent research into pronunciation learning strategies outside Poland are
then delineated.
The value of indirect strategies in pronunciation learning is conrmed by
Bukowski (2004), whose study measures the effects of indirect PLS training in a
group of rst-year college students in Poland. For a period of three months, the
participants were encouraged to execute several actions directed towards pronun-
ciation learning, for example to design a simple pronunciation task for their peers
and plan their pronunciation learning in advance. Due to these procedures, several
PLS were triggered. Moreover, the participants were requested to write diaries, in
which deliberations on pronunciation learning processes were noted. Conclusions
based on the analysis of students guided diaries pointed to several positive effects
of socio-affective and metacognitive strategies. The researcher observed changes in
the participants approaches to L2 pronunciation learning with reference to several
areas, such as autonomy, use of metalanguage with reference to phonetics, and
awareness of L2 pronunciation aspects. For example, an increase in taking inde-
pendent and deliberate decisions and actions concerning pronunciation learning, as
well as greater cooperative pronunciation learning with more frequent application
of phonetic terminology were observed. Additionally, the students adopted a pos-
itive attitude to L2 pronunciation, enjoyed their pronunciation classes more, and
raised their awareness of the necessity to speak decent English in the future
(p. 25). They also perceived out-of-class activities as useful in pronunciation
learning. Although the outcomes of the study following the qualitative design
underline the role of indirect PLS, the conclusions are still preliminary and the
research design calls for further quantitative support.
The aim of Wrembels (2008) study was to obtain opinions of 32 rst-year

students of English philology in Poland concerning the usefulness and enjoyability
of PLS as used during a pronunciation course and to collect PLS used outside the
classroom. The instrument was a questionnaire with closed and open-ended items,
generating both quantitative and qualitative data. In the rst part of it, the researcher
used a selected list of 16 PLS and asked the respondents to evaluate them on a
5-point Likert scale targeting preference (from 1very useful to 5useless) and
enjoyability (from 1very enjoyable to 5not enjoyable). The subjects cited
strategic preference, phonemic transcription, dialogue reading and performing as
the most useful PLS. The least preferred was kinaesthetic feedback, described
as appealing to learners senses and modalities. The most enjoyable PLS included
drama performance, relaxation and breathing exercises, as well as dialogue reading
and performing. In the second part of the questionnaire, the respondents were to list
other PLS they used outside the classroom. This open-ended question generated the
following eight PLS: listening to English radio/TV, referring to a pronunciation
dictionary, talking with friends in English, talking to oneself, audiotaping,
imitating/pretending to be native speakers, singing English songs, transforming
American accent into RP, and reading aloud. Additionally, the study provided an
attempt to classify pronunciation learning tactics in accordance with OMalley and
Chamots (1990) taxonomy comprising cognitive, metacognitive and socioaffective
strategies.
The most prolic researcher of PLS in a Polish context, Pawlak (2006, 2008,
2011b), has conducted several studies constituting parts of a large-scale research
project, the aim of which was to collect, classify and construct a measuring tool for
PLS. One of Pawlaks (2006) earlier empirical studies investigated PLS as used
amongst a group of 176 young adults (senior high school and university students),
who were requested to choose from seven cognitive and metacognitive PLS listed
in one section of the European Language Portfolio. Additionally, the learners were
encouraged to report their own ways of learning pronunciation, though only 18 of
them added their individual PLS. The total number of PLS collected was 572, with
an average of 3.25 strategies per learner. The outcomes showed the respondents
preferences in the use of repetition and learning pronunciation rules, both classied
as cognitive strategies. The least frequently reported PLS was practising in front of
a mirror (a cognitive strategy) and audio-taping (a metacognitive strategy). The
analysis of the data comparing two age groups, senior high school and university
students, indicated increased awareness of PLS use in the group of older students,
which was not surprising due to the university-level students greater experience in
language learning as well as their concern with accurate pronunciation (Pawlak,
2006, p. 129). Interestingly, the English department students participating in the
study were recorded as applying more PLS and more varied strategies than other
respondents.
Pawlaks consecutive (2008) empirical investigation, the goal of which was to
initiate identication, description, classication, and evaluation of PLS, drew
attention to PLS as devised by advanced learners of English. The data were col-
lected on the basis of a questionnaire containing closed and open-ended items. The
4.2 Research on Pronunciation Learning Strategies 93
participants were 106 rst-year English philology students, who were requested to
express their opinions on pronunciation learning and describe PLS employed while
learning outside and inside the classroom. As far as in-class PLS were concerned,
the most frequently reported were repeating after the teacher or a recording, lis-
tening to the model provided, and using transcription. Considering pronunciation
learning at home, the respondents indicated the following PLS: repetition after a
recorded model, seeking exposure to English, checking pronunciation in dic-
tionaries, reading aloud, using transcription, and recording ones own pronuncia-
tion, to mention a few most frequently reported. As Pawlak indicated, it was
slightly disconcerting that the advanced learners participating in the study depended
heavily on just a few cognitive PLS, insufcient for pronunciation improvement.
Moreover, their deployment of PLS was, to a large extent, dependent on their
in-class experience. Therefore, the researcher expressed the need for raising stu-
dents awareness of an array of PLS through training.
Gathering insights into the ways advanced L2 learners approach pronunciation
learning, identifying the problems they face while mastering phonetic aspects of L2
speech, and how they deal with these problems were the objectives of another
investigation into PLS carried out by Pawlak (2011b). The researcher applied a
qualitative approach, inviting 60 English department students to keep a diary, in
which records of steps and procedures undertaken to improve L2 pronunciation
were noted over three months. The participants were given prompts and were
allowed to choose the language their comments were written in. The results
revealed that most learners would focus on issues discussed during pronunciation
classes, did not have far-fetched plans concerning L2 pronunciation learning, and
concentrated on immediate problems and solutions. The most frequently used PLS
were cognitive, for example, repetition, transcription and consulting a dictionary.
Interestingly, the researcher observed some learners resorting to more varied and
innovative strategic devices (p. 174). These comprised paying attention,
self-monitoring and self-evaluation out of an array of metacognitive strategies, as
well as highlighting and perceiving contrasts, categorised as cognitive strategies.
Moreover, some of the participants recorded several logically sequenced strategies
applied to learning for a specic task, which was optimistic because, as the
researcher emphasised, a strategy initially perceived as ineffective might aid L2
learning if it [were] skilfully incorporated into a logical sequence of strategic
devices suitable for the learning challenge (p. 175). In other words, a pronunci-
ation learning strategy may become more effective when deployed in an orches-
trated chain of PLS. Apart from the issues concerning PLS deployment, the ndings
of the research shed more light on the value of reflectivity in the process of pro-
nunciation learning, and they led the author to suggesting several didactic pro-
posals, for example encouraging teachers to introduce more varied contextualised
and naturalistic approaches to pronunciation practice, to incorporate phonetic
training into other L2 classes, and to pay more attention to affective factors
determining success and failure.
Identifying and classifying PLS as deployed by 74 full-time and part-time tea-
cher training college students of English was the aim of Cakas (2011) empirical
study consisting of qualitative and quantitative stages. First, PLS were collected
through an open ended question: How did you learn English pronunciation before
entering the college? (p. 155). Then, a questionnaire designed on the basis of
Oxfords (1990) SILL was used to measure quantitatively the frequency of PLS
use. The outcomes of the qualitative stage of the research revealed the use of
cognitive PLS (e.g., practising pronunciation by repeating, reading aloud, using
media, and speaking with foreigners) and metacognitive PLS (e.g., paying attention
to pronunciation when listening to people speaking English). In the quantitative
investigation, among the most frequently reported PLS were memory strategies,
such as repeating a word several times, associating the pronunciation of a word or
sound with a situation in which one heard it; cognitive strategies, such as repeating
after native speakers, using resources and media, reading aloud; compensation
strategies, such as using proximal articulation, guessing the pronunciation of new
words; metacognitive strategies, such as paying attention to pronunciation, planning
for a language task, self-monitoring and organising learning; affective strategies,
such as having a sense of humour about ones mispronunciations; and social
strategies, such as asking for help. Due to a narrow repertoire of PLS used by the
participants, Caka called for PLS training, broadening the scope of PLS among
trainee teachers and developing their autonomous approach to pronunciation
learning.
The relationship between the frequency of PLS use and perception and pro-
duction of English vowels was investigated by Rokoszewska (2012). The partici-
pants were 63 rst-year EFL students, whose perception of English sounds was
tested through three listening tasks borrowed from Baker (2006). Their vowel
production was examined with the help of the test which consisted of articulation of
pure vowels and diphthongs, as well as reading both a set of minimal pairs and a
selected text. Cakas (2011) instrument was used to determine the frequency of
PLS deployment. The analysis of the results revealed a weak but statistically sig-
nicant positive correlation between the use of PLS and students production of
English vowels and diphthongs. Therefore, the participants who deployed PLS
more frequently, scored higher on the test evaluating their sound articulation
abilities. However, no correlation was found between the use of PLS and the
perception of English sounds.
As presented above a number of research studies on PLS following either
qualitative or quantitative designs, or in some cases a combination of both have
been conducted in Poland since the beginning of the new millennium. Table 4.1
lists them together with their aims and results. So far the researchers have focused
mainly on PLS identication (Pawlak, 2008; Wrembel, 2008), their classication
and frequency of use (Caka, 2011; Pawlak, 2006, 2008, 2011b), as well as the role
of PLS in L2 pronunciation learning amongst Polish learners of English (Bukowski,
2004; Rokoszewska, 2012; Wrembel, 2008). The overview of the research on PLS
in Poland reveals the scope and directions that have been taken in order to explore
this area. These investigations are inspirational for the present study in many
respects, for instance in the choice of the mixed-method approach, attempts to
classify PLS and in terms of the selection of the participants.
Table 4.1 Summary of selected research on PLS in Poland

Researcher Aim Results
Bukowski To measure the effects of indirect PLS Observed changes in approaches to
(2004) training in the group of rst-year L2 pronunciation learning
college students in Poland Observed positive effects of
socio-affective and metacognitive
strategies
Pawlak (2006) To investigate PLS used in two Cognitive PLS preferred: repetition
groups: senior high school and and learning pronunciation rules
university students Least frequently reported PLS:
practising in front of the mirror
(a cognitive strategy) and
audio-taping (a metacognitive
strategy)
The English department students
apply more varied and greater
number of PLS than senior high
school respondents
Pawlak (2008) To identify, describe, classify, and In-class most frequently reported
evaluate PLS PLS: repeating after the teacher or
tape, listening to the model
provided, and using transcription
Out-of-class most frequently
reported PLS: repetition after a
recorded model, seeking exposure
to English, checking pronunciation
in dictionaries, reading aloud, using
transcription, and recording ones
own pronunciation
Wrembel To obtain opinions on the usefulness Most useful PLS: phonemic
(2008) and enjoyability of PLS used in the transcription, dialogue reading and
pronunciation course and to collect performing
PLS used out of class Least preferred PLS: kinaesthetic
feedback described as appealing to
learners senses and modalities
Most enjoyable PLS: drama
performance, relaxation and
breathing exercises, dialogue
reading and performing
8 reported out-of-class PLS:
listening to English radio/TV,
referring to a pronunciation
dictionary, talking with friends in
English, talking to oneself,
audiotaping, imitating/pretending to
be native speakers, singing English
songs, transforming American
accent into RP, and reading aloud
(continued)
Table 4.1 (continued)

Pawlak To gather insights into the ways Most learners focus on issues
(2011b) advanced L2 learners approach discussed during pronunciation
pronunciation learning, identify classes, do not have far-fetched
problems they face while L2 plans concerning L2 pronunciation
pronunciation learning and how they learning, and concentrate on
deal with these problems here-and-now problems and
solutions
The most frequently used PLS are
cognitive strategies
Caka (2011) To identify and classify PLS as Most frequently reported PLS are
deployed by teacher training college memory, cognitive, compensation,
students of English metacognitive, affective and social
strategies
Rokoszewska To investigate the relationship A weak but statistically signicant
(2012) between the frequency of PLS use positive correlation between the use
and perception and production of of PLS and students production of
English vowels English vowels and diphthongs
No signicant correlation between
the use of PLS and English sounds
perception
The most frequently deployed PLS belong to cognitive (Pawlak, 2006, 2008,
2011b; Wrembel, 2008) and memory (Caka, 2011) strategies. The least frequently
used are affective, social (Caka, 2011) and metacognitive (Pawlak, 2006) PLS.
However, such generalisations may trigger a simplistic view on PLS use because
there are instances of cognitive PLS that are reported to be chosen less frequently in
pronunciation learning, such as practising in front of a mirror (Pawlak, 2006).
Therefore, a narrower focus on particular PLS and tactics provides more precise
information on PLS deployment. The most frequently reported PLS are repetition
(Pawlak, 2006; 2008) and learning pronunciation rules (Pawlak, 2006), listening to
the model provided or radio/TV, seeking exposure to English, checking pronun-
ciation in dictionaries, recording ones own pronunciation, reading aloud (Pawlak,
2008; Wrembel, 2008), using transcription (Pawlak, 2008), talking with friends,
talking to oneself, imitating native speakers, singing English songs, and trans-
forming American accent into RP (Wrembel, 2008). However, these results indicate
that the PLS eld needs more data in order to establish generalisations about L2
learners choices in PLS, and to specify directions for PLS training that may lead to
self-regulated behaviour. The implications for PLS teaching cannot be formulated
unless attempts to collect consistent results in the area of PLS use are made. The
present investigation aspires to supplement the existent knowledge. However, in
order to follow this line of inquiry, a broader perspective on PLS empirical research,
conducted not only in Poland but also in other cultural contexts, is required.
The rst pioneering investigation into PLS was proposed by Peterson (2000),
who attempted to collect and classify PLS deployed by adult learners of Spanish.
The researcher gathered PLS used by twelve learners at three prociency levels:
beginner, intermediate and advanced. The empirical investigation followed the
self-reporting design of diaries and interviews, which were the retrospective
instruments of data collection. There were 22 old and 21 new pronunciation
learning tactics elicited, which had never been previously documented. Those 43
tactics were grouped into the following twelve PLS: representing sounds in the
memory, practicing naturalistically, formally practicing with sounds, analysing the
sound system, using proximal articulations, nding out about a target language
pronunciation, setting goals and objectives, planning for a language task,
self-evaluating, using humour to lower anxiety, asking for help and cooperating
with peers. These in turn were embedded within the frame of Oxfords (1990)
taxonomy.
Learner difculties while learning English pronunciation were a subject of
interest for Samalieva (2000), who also investigated types and frequency of PLS
use. She collected 29 strategies and classied them as cognitive, metacognitive and
social. Interestingly, her results revealed similarities with those recorded by Pawlak
(2008). For example, one of the most frequently used strategies was repetition, and
the strategies preferred by students belonged to the cognitive group. Pronunciation
problems reported in the study pertained to length of words and familiarity with
them, sound production, stress and rhythm, speed and familiarity with interlocutors,
inconsistency of English pronunciation-spelling, perception of native pronunciation
and L1 interference. Moreover, the results indicated that better students were more
aware of their pronunciation problems and used more metacognitive strategies, such
as monitoring and self-correction; whereas the less procient participants preferred
teacher or peer correction.
Reflections collected by Vitanova and Miller (2002) with the use of open-ended
prompts exemplify students concerns and opinions on pronunciation learning
experience. The participants responses were elicited through questions such as
Why do you wish to improve your pronunciation? What do you nd most helpful
in improving pronunciation? (p. 2). These responses were collected during their
pronunciation course. Having analysed the qualitative data, the researchers
emphasized participants focus on affective factors in pronunciation learning and
their perceived signicance. Reported examples indicated that inability to pro-
nounce vocabulary items correctly might lead not only to miscommunication but
also to a speakers embarrassment and stress. Therefore, as the researchers
emphasised, most participants valued consciousness raising pronunciation instruc-
tions both at segmental and suprasegmental levels, leading to increased functional
communicability (p. 2). Moreover, students noticed the positive role of PLS, for
example metacognitive active listening and mirroring, which they could apply
autonomously in various situations. They also considered socio-affective factors
valuable in pronunciation learning. For example, they stressed the issue of con-
dence in communication and the value of accurate pronunciation (p. 4).
Oral protocols were used Osburnes (2003) study, which investigated PLS
amongst 50 adult ESL pronunciation learners. In the analysis of the recordings,
eight strategies used by the participants of the experimental task were revealed:
global articulatory gesture, local articulatory gesture or single sound, individual

syllables, clusters below syllable level, prosodic structure, individual words, par-
alanguage, and memory or imitation. The most frequently used PLS in this research
were mimicking the speakers and focusing on paralanguage (speed, volume and
clarity), whereas those two which were least frequently applied were indicating
clusters below the syllable level and attention to syllable structure.
An attempt to investigate the correlation between PLS and spontaneous pro-
nunciation performance was undertaken by Eckstein (2007). The participants were
183 international students at three different levels of language prociency:
low-intermediate, intermediate and high-intermediate. In order to measure the
relationship, he constructed an instrumenta Strategic Pronunciation Learning
Scale (SPLS)whose items were related to Kolbs learning cycle construct, briefly
explained in Sect. 4.1. Therefore, 28 pronunciation learning strategies included in
the questionnaire referred to concrete experienceinput/practice, reflection on
observationnoticing/feedback, abstract conceptualisationhypothesis forming
and action based on new conceptualisationhypothesis testing categories. This
tool was designed to collect the frequency of PLS, whereas pronunciation
achievement was measured with a standardised speaking level achievement test
(LAT), whose aim was to elicit spontaneous speech with the help of prompts. The
results suggested that ve out of 28 PLS correlated signicantly with pronunciation
performance: three of them positively and two negatively. The positive correlation
referred to noticing pronunciation mistakes, adjusting facial muscles while speaking
and asking for help with the pronunciation of new English words. A negative
relationship was observed in the case of silent repetition of model English pro-
nunciation and modulation of speech volume.
One of the most recent studies on PLS (Berkil, 2008) also investigated the
relationship between pronunciation ability and PLS use among 40 Turkish uni-
versity students. Frequency of PLS use was collected through a Strategy Inventory
for Learning Pronunciation (SILP) consisting of 52 items based on Oxfords (1990)
taxonomy of LLS. Pronunciation performance was elicited via a passage reading
and a free-response task, where participants expressed their views on one of ve
topics. The ndings indicated no correlation between the overall use of PLS and
pronunciation ability; however, three out of 52 PLS showed a signicant difference
in PLS use across prociency levels. Both the strategy of purposeful listening to
sounds and listening to tapes, television, movies or music were used more fre-
quently in the moderate pronunciation ability group than in the other groups. The
third strategy of using phonetic symbols or personal codes in order to remember
how to pronounce words was least frequently employed by the moderate level
pronouncers.
The studies investigating PLS conducted outside Poland, summarised in
Table 4.2, mainly explore types of PLS (Osburne, 2003; Peterson, 2000;
Samalieva, 2000), frequency of their use (Osburne, 2003), and perceived utility of
PLS (Vitanova & Miller, 2002). Berkil (2008) and Ekstein (2007) examine cor-
relations between PLS and L2 pronunciation performance, whereas Berkil (2008)
and Samalieva (2000) focus on PLS deployed at different L2 prociency levels. The
Table 4.2 Summary of selected research on PLS outside Poland

Peterson To collect and classify PLS deployed 43 pronunciation learning tactics
(2000) by adult learners of Spanish at three collected and grouped into 12 PLS
prociency levels: beginner,
intermediate and advanced
Samalieva To investigate learners difculties 29 PLS collected and classied as
(2000) while learning English pronunciation cognitive, metacognitive and social
as well as types and frequency of PLS Pronunciation problems reported in
use the study: length and familiarity with
words, sound production, stress and
rhythm, speed and familiarity with
interlocutors, English
pronunciation-spelling inconsistency,
perception of native pronunciation
and L1 interference
More procient Ls prefer
metacognitive strategies, such as
monitoring and self-correction;
whereas the less procient
participants prefer teacher or peer
correction
Vitanova To collect reflections on pronunciation Positive role of metacognitive PLS
and Miller learning experience (active listening and mirroring)
(2002) Socio-affective factors valuable in
pronunciation learning
Osburne To investigates PLS of adult ESL 8 PLS collected: global articulatory
(2003) pronunciation learners gesture, local articulatory gesture or
single sound, individual syllables,
clusters below syllable level, prosodic
structure, individual words,
paralanguage, and memory or
imitation
Two most frequently used PLS:
mimicking the speakers and focusing
on paralanguage (speed, volume and
clarity)
Two least frequently applied PLS:
indicating clusters below the syllable
level and attention to syllable
structure
Eckstein To investigate the correlation between 3 PLS correlate positively with
(2007) PLS and spontaneous pronunciation pronunciation performance: noticing
performance pronunciation mistakes, adjusting
facial muscles while speaking and
asking for help with the pronunciation
of new English words
2 PLS correlate negatively with
pronunciation performance: silent
repetition of model English
pronunciation and modulation of
speech volume
(continued)

Berkil To investigate the correlation between 3 PLS show signicant difference in
(2008) PLS and pronunciation performance PLS use across prociency levels:
among Turkish university students purposeful listening to sounds, tapes,
television, movies or music, and using
phonetic symbols or personal codes to
remember how to pronounce words
following PLS are reported to be of particular interest: purposeful listening to

sounds, listening to tapes, television, movies or music, and using phonetic symbols
or personal codes to remember word pronunciation (Berkil, 2008), noticing pro-
nunciation mistakes, adjusting facial muscles while speaking, asking for help with
the pronunciation of new English words, silent repetition of model English pro-
nunciation and modulation of speech volume (Ekstein, 2007). These results mostly
overlap with the outcomes of the studies conducted in Poland. However, there is a
discord in the application of some PLS, such as metacognitive monitoring and
self-correction that occur frequently in the repertoire of procient learners in
Samalievas (2000) research. Therefore, the PLS area calls for further investiga-
tions. Generally, the ndings of the above-mentioned studies are rather inconclu-
sive, for instance, because of the application of diverse instruments directed towards
the participants coming from different L1 backgrounds.
Surprisingly enough, none of the above investigations has detected a direct
interplay between PLS use and other individual learner variables. Only Vitanova
and Miller (2002) report the value of socio-affective factors in pronunciation
learning. Their qualitative research, examining the role of PLS, conrms the
interplay between a learners affective states and pronunciation, but this enquiry
requires a more comprehensive approach.
The results of the studies discussed in this section conrm the necessity for
further investigations in the area of PLS for many reasons. First of all, hardly any
research proposes a combined approach of quantitative and qualitative design.
Furthermore, although the researchers have endeavoured to apply a number of
quantitative instruments, among others the SPLS or the SILP, and several quali-
tative tools, such as oral protocols, interviews and diary studies, the objectives are
mainly focused on collection and classication of an array of PLS as deployed in
L2 pronunciation learning. There is still a need for research verifying the deploy-
ment of PLS and investigating the links between PLS and other SLA variables, for
example affective aspects, such as language anxiety. Therefore, further research
combining both qualitative and quantitative designs might be considered in order to
investigate the repertoires of PLS moderated by language anxiety, which
undoubtedly interplays with oral performance, as revealed in the subsequent
section.
4.3 Language Anxiety and Oral Performance 101
4.3 Language Anxiety and Oral Performance
Language anxiety has been reported to be chiefly associated with oral performance
(Horwitz et al., 1986). Such conclusions are drawn in a number of empirical studies
(Hewitt and Stephenson, 2012; Kitano, 2001; Liu, 2006; Park and Lee, 2005;
Phillips, 1992; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008; Stephenson Wilson, 2006; Suba, 2010;
Tth, 2012; Woodrow, 2006) following a range of qualitative and quantitative
designs, of which statistical correlation is favoured. Although not every investi-
gation into LA and L2 oral performance adopts a correlational design to measure
this relationship, those which do (e.g., Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012; Kitano, 2001;
Park & Lee, 2005; Phillips, 1992; Stephenson Wilson, 2006; Suba, 2010) conrm
a negative interplay between these two variables without stating causality.
Frequently the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz
et al., 1986) or a slight modication of it is applied to identify the levels of LA in
studies linked to oral performance. However, the levels of spoken prociency are
calculated with a greater variety of tools, for example performing role-plays, dis-
cussions and applying self-evaluation.
First, the ndings of correlational studies revealing the strength of the rela-
tionship between LA and oral performance will be outlined. Then those studies
investigating the interplay between LA levels and the way learners perceive their
own foreign language speaking competence will be discussed.
Among the most influential research projects exploiting the relationship between
language anxiety and oral performance (cf. Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012) is the
classic study conducted by Phillips (1992), which was later replicated by
Stephenson Wilson (2006) and Hewitt and Stephenson (2012). A signicant neg-
ative correlation between language anxiety and oral performance was found in all of
these studies, where results from the FLCAS indicated the levels of language
anxiety. In Phillips study, the spoken competence of 44 participants, aged from 17
to 21, was measured in a two-task oral examination. In the rst task the participants
responded freely to a familiar cultural topic, and in the second one they performed a
role play. The examination was recorded and transcribed. Next, the performance
was evaluated against several variables, among others, the percentage of total words
in communication units (CUs) measuring the quantity of comprehensible output,
average length of CUs indicating syntactic maturity, percentage of both error-free
CUs and words in error-free CUs. A moderate inverse relationship (r = 0.40,
p < 0.01) between LA and oral performance was detected. As Phillips explained,
this result conrmed that a more anxious learner had performed on the oral test
worse than the less anxious individual. Additionally, the participants who experi-
enced high language anxiety scored low on such oral exam criteria as the length of
communication units and total words in a CU. In the post-oral-examination inter-
view, anxious individuals reported feeling frustrated, panicked and apprehensive,
particularly when they forgot the word they knew but they were unable to recall.
These facts conrm a negative influence of language anxiety on cognitive pro-
cesses, such as optimal functioning of memory and retrieval, which are crucial for
an effective and fluent oral performance. Moreover, according to Phillips, a mod-

erate strength of the negative interplay between language anxiety and oral perfor-
mance indicates that there are other moderator variables, for instance personality,
motivation, or risk-taking that interact. These may function as catalysts, defusing or
intensifying the effects of language anxiety.
Two replications of Phillips study have corroborated its ndings. In Stephenson
Wilson (2006) a negative correlation between LA and speaking competence at a
similar level (r = 0.494, p < 0.001) was calculated. LA of 40 students at Granada
University were measured with the FLCAS translated into Spanish, whereas the
oral performance evaluation followed Phillips (1992) procedure of conducting a
two-part oral test. Similarly, Hewitt and Stephenson (2012) examined 40 Spanish
participants of an English course, gathering data using Philips instruments. They
found a moderate inverse relationship between LA and oral exam results
(r = 0.49, p = 0.001), interpreting them that regardless of L2 and the context of
language learning, a highly anxious individual would score lower on an oral per-
formance than their more relaxed counterpart. The replicated study conrmed that
quantity and quality of oral performance suffered when the level of language
anxiety was high. Thus, the internal reliability of Phillips measurement was
upheld, and her results could be interpreted as more generalizable.
The link between language anxiety and oral performance was also evidenced by
Park and Lee (2005), who investigated 132 Korean students. A 30-item question-
naire measuring the participants self-condence and language anxiety related to
oral performance was designed on the basis of Aidas (1994) and Horwitz et al.s
(1986) instruments. Oral performance was evaluated against the following criteria:
range of vocabulary and grammar; ease or fluency of speech; attitude entailing
motivation, self-condence and low anxiety; delivery covering the sub-criteria of
volume and various pronunciation aspects, such as intonation, word stress and
rhythm; and interaction involving communication strategies and social skills.
A negative signicant correlation was found between language anxiety and oral
performance (r = 0.312, p < 0.01). Correlational statistics were also applied to
measure the relationship between language anxiety and the results obtained for
particular oral performance criteria. Lack of signicant correlation was found only
between language anxiety and delivery; whereas the other criteria correlated sig-
nicantly, all negatively, with language anxiety: range (r = 0.297, p < 0.01),
ease (r = 0.257, p < 0.05), attitude (r = 0.234, p < 0.05), and interaction
(r = 0.235, p < 0.05). The authors concluded that a highly anxious language
learner chose a more limited range of lexical and grammatical structures, his or her
speech was less fluent, and the communication strategies and the social skills
employed were more limited than in the case of the L2 speaker who demonstrated
lower levels of language anxiety. Therefore, the constraints that a high language
anxiety level imposed on an L2 language output were manifested here in the form
of a limited use of linguistic resources, speech disfluency, and poor interactive
strategies. Interestingly, no signicant link was found between language anxiety
and delivery, operationalised as speech volume, intonation, word stress and rhythm.
Regrettably, Park and Lee failed to provide the interpretation for this result.
A correlational analysis examining the relationship between second language

speaking anxiety and speaking performance was also adopted by Woodrow (2006),
who additionally proposed a dual conceptualization of speaking anxiety, referring
to in-class and out-of-class second language anxiety as separate constructs. The
main goal of the study was to introduce and verify a model of adaptive language
learning, reflecting the relationship between oral performance in English and such
constructs as motivation, self-efcacy, anxiety and learning strategies. The quan-
titative data was collected from 275 participants studying English for Academic
Purposes in Australia. The instruments used to measure the relationship between
anxiety and oral performance were the Second Language Speaking Anxiety Scale
(SLSAS) designed by the researcher and the standardised International English
Language Testing Service (IELTS) oral test assessed by a certied examiner. The
scale for measuring language learning strategies was devised by Woodrow (2006),
who had classied them as cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies. Similar
negative correlations were found between oral performance and speaking in-class
anxiety (r = 0.23, p = <0.01), as well as oral performance and speaking anxiety
experienced outside the classroom (r = 0.24, p = <0.01) in the second language
learning context. A signicant positive but weak correlation was calculated between
oral performance and metacognitive strategies (r = 0.19, p = <0.01). In Woodrows
model a more adaptive language learner scores higher on oral performance than a
less adaptive individual. He or she shows, among others, a more positive affect with
a lower level of speaking anxiety and deploys metacognitive learning strategies
more often than the unsuccessful learner. The researcher further explicates that
language learners high in anxiety which is related to language skill decits, for
instance in speaking, may benet from language learning strategy training, whereas
those whose language retrieval suffers due to a soaring language anxiety level could
prot from relaxation techniques.
Similar results were found in the study by Tth (2012), who examineed the role
of language anxiety in oral performance in a group of 16 advanced EFL learners,
ranged in age from 18 to 22 years. The participants were 8 most anxious and 8 least
anxious learners selected from a sample of 117. Their language anxiety levels were
measured with Horwitz et al.s (1986) FLCAS translated into Hungarian. Oral
performance was assessed on the basis of maximum 15-minute-long semi-formal
interviews with a native speaker. Each interview consisted of three phases: the rst
was a lead-in stage with short general warm-up questions. In the second phase,
participants expressed their views on a controversial topic, and in the third one, they
were asked to interpret an ambiguous picture. The interviews were recorded and
rated on a 5-point scale from very poor to very good according to the following
criteria for measuring oral performance: task performance, effectiveness of com-
munication, fluency, grammatical resource and accuracy, lexical resource and
appropriacy, and pronunciation/intonation. The results calculated with the help of
the Mann-Whitney U test revealed that the two groups differed statistically sig-
nicantly in the scores assigned for each oral performance criterion. In the case of
highly anxious EFL learners effectiveness of communication, fluency, grammatical
and lexical resources, pronunciation, as well as the overall score for oral
performance were marked signicantly lower than in the case of the participants
with low language anxiety levels.
Applying triangulation of methods, Liu (2006) investigated 547 rst year
undergraduate learners of English in China in order to examine LA experienced in
oral English classrooms. Several instruments were used to obtain comprehensive
data: a survey, an observation, a journal, and an interview. An adapted FLCAS
(Horwitz et al., 1986) was administered to measure LA levels of all the participants.
Teachers were requested to observe and note down instances of anxious behaviours
among students during classes throughout a term. For six consecutive weeks the
participants were writing reflective journals, in which they responded to questions
on anxiety experienced in L2 lessons, degree of their involvement in class activities,
perceived sources of anxiety, and any other issues concerning L2 learning pro-
cesses. Additionally, the researchers conducted three classroom observations in the
form of video recordings with a focus on the participants oral performance. Finally,
2 high-anxious, 3 average-anxious, and 2 low-anxious participants took part in
semi-structured interviews, serving to identify those speaking activities that had
made them most and least anxious. The statistical analysis of the FLCAS results as
well as qualitative analyses of the journals, the observations and the interviews led
to the conclusions that students were most anxious in class while answering teacher
questions and giving oral presentations, whereas least anxious in pair work and
group discussions. The participants fear of negative evaluation was likely to
diminish when they performed in smaller groups, consisting of their peers.
Interestingly, one participant emphasised the role of strategies that were applicable
and helpful in nalising a task only when the interlocutors were able to speak more
relaxedly and jokingly (Liu, 2006, p. 312) in pair work. Moreover, the study
investigated language anxiety experienced by the participants at three prociency
levels, where the lowest anxiety levels were observed in the highest prociency
group. Liu explained this phenomenon in the following way: learners were more
anxious at the beginning of their language course, but in time, when the exposure to
the language increased, and they adapted to the new environment, the level of
language anxiety while speaking in an L2 class decreased, particularly with regard
to pair work and group discussions.
A correlational study investigating the link between LA and self-perception of
the speaking skill among 212 foreign language students was proposed by Kitano
(2001). The instruments were Japanese Class Anxiety Scale (JCAS) created on the
basis of the FLCAS, and three tools for self-rating speaking ability: the Self-Rating
Can-Do Scale (SR-CDS), the Self-Rating for the Current Level of Study (SR-CL)
and the Self-Rating Expected Perception by the Japanese (SR-EPJ). Interestingly,
both the second and third self-rating scales referred to such aspects of L2 as
pronunciation, fluency, grammatical accuracy, and overall speaking ability. They
differed in terms of the perspective the participants were expected to take: in the
SR-CL they assessed their abilities in comparison with their peers, and in the
SR-EPJ they self-evaluated their competence against native speakers. The results
indicated that an individual students anxiety was higher as he or she perceived his
or her ability as lower than that of peers and native speakers (p. 549). In other
words, self-rating of the individuals speaking abilities was inversely related to class
anxiety when measured on the Self-Rating Current Level of Study (r = 0.509,
p = 0.00) and the Self-Rating Expected Perception by the Japanese (r = 0.389,
p = 0.00) scales. No signicant correlation was found between LA level and
self-rating of speaking competence on the Self-Rated Can-Do Scale. Kitano has
claried that a student compares his or her performanceincluding pronunciation
performancein an L2 classroom to that of the peers and a teacher. If he or she
perceives that others speak better, his or her anxiety level may become high.
Additionally, if the teacher is a native speaker of the target language, the learner
may be prone to setting unrealistic goals to perform in a similar way, which may
make the learner perceive their own performance as insufcient. This, according to
Kitano, leads to higher language anxiety levels.
A modied replication of Kitanos (2001) study was proposed by Suba (2010),
who investigated speaking ability as perceived by L2 learners with various lan-
guage anxiety levels. The participants were 55 Turkish students of English, aged
from 17 to 19. For the purpose of this study, Kitanos (2001) instruments were
adapted to evaluate self-perceived speaking ability: the Self-Rating Can-Do Scale
(SR-CDS), the Self-Rating for the Current Level of Study (SR-CL), and the
Self-Rating Expected Perception by the English (SR-EPE) related to the Self-Rating
Expected Perception by the Japanese. Language anxiety was measured with a
modied Horwitz et al.s (1986) FLCAS and Subas (2010) Fear of Negative
Evaluation (FNE) scale. The latter was designed to inspect participants levels of
apprehension vis-a-vis negative evaluation. Additionally, interviews were con-
ducted with 15 students exhibiting high anxiety levels in order to verify reasons for
their language anxiety in oral performance. The negative correlations were reported
between the FLCAS results and self-assessment scales: the Self-Rating Can-Do
Scale (r = 0.174, p = 0.205), the Self-Rating for the Current Level of Study
(r = 0.303, p = 0.025), and the Self-Rating Expected Perception by the English
(r = 0.169, p = 0.216) respectively. The results corroborated Kitanos (2001)
research outcomes, providing evidence for the interplay between language anxiety
and self-perceived oral performance. More specically, the learner who rated his or
her abilities to cope with a speaking task high was unlikely to suffer from a high
language anxiety level. If he or she compared his performance and its components
such as pronunciation with that of other peers and rated it high, a low level of
language anxiety was expected. On the other hand, an anxious individual expected
his or her oral performance, including pronunciation, to be perceived by an English
native speaker as poor.
In a similar vein, Piechurska-Kuciel (2008) examined the relationship between
self-rated speaking ability and language anxiety. The study was conducted on a
sample of 393 secondary grammar school students of English in Poland. The
participants responded to a questionnaire that comprised, among others, the FLCAS
and self-perception of four English macro skills: speaking, writing, listening and
reading. Not surprisingly, of all four skills speaking correlated with LA in the
strongest manner. Moreover, a strong negative correlation found between language
anxiety and self-perceived levels of the speaking skill was sustained over a
Table 4.3 Summary of selected research on the relationship between language anxiety and oral
performance
Researcher Aim Instruments and results
Phillips (1992) To investigate the relationship The Foreign Language Classroom
between oral performance and Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), recorded
language anxiety among university two-task oral exam, interviews on
students of French as a foreign attitudes towards the oral exam
language A moderate negative relationship
between language anxiety and
oral performance
A weak negative relationship
length of communication units,
number of words in
communication units
Kitano (2001) To investigate the relationship The Japanese Class Anxiety Scale
between self-perceived speaking based on the FLCAS, the
skill and language anxiety of Self-Rating Can-Do Scale
students learning Japanese as a (SR-CD), the Self-Rating for
foreign language Current Level of Study Scale
(SR-CL), the Self-Rating
Expected Perception by the
Japanese (SR-EPJ)
A moderate negative relationship
self-perceived speaking measured
on the SR-CL and the SR-EPJ
(both scales comprising areas
which included pronunciation)
No signicant correlation
self-perceived speaking measured
on the SR-CD
Park and Lee To investigate the relationship A questionnaire measuring
(2005) between oral performance and self-condence and language
language anxiety of Korean anxiety adapted from the FLCAS,
students of English as a foreign recorded oral performance
language A weak negative relationship
oral performance
A limited use of linguistic
resources, speech disfluency, and
poor communication strategies
are characteristics of anxious
participants
No signicant correlation
delivery, consisting of intonation,
word stress and rhythm
(continued)

Liu (2006) To examine the interplay between The adapted FLCAS, classroom
language anxiety and oral observations, reflective journals,
performance among undergraduate interviews
learners of English in China Learners are most anxious while
answering teachers questions
and giving oral presentations
Highest prociency group
experiences lowest language
anxiety levels
Stephenson To conrm Phillips (1992) results Replication of Phillips (1992)
Wilson (2006) and to investigate the relationship study, the adapted FLCAS,
between oral performance and recorded oral exam, interviews
language anxiety among students Phillips ndings corroborated: a
of English at Granada University negative relationship between
language anxiety and oral
performance
Woodrow (2006) To investigate the relationship The Second Language Speaking
between second language speaking Anxiety Scale, the International
anxiety and speaking performance English Language Testing
of students of English for Service oral test
Academic Purposes in Australia A weak negative relationship
between speaking in-class second
performance
A weak negative relationship
between out-of-class second
performance
Conrmatory analysis of the
Model of Adaptive Learning
A prole of a more adaptive
learner: scores high on oral
performance, uses metacognitive
learning strategies and has a low
level of speaking anxiety
Piechurska-Kuciel To investigate the relationship The Input, Processing, Output
(2008) between self-perceived speaking Anxiety Scales, the FLCAS, a
skill and language anxiety among questionnaire on the
secondary grammar school students self-perception of four English
of English in Poland macro skills: speaking, writing,
listening and reading
A strong negative correlation
self-perceived levels of speaking,
sustained over a three-year period
Girls suffer from signicantly
higher LA levels than boys
Language anxiety levels decrease
in time
(continued)

Suba (2010) To conrm Kitanos (2001) results A modied replication of
and to investigate the relationship Kitanos (2001) study
between self-perceived speaking Adapted version of Kitanos
skill and language anxiety among self-rating scales, adapted version
Turkish students of English of the FLCAS, the Fear of
Negative Evaluation scale
Negative correlations between the
FLCAS results and all self-rating
scales
Hewitt and To conrm Phillips (1992) results A replication of Phillips (1992)
Stephenson (2012) and to investigate the relationship study, the adapted FLCAS,
between oral performance and recorded oral performance,
language anxiety among Spanish interviews on attitudes towards
learners of English the oral exam
Phillips ndings corroborated: a
negative relationship between
performance
Tth (2012) To examine the interplay between The adapted FLCAS, recorded
language anxiety and oral semi-formal interviews with a
performance among Hungarian native speaker
learners of English Learners experiencing high and
low levels of language anxiety
differ signicantly in scores for
effectiveness of communication,
fluency, grammatical and lexical
resources, pronunciation, and in
overall score for oral performance
three-year period (in the rst year r = 0.56, in the second year r = 0.60, and in
the third year r = 0.57). These ndings conrmed that the interplay between
language anxiety and the way students perceived their ability to speak was rela-
tively stable and permanent. Additionally, the researcher investigated the LA levels
throughout the length of students English learning while at secondary school, and
found that these levels decreased in time. Also of interest was the fact that the LA
levels differed signicantly with regard to gender. Females suffered from higher LA
levels than males because, as the author explained, social expectations of school
achievements were higher for girls, who expressed a greater degree of concern over
their school obligations and duties.
The above review of selected empirical research ndings (Table 4.3) is not
meant as an exhaustive overview of the literature, but it is intended to show the
range of research results on the subject of language anxiety and oral performance
that entails several components, including pronunciation. These studies are pre-
sented as part of the search for the data that rationalise a plausible interplay between
pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety, justifying the choice of
instruments and participants for the empirical research outlined in this book. The
outcomes of the studies generally conrm that speaking competence of a highly
anxious L2 learner is evaluated or self-evaluated signicantly lower than in the case
of less anxious individuals. MacIntyre et al.s (1997) statement that actual com-
petence, perceived competence and language anxiety are all interrelated (p. 274)
is, therefore, supported within the domain of spoken language. The tool used for
calculating language anxiety levels is mostly the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986),
adapted for different cultural contexts (e.g., Park & Lee, 2005; Piechurska-Kuciel,
2008; Tth, 2012); whereas oral performance is measured with a number of
instruments: recorded exams (e.g., Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012; Phillips, 1992), the
IELTS oral test (Woodrow, 2006), observations, reflective journals, interviews
(Liu, 2006), and the self-perception of the speaking skill scales (e.g., Kitano, 2001;
Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). Therefore, the measurement of LA levels among Polish
learners of English using the FLCAS, a tool widely employed in a number of
research projects focussing on language anxiety, seems to be justiable for the
purposes of the study presented in this volume.
The studies summarised in Table 4.3 consistently indicate a negative interplay
between LA and L2 speaking outcomes. Therefore, an L2 learners oral perfor-
mance and how he or she rates it in comparison to that of others play a role in the
realm of language anxiety. An anxious students speech is disfluent (Park & Lee,
2005; Tth, 2012), limited in linguistic repertoire (Hewitt & Stephenson, 2012;
Park & Lee, 2005; Phillips, 1992; Stephenson Wilson, 2006; Tth, 2012), and
scoring low on pronunciation (Tth, 2012). Such a learner, who is more frequently
female than male (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008), uses few metacognitive learning
strategies (Woodrow, 2006) and perceives her speaking abilities as poorer than
these of her peers and teachers, particularly with reference to pronunciation,
fluency and grammatical accuracy (Kitano, 2001; Suba, 2010). She prefers to
interact in pairs and groups, rather than respond to teachers questions and give oral
presentations (Liu, 2006), which make her less condent. One of the possible
approaches that an individual might follow in order to build condence in the
self-perception of oral skills leads directly to pronunciation because it is this aspect
of a language which triggers immediate evaluations on the part of the listeners
(Balogh, 2008). More attention given to pronunciation learning, for instance
through the application of pronunciation learning strategies, may result in a higher
self-rating of speech, boosting self-condence and lowering anxiety. In other
words, drawing from the results of the studies presented above, it may be speculated
that the more condent an L2 student is about his or her pronunciation, the higher
he or she rates his speech, and the less likely he or she is to suffer from a high level
of language anxiety. What may advance L2 learners towards this condence is
linked, among others, with a broad range of pronunciation learning strategies. For
this reason the following sections delve into research exploring correlations
between language anxiety, pronunciation and learning strategies.
4.4 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation
Although only a few studies directly investigate the relationship between the feeling
of apprehension and L2 learners pronunciation (Baran-ucarz, 2011, 2013b), a
number of researchers provide instances exemplifying the interplay between those
two variables (Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Garrett & Young, 2009; Gregersen &
Horwitz, 2002; Horwitz & Young, 1991; Lefkowitz & Hedgcock, 2002). Below,
the outcomes of quantitative approaches are reviewed before qualitative ones.
Recently language anxiety (LA) in pronunciation learning has attracted the
attention of Baran-ucarz (2011, 2013a, 2013b). In her earlier study she (2011)
quantitatively and qualitatively investigated the extent to which LA levels inter-
acted with actual and perceived pronunciation competence. A group of 43 sec-
ondary school students, aged 1617, took a perception and production test, in which
they identied words in minimal pairs and stress in polysyllabic words, and were
asked to read a list of words and a passage. Their self-evaluation of pronunciation
competence was conducted against a 5-point Likert scale test consisting of 8 items.
LA was measured with the use of the FLCAS. A signicant but weak negative
correlation (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) was calculated between LA and only one of
pronunciation production sub-parts of the testpassage reading. Moreover, a much
stronger inverse link (r = 0.49, p < 0.0005) was identied between LA and
self-perceived pronunciation levels. The author explained that the perceived level
of pronunciation [was] a more important determinant of LA than the actual level
(ibid., p. 504). Additionally, the researcher interviewed six participants in order to
collect qualitative data, delineating proles of students with low and high anxiety
levels. The non-anxious participants expressed a more relaxed attitude with regard
to being compared with others, were ready to seek help with others when uncertain
about pronunciation, and did not mind sounding different; whereas their anxious
counterparts feared being humiliated while speaking in front of others, believed that
they sounded ridiculous, and were often uncertain about the articulation of certain
words.
The aim of another study by the same author (Baran-ucarz 2013b) was to
examine the interplay between pronunciation attainment and pronunciation anxiety
dened as feelings evoked by the way one sounds or looks like when talking in a
FL or worries experienced when learning/practising FL pronunciation (p. 61).
32 English philology university students participated in the research. Their levels of
anxiety were measured with the Phonetics Learning Anxiety Scale (PhLAS),
designed for the purposes of the study. As many as 24 items of the PhLAS were
distributed in the instrument in the following manner: 5 items referred to the
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) test anxiety, 4 statements indicated beliefs
about the nature of FL pronunciation learning, whereas 15 items addressed a
general level of pronunciation anxiety, comprising attitudes, cognitive, somatic and
behavioural symptoms of anxiety. Furthermore, the subjects pronunciation com-
petence was veried against two tests. The rstPronunciation Attainment Test
(PAT)listed words, sentences and a text for reading. The secondIPA test
4.4 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation 111
consisted in transcription of individual words. After correlational statistical analy-

sis, the hypothesis that there was a signicant negative relationship (r = 0.45,
p < 0.005) between the learners phonetics learning anxiety (PhLA) and their
pronunciation levels was corroborated. The highest negative value of the coefcient
was calculated between PhLA and the text reading sub-part of the PAT, showing
that the higher the PhLA level was exhibited by the participants, the lower they
scored on the text reading. Probably, the articulation of utterances in a passage
requires a greater control of an array of pronunciation aspects at a time than in the
case of word reading. For instance, while reading a longer text, apart from an
appropriate production of sounds and word stress, a proper application of rhythm,
intonation and linkage is expected. However, an anxious reader may be unable to
process and apply these adequately, or the abundance of pronunciation phenomena
that are required may trigger PhLA. Additionally, by implementing a one-tailed
t-test the researcher conrmed that pronunciation competence of students with low
and high PhLA levels differed signicantly. Highly anxious participants scored
signicantly lower on the PAT than their more relaxed peers.
The proles of highly anxious (HLA) students proposed by Baran-ucarz
(2013b) revealed several references to L2 pronunciation problems. The researcher
observed that, unlike learners with a low level of LA, the HLA participants in her
study were concerned with how other students perceive their pronunciation mis-
takes. Moreover, they were inclined neither to accept their Polish accented English
nor to self-evaluate their pronunciation highly. Surprisingly enough, they believed
that they sounded ridiculous while using appropriate English pronunciation. Similar
observations were made by Lefkowitz and Hedgcock (2002), who stated that
secondary and post-secondary learners of Spanish in particular evinced an inad-
vertent and often unacknowledged desire to underperform phonetically in the
presence of classmates and teachers (p. 240). This fact might be associated with
deep concerns among both HLA and teenage learners regarding their image and
peer-pressure, discussed earlier as a phenomenon of group or club
membership. Finally, in Gregersen and Horwitzs (2002) study on language anxiety
and perfectionism, a highly-anxious student reported, I dont know how to speak
() I try to pronounce the best I can, and when I try to pronounce better, my
pronunciation gets worse, because I get flustered. That is, I get flustered because I
sometimes pronounce words badly. I try so hard to pronounce perfect (p. 567).
Apparently, a high level of LA negatively interplays with pronunciation in a
downward-spiral direction, although a clear cause-and-effect direction has not yet
been established.
A correlation between language anxiety and self-perceived pronunciation was
investigated by Szyszka (2011). A group of 48 teacher training college students
responded to a questionnaire, consisting of two parts. The rst one was Horwitz
et al.s (1986) FLCAS, measuring language anxiety levels, and the second one was
the Pronunciation Self-evaluation Form (PSF), on which the participants rated their
pronunciation competence against a 5-point Likert scale. The PSF consisted of
items referring to segmental and suprasegmental pronunciation aspects, such as
vowels, consonants, word pronunciation, word stress, weak forms, rhythm, linking,
assimilation, and intonation. Additionally, the participants evaluated their overall

pronunciation ability. A negative correlation (r = 0.46, p < 0.05) between LA and
the overall self-perceived pronunciation competence was found. Moreover, a
number of statistically signicant negative correlations between LA and particular
pronunciation aspects, such as word pronunciation (r = 0.29, p = 0.04), word
stress (r = 0.52, p = 0.00), weak forms (r = 0.32, p = 0.02), rhythm (r = 0.57,
p = 0.00), linking (p = 0.44, p = 0.00) and assimilation (r = 0.36, p = 0.01),
were calculated. These data conrmed a negative relationship between language
anxiety and self-perception of pronunciation competence. An individual high in LA
rated his or her pronunciation signicantly lower than the one who was less anx-
ious. When an anxious student compared his or her pronunciation with that of
others, he or she viewed it as poor and was afraid of a negative evaluation which,
in turn, triggered LA levels.
Quantitative approaches which apply statistical measures in order to investigate
the interplay between LA and pronunciation attainment are rarely supplemented
with qualitative data. However, there are a few studies that trace the link between
language anxiety and pronunciation following the qualitative line of inquiry. They
implement this approach because it may result in more contextualised, in-depth
revelations (cf. Baran-ucarz 2013b; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Garrett & Young,
2009; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Horwitz & Young, 1991; Lefkowitz &
Hedgcock, 2002). The qualitative approach enables the elicitation of statements
from learners who, for instance, disclose how emotional arousal affects their L2
pronunciation. In Horwitz and Youngs (1991) study, a learner claims that I hate it
when the teacher calls on me to speak. I freeze up and cant think of what to say or
how to say it. And my pronunciation is terrible (p. xiii). In a similar vein, changes
in pronunciation associated with negative affective factors are indicated by Derwing
and Rossiter (2002) and Garrett and Young (2009).
Derwing and Rossiter (2002) investigated ESL learners perceptions of their
pronunciation problems and the strategies they deployed in communication
breakdown. The number of 100 respondents consisted of a group immigrants
coming from 19 different cultural backgrounds. Their age ranged from 19 to
64 years, and they represented different levels of ESL prociency. The researchers
conducted individual interviews with the participants, during which responses to
questions related, among others, to pronunciation difculties were elicited.
Interestingly, 60% of the respondents perceived a change in their pronunciation
when being nervous and the same number declared a change in accent when they
were excited. These outcomes purported a strong interplay between pronunciation
and affective factors.
Difculties in pronunciation leading to negative emotions were reported in
Garrett and Youngs (2009) study where one of the researchers described her
experience in learning Portuguese pronunciation. Problems with sound perception
and production led to negative feelings, for example Ive seen this one word ten
times yet I still could not understand how to say it, or remember it. I thought, Why
is this? Id hear him [the teacher] say it, and it wasnt matching what I was seeing
written. It was a strange sound I could not recognize (p. 215). These feelings
4.4 Language Anxiety and Pronunciation 113
Table 4.4 Summary of selected research on the relationship between language anxiety and
pronunciation
Derwing To investigate the perceptions of Interviews
and ESL learners of their pronunciation 60% of the respondents perceived
Rossiter problems and strategies they a change in their pronunciation when
(2002) deployed in communication nervous
breakdown
Garret and To investigate difculties in Written report on the researchers
Young pronunciation difculties in learning Portuguese
(2009) pronunciation
Problems with sound perception and
production lead to negative feelings:
self-criticism and negative self-image
Constant comparison of oral performance
with that of peers sustains negative
emotions, leading to language anxiety
Baran- To investigate the relationship The FLCAS, a pronunciation perception
ucarz between language anxiety and and production test, a pronunciation
(2011) actual and perceived pronunciation self-perception questionnaire, interviews
competence among Polish LA and self-perceived pronunciation are
secondary school students of negatively related
English A signicant weak negative correlation is
calculated between LA and passage
reading
Tentative proles of students with low and
high LA levels
Szyszka To investigate the relationship The FLCAS, the Pronunciation
(2011) between language anxiety Self-evaluation Form
and perceived pronunciation A negative relationship between LA and
competence among Polish students the overall self-perceived pronunciation
of English competence
Negative correlation coefcients between
LA and particular self-rated pronunciation
aspects: word pronunciation, word stress,
weak forms, rhythm, linking and
assimilation
Baran- To investigate the relationship The Phonetics Learning Anxiety Scale
ucarz between phonetics learning (PhLAS), the Pronunciation Attainment
(2013b) anxiety (PhLA) and pronunciation Test (PAT)
attainment A signicant negative relationship between
the learners PhLA and their pronunciation
levels
The highest negative value of the
coefcient calculated between PhLA and
the text reading sub-part of the PAT
Pronunciation competence of students with
low and high PhLA levels differs
signicantly
Proles of students with low and high
PhLA levels
evoked self-criticism and negative self-image. Nevertheless, fear of speaking in

class or working with partners triggered [m]ost of the negative comments
(p. 222). Garrett continually compared her oral performance with that of her peers,
which sustained negative emotions, potentially leading to language anxiety.
In quantitative and qualitative research reviewed above and summarised in
Table 4.4, there are several instances regarding the interplay between language
anxiety and pronunciation. For example, anxious L2 pronunciation learners
encounter problems with sound perception and production that may result in neg-
ative self-image and self-criticism (Garret & Young, 2009). Learners also observe
that their pronunciation changes when they feel apprehensive (Derwing & Rossiter,
2002). Additionally, they evaluate the way peers and teachers pronounce, and
compare these outcomes with their own enunciation. This, in turn, may lead to
negative emotions, such as fear of being negatively evaluated (Garret & Young,
2009). When L2 pronunciation students experience greater anxiety, they are more
concerned with how others view their pronunciation mistakes. They also perceive
their own enunciation as ridiculous (Baran-ucarz, 2011), and self-evaluate their L2
articulation as low (Baran-ucarz, 2011; Szyszka, 2011). The results of the selected
studies corroborate the claim that L2 pronunciation of more apprehensive learners is
signicantly worse than that of those who display low levels of anxiety in pro-
nunciation learning (Baran-ucarz, 2013b). Despite the insightful results from the
reviewed studies, the proles of L2 pronunciation learners who are high and low in
language anxiety are incomplete without a broader perspective on how these
individuals approach pronunciation learning, which pronunciation learning strate-
gies they perceive as effective and, therefore, choose more frequently. These
questions are focal in this book, and the responses may add one further dimension
to the prole of an anxious pronunciation learner.
The outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative studies presented above provide
evidence for the negative correlation between language anxiety and pronunciation.
A high language anxiety level is usually associated with worse pronunciation or
low self-evaluation of it. In order to improve and accelerate L2 pronunciation
learning, there is a need for a learner to implement a set of remedies, which include
pronunciation learning strategies. Furthermore, it is interesting to scrutinize how
these strategies interplay with LA. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the next
section focuses on a review of the research, the results of which corroborate the
assumption that language anxiety interplays with both language and pronunciation
learning strategies affecting the processes of L2 pronunciation acquisition.
4.5 Language Anxiety and Language Learning Strategies
The choice and number of language learning strategies (LLS) is hypothesised to

vary at different anxiety levels (Noormohamadi, 2009; Park, 2007) and the corre-
lation between those two variables is observed to be mostly negative (Liu, 2013;
Mohammadi, Biria, Koosha, & Shahsavari, 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009; Pawlak,
4.5 Language Anxiety and Language Learning Strategies 115
2011a). In other words, learners experiencing high levels of LA are reported to

employ several LLS signicantly less frequently than those who are not so anxious.
However, the inverse link between language anxiety and the use of LLS is tentative
(Pawlak, 2011a); therefore, there is a need to inspect the details of research designs
used in investigations into the interplay between LA and LLS and their outcomes.
The studies are examined in chronological order so as to view their directions and
development over time.
In their study which endeavoured to support the social-psychological model for
strategy use as previously discussed in this work, MacIntyre and Noels (1996)
investigated the link between LA and LLS. A 50-item version of Oxfords (1990)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was used to measure the use of
LLS among 138 students of Spanish or Italian learnt as foreign languages.
Additionally, each participant was supposed to indicate the degree to which a
particular strategy made them anxious, while also rating their anxiety in the L2
classroom. A multiple regression procedure was used to examine variables that
predicted the frequency of LLS use. The results indicated that LA correlated pos-
itively but weakly with anxiety associated with a particular strategy (r = 0.22,
p < 0.05). Discussing this nding, the authors explained that the highest level of
LA might be induced by communicative demands, which were reflected only in
three out of 50 LLS evaluated as most anxiety-inducing. What is more, LA was
found to be inversely related to cognitive (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) and metacognitive
(r = 0.20, p < 0.05) strategies. MacIntyre and Noels claried that LA was
hypothesised to consume cognitive resources; therefore, it might inhibit the use of
these LLS. A moderate negative correlation between LA and social strategies
(r = 0.40, p < 0.001) was explicated by remarking that LA comprised notions of
social anxiety, such as communication apprehension and fear of negative evalua-
tion. Hence, more frequent application of social strategies may be associated with a
lower level of LA. Moreover, the researchers postulated directionality in the
interplay between LLS and LA, stating that the effective use of LLS may con-
tribute to a sense of mastery over the learning process that would reduce uncertainty
and anxiety (ibid., p. 383). In other words, a learner may be convinced that their
use of LLS enhances their L2 learning and this feeling reduces LA.
The interaction between several affective factors including anxiety and LLS is a
subject of interest for Mihaljevi Djigunovi (2000), who states after Bacon and
Finneman that the willingness to use strategies results from an interaction of
attitudes, motivation, anxiety and personality (p. 2). Similarly to MacIntyre and
Noels (1996), the researcher suggests the direction of the interplay between LLS
and LA, assuming that LA is a variable affecting the use of LLS. Moreover, the
hypothesis claiming an existence of the interaction between affective factors, such
as LA, self-concept, success attributions and motivation, and LLS use is supported
in a quantitative survey study. The participants were 362 Croatian EFL learners in
three age groups: primary school, secondary school and university students, whose
frequency of LLS use was measured on the SILL, and LA levels were calculated by
means of MacIntyre and Gardners (1989) questionnaire, referring to ve aspects of
LA (item 1embarrassed to volunteer answers in class, item 2insecure when
speaking English in class; item 3others know English better than me, item 4
nervous when speaking English in class, item 5afraid other will laugh at my
English). The results indicated signicant correlations between LA and some LLS
categories only in the second and third group of participants, which enabled the
author to conclude that age was an important factor in studies into both LLS and
LA. Although there were no signicant correlations between the overall use of LLS
and LA, both teenage and adult students levels of anxiety correlated negatively
with communicative strategies operationalised as learners own initiative in
learning in out-of-class situations and an active task approach to learning through
seeking out opportunities to use language and be exposed to it as much as possible
(Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 2000, p. 6). More specically, teenage participants who
used communicative strategies less frequently reported that they felt more insecure
when speaking English in class (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and thought that others knew
English better (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). Even more signicant correlations were found
in adult learners. Communicative strategies correlated inversely with all LA items
and overall LA (r = 0.38, p < 0.01), whereas socioaffective strategies correlated
positively with all but one of the anxiety aspects and overall LA (r = 0.41,
p < 0.01). Therefore, adult EFL learners who were more anxious tended to share
their experiences with others and encourage themselves more frequently.
Interesting outcomes of an experimental study searching for links between
language learning strategies and language anxiety were found by Huang (2001).
The participants were 47 EFL students in Taiwan, whose ages ranged between 18
and 23. They were divided into two groups: an experimental group with 35 indi-
viduals and a control group of 12 students. The rst group received a one-semester
strategy training course, which constituted an extension of other regular language
skill development courses that were followed by the control group. Four instru-
ments were applied before and after the experiment: the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL), measuring language prociency; the SILL (Oxford,
1990), indicating the frequency of LLS use; Gardners (1985 in Huang, 2001)
Motivational Intensity Questionnaire (MIQ); and the FLCAS (Horwitz et al., 1986)
to calculate language anxiety levels. A signicant decrease in language anxiety
levels as measured before and after the training period (t = 5.48, p = 0.00 < 0.005)
was observed. In the control group, however, the difference of the language anxiety
levels (N = 12) was not statistically signicant. Thus, the fact that strategic training
resulted in lowered levels of language anxiety supported the view of the existent
relationship between LLS and language anxiety. Simultaneously, the statistically
signicant increase in the use of memory, cognitive, compensation and metacog-
nitive strategies was calculated only in the experimental group. In sum, the LLS
training course resulted in lowering anxiety levels among the participants and their
more frequent use of most LLS.
Park (2007) investigated the use of LLS among Korean EFL learners, collecting
data through Oxfords (1990) SILL, Version 7.0, which was modied to elicit
beliefs in the value of each strategy. Moreover, a biographical questionnaire was
used to identify, among other issues, a self-rated prociency level. From the initial
group of 58 respondents, ten were selected to take part in semi-structured follow-up
interviews to explain the differences between learners LLS use and the subjects
beliefs in the value of these strategies. The researcher was also interested in
establishing how more successful learners were different in terms of the way they
dealt with social strategies than their less successful counterparts. The results
indicated that LA was a factor which differentiated more successful learners from
those who were less successful. For example, less successful learners experienced
higher levels of anxiety while communicating with native speakers of English.
Additionally, a less frequent use of LLS was reported to stem from LA.
Correlational design has been used to investigate the relationship between LA
and overall LLS use by a number of researchers (Liu, 2013; Lu and Liu, 2011;
Mohammadi et al., 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009; Pawlak, 2011a). One of the ear-
liest studies was conducted by Noormohamadi (2009), who collected data from 46
EFL university students, responding to the Persian version of the Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) for measuring LA levels, and the SILL (Oxford,
1990) for determining the frequency of LLS use. A moderate negative correlation
(r = 0.50, p < 0.0001) was found between LA and LLS use. Further analysis was
applied to investigate how LA levels interplayed with LLS. Thus a median split
procedure was used to establish high and low LA groups. Consequently, a t-test of
the two LA groups for the SILL and for each of its categories was measured. The
difference in the LLS use in the two groups was statistically signicant, and t-value
equalled 8.28 at p = 0.0001. Similarly, the frequency of LLS use in each of the
categories (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, social)
differed signicantly between high and low anxiety groups. Summarizing, in this
empirical study high anxiety learners employed LLS signicantly less frequently
than those who were less anxious. Of all LLS categories metacognitive strategies
were most frequently and affective strategies least frequently used in both groups.
Interestingly, in responding to additional open-ended questions, the participants
expressed concerns over inaccurate pronunciation as being among the reasons for
their anxiety during their English class. In conclusion, the researcher proposed three
directions in the explanation of the relationship between LLS and LA. The rst one
suggested that decreased anxiety resulted in more frequent deployment of LLS. The
second viewed increased LLS use as the cause of anxiety reduction. The nal
approach indicated that LLS and LA exerted mutual influence on each other. Since
there is little evidence in research on the relationship between LLS and LA
explicating causality, the last direction is followed in the present study.
A number of weaker links between LLS categories and LA were found by
Pawlak (2011a). A total of 140 English philology students in years 1, 2 and 3 were
surveyed to collect their LA levels with the help of the FLCAS and the use of LLS
with the SILL. There were no signicant differences in the frequency of LLS use
across three years of studies. Moreover, the lowest average level of LA was
reported by year 1 students (M = 88.19), although the differences in overall LA
scores for year 1, 2 and 3 were insignicant. Subsequently, the correlation coef-
cient was calculated for LA and overall LLS use, as well as LLS categories such as
memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social. The only
statistically signicant results were found between overall LA and cognitive
strategies (r = 0.17, p < 0.05), overall LA and metacognitive strategies

(r = 0.15, p < 0.05), LA in year 2 and both cognitive (r = 0.28, p < 0.05) and
social strategies (r = 0.29, p < 0.05), and LA in year 3 and metacognitive
strategies (r = 0.25, p < 0.05). Of importance here was that all signicant cor-
relations were negative, displaying an inverse relationship between LA and LLS
use.
A large number of 934 participants took part in the study by Lu and Liu (2011),
whose objective was to inspect the interplay between LA and the frequency of LLS
use. First-year students enrolled in English courses at three Chinese universities
587 of whom were male and 347 femalewere requested to respond to a survey
consisting of the Cognitive Strategy Use Questionnaire (CSUQ), the Metacognitive
Strategy Use Questionnaire (MSUQ), and the FLCAS adapted from Horwitz et al.
(1986). A correlational analysis was used to determine the strength of the rela-
tionship between LA and cognitive as well as metacognitive learning strategies.
Interestingly, a negative signicant correlation was found between LA levels and
the frequency of use of all cognitive and metacognitive strategies included in the
survey: the coefcients ranged from 0.096 to 0.426 (p < 0.01). The results
showed that the more anxious participants deployed cognitive and metacognitive
strategies less frequently than their non-anxious counterparts.
The objective of Lius (2013) study was to provide insights into LLS use among
142 basic, intermediate and advanced EFL learners at various LA levels. Three
instruments were applied to collect the data for analysis: Oxfords (1990) SILL,
Horwitz et al.s (1986) FLCAS, both of which were translated into Chinese, and the
General English Prociency Test (GEPT) to establish prociency levels. The par-
ticipants were divided into three groups of low (bottom 25% of the FLCAS scores),
mid and high (top 25% of the FLCAS scores) anxiety levels. The results revealed
that there were signicant differences in the use of individual LLS categories and
the overall application of strategies between students at high- and low-anxiety
levels. However, differences in LLS use between subjects exemplifying low- and
mid-anxiety levels were insignicant. Nevertheless, Pearson product-moment cor-
relations calculated between LA and overall LLS use (r = 0.434, p < 0.01) as well
as memory (r = 0.376, p < 0.01), cognitive (r = 0.415, p < 0.01), compensation
(r = 0.296, p < 0.01), metacognitive (r = 0.398, p < 0.01), affective
(r = 0.367, p < 0.01) and social (r = 0.396, p < 0.01) strategy categories con-
rmed signicant negative relationships. In Lius (2013) research, regardless of LA
levels, LLS most frequently used belonged to the metacognitive, compensation and
cognitive categories; whereas the least frequently deployed LLS were memory and
social strategies.
Similarly, Mohammadi et al. (2013) conducted research into the relationship
between LA and LLS among 85 Iranian university students of English. Two
paper-and-pencil instruments translated into Persian were used: the SILL for col-
lecting frequencies of LLS and the FLCAS for establishing LA levels. In contrast to
Noormohammadis (2009) study, the frequency of LLS use was viewed as an
independent variable and the LA level as a dependent one. Apart from measuring
Pearsons product moment correlation between the above variables, which was
found signicant and negative (r = 0.33, p < 0.05), correlations between LLS
categories (such as metacognitive, cognitive, memory, compensation, affective and
social) and LA were calculated. A statistically signicant inverse moderate corre-
lation was determined between LA and cognitive LLS (r = 0.42, p < 0.05), as
well as LA and compensation LLS (0.31, p < 0.05); a signicant but weak cor-
relation was also computed between LA and social strategies (r = 0.27, p < 0.05).
However, no signicant relation was found between affective, memory, metacog-
nitive LLS and LA. Finally, the ndings of this empirical research conrmed that
the participants who used strategies more frequently were less anxious than those
who did not deploy strategies so often.
The studies discussed above are summarised in Table 4.5. In the majority of
cases LA is considered a variable interplaying with the deployment of overall LLS
and their particular categories. The results mostly reveal moderate statistically
signicant negative correlations between LA and the overall use of LLS (Liu, 2013;
Noormohamadi, 2009; Mohammadi et al., 2013), as well as negative correlations
between LA and LLS categories, such as memory (Liu, 2013; Noormohamadi,
2009), cognitive (Liu, 2013; Lu & Liu, 2011; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996;
Mohammadi et al., 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009; Pawlak, 2011a) metacognitive
(Liu, 2013; Lu & Liu, 2011; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Noormohamadi, 2009;
Pawlak, 2011a), compensation (Liu, 2013; Mohammadi et al., 2013;
Noormohamadi, 2009), affective (Liu, 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009), social (Liu,
2013, MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Mohammadi et al., 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009),
and communicative (Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 2000). However, there are studies
where coefcients indicate no relationship between LA and the overall use of LLS
(Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 2000; Pawlak, 2011a), or even a positive coefcient in the
case of LA and socioaffected strategies, as investigated by Mihaljevi Djigunovi
(2000). Therefore, this domain requires further explorations, perhaps directed not
only towards the use of general language learning strategies and their interplay with
language anxiety but also strategies deployed in the process of learning particular
skills and aspects of L2, such as pronunciation, and their relationship with LA. The
scarcity of research exploring how LA interacts with strategies for learning different
language sub-skills, for example pronunciation, justies further investigations,
which may shed more light on L2 learning processes in the domain of pronunci-
ation acquisition.
In summary, the review of the research presented in this chapter delineates the
framework and the direction of the empirical study described in Chap. 5. Generally,
investigations into language anxiety conrm its negative interplay with oral per-
formance and L2 pronunciation acquisition. The enunciation of a highly anxious L2
learner is less effective than in the case of a low anxiety individual. Moreover,
imperfect pronunciation in turn may lead to higher levels of LA, thereby perpet-
uating the interplay. This cyclical process might be adopted by advanced L2
learners because they experience various LA levels, as the above studies show.
Those who are highly motivated to acquire intelligible pronunciation in L2 for their
role as future teachers, who serve as a pronunciation model for their students, may
also enter this repetitive process.
Table 4.5 Research on the relationship between foreign language anxiety and language learning
strategy use
Researcher Aims Results
MacIntyre and To investigate the link between LA A negative correlation between LA
Noels (1996) and LLS and cognitive, metacognitive,
To examine variables that predict social strategies
the frequency of LLS use LA consumes cognitive resources,
which leads to lower frequency of
LLS use
Mihaljevi To explore the relationship No signicant correlation between
Djigunovi between affective factors, such as LA and the overall use of LLS
(2000) LA, self-concept, success In the group of adults a signicant
attributions and motivation, and negative correlation between LA
LLS use in different age groups and communicative strategies
In the group of adults a signicant
positive correlation between LA
and socioaffective strategies
Huang (2001) To investigate the effects of Decrease in language anxiety levels
experimental language learning as measured before and after the
strategies training with reference to training period
LA, LLS use, L2 prociency, and Increase in the use of memory,
motivation cognitive, compensation and
metacognitive strategies in the
experimental group
Park (2007) To elicit beliefs in the value of each LA as a factor differentiating more
strategy use and less successful L2 learners
To identify how more and less Less successful learners experience
successful L2 learners differ in the higher levels of anxiety while
use of LLS communicating with native
speakers
A less frequent use of LLS is
reported to stem from LA
Noormohamadi To explore the interplay between A negative correlation between LA
(2009) LA and LLS and overall LLS use
High and low anxiety groups differ
signicantly in the frequency of
LLS use in such categories as
memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, affective, social
strategies
Pawlak (2011a) To determine LA levels and LLS No signicant differences in LA
use at different L2 prociency levels across three prociency
levels levels
To measure the interplay between No signicant differences in the
LA and LLS at those levels frequency of LLS use across three
prociency levels
Signicant negative correlations
between LA and cognitive as well
as metacognitive strategies
(continued)

Researcher Aims Results
Lu & Liu To examine the relationship Signicant negative correlations
(2011) between LA and the frequency of between LA and all particular
use of cognitive and metacognitive cognitive and metacognitive
strategies strategies
Liu (2013) To investigate LLS use at low, mid Negative correlations between LA
and high LA levels and the overall LLS use, as well as
memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, affective and social
strategy categories respectively
Mohammadi To identify the relationship A negative correlation between LA
et al. (2013) between LA and LLS and the overall LLS use
Negative correlations between LA
and cognitive, as well as
compensation, social strategies
respectively
Despite a number of research projects indicating the mutual relationship between

LA and oral performance, and pronunciation in particular, far too little attention has
been given to exploiting the correlation between LA and variables affecting L2
pronunciation learning processes, such as language learning strategies. Thus, in this
study more attention is given to the sets of those factors accelerating the process of
L2 pronunciation acquisition: pronunciation learning strategies as used by L2
learners with various LA levels. As indicated above, several empirical studies
conrm that LA is a confounding factor in the use of LLS. Therefore, it might be
predicted that a similar link will be detected between LA and PLS. On the basis of
the results reviewed in this section, we may posit the preliminarily speculation that
the relationship between PLS and LA will be moderate with a negative signicant
value of the correlation coefcient. Anxious pronunciation learners may use cog-
nitive, metacognitive, social and affective PLS less frequently. Possibly, memory
and compensation PLS are used more often among pronunciation learners low in
anxiety than in the more anxious group. However, to the best of the authors
knowledge, none of the research so far has aimed to investigate this interplay. The
research project described in Chap. 5 bridges the existing gap.
The aim of this chapter was to review selected empirical research on pronun-
ciation learning strategies and foreign language anxiety in the context of oral
performance and pronunciation. The rst section of this chapter outlined the
research methods approached in studies on language anxiety and pronunciation
learning strategies. The second section provided a detailed account of recent studies
on pronunciation learning strategies. We also discussed the results of investigations
exploiting the relationship between language anxiety and oral performance, as well
as language anxiety and pronunciation. Special attention was given to the outcomes
of studies examining the relationship between language anxiety and language
learning strategies. In the following chapter a detailed account of research exploring
the relationship between language anxiety and pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics is presented.
Chapter 5
Research on the Interplay Between
Language Anxiety and Pronunciation
Learning Strategies
This chapter presents a detailed description of the empirical research, the general
objective of which was to investigate the interplay between levels of language
anxiety (LA) and pronunciation learning strategy (PLS) use in a group of EFL
trainee teachers in Poland. First, the rationale of the study together with research
questions and hypotheses are presented. This is followed by a description of the
method, revealing details of the participants; the instruments used, including the
process of tool validation; and the procedure, together with the design of the study
and the variables. Finally, the chapter provides analysis of the study results and
outlines the most important ndings.
5.1 Rationale of the Study
Second or foreign language learning depends on an array of factors that may either
hinder or accelerate the process. Language anxiety and learning strategies belong to
these factors. On the one hand, for example, research into language anxiety indi-
cates its influence on the cognitive processing of an L2 learner (e.g., MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1994b; Strange & Shafer, 2008). High LA levels affect the input, pro-
cessing and output stages (cf. Sect. 3.4.1) and, as a result, L2 learning suffers. On
the other hand, the use of effective language learning strategies is stipulated to
accelerate L2 learning (e.g., Grifths, 2013; Oxford, 2011). Interestingly, research
into the interplay between language anxiety and language learning strategies reveals
a moderate negative correlation, as stated in Sect. 4.5. However, so far very few
researchers have looked into the relationship between LA and strategies used for
learning particular L2 skills and language aspects, such as grammar, vocabulary and
pronunciation (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007). The objective of this study is to bridge
this gap in the domain of pronunciation learning in the group of trainee teachers.
The theory and research results outlined in Chaps. 3 and 4 have supported the
statement that LA can be analysed from the perspective of L2 pronunciation and
124 5 Research on the Interplay Between Language Anxiety
learning strategies. In search for a plausible explanation of the interplay between

LA and PLS, Eysenck and Calvos (1992) processing efciency theory, described
in more detail in Sect. 3.1.2, becomes helpful. In line with this theory, an anxious
pronunciation learner may experience cognitive processing inefciency at all stages
of cognitive processing: input, internal processing and output. In other words,
language anxiety may affect the mental effort put into perceiving, internal pro-
cessing and producing good quality pronunciation. Nevertheless, following
Derakshan and Eysenck (2009), the task-irrelevant, worrisome thoughts associated
with anxiety may generate motivation to apply available strategies, for instance
pronunciation learning strategies, to compensate for an inadequate pronunciation
performance. Therefore, the deployment of available PLS may full a compen-
satory function for an anxious L2 pronunciation learner in his or her preparations
for achieving better quality pronunciation. Speculative as they are, these delibera-
tions may play a role in understanding the relationship between LA and PLS.
Therefore, it is of vital importance to look into the participants LA levels and their
repertoires of PLS before researching the interplay between LA and PLS. These
three research areas determine the broad research questions proposed for the pur-
poses of this study:
RQ1 What is the level of language anxiety among EFL trainee teachers?
RQ2 What are the pronunciation learning strategies and tactics of EFL trainee
teachers?
RQ3 What is the relationship between the levels of language anxiety and the
deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics?
The rst research questionRQ1: What is the level of language anxiety among
EFL trainee teachers?addresses the construct of language anxiety. The results of
the studies on LA reviewed in Sects. 4.3 and 4.4 provide evidence that under-
graduate L2 learners may feel apprehensive in the classroom, particularly with
regard to oral performance entailing target language pronunciation. Moreover, this
anxiety occurs regardless of students mother tongue and culture (e.g., Hewitt &
Stephenson, 2012; Liu, 2006; Park & Lee, 2005; Tth, 2012). Therefore, a range of
language anxiety levels may be expected in a group of Polish learners of English at
undergraduate level who are trained in their L2 pronunciation. It may also be
speculated that their LA levels should be lower than that of Polish secondary school
students of English investigated by Piechurska-Kuciel (2008), who observed a
decrease in LA in the three-year period of EFL learning. Moreover, following the
outcomes of the studies discussed earlier, gender differences may play a role in LA
levels. Females are often reported to experience higher levels of language anxiety
(e.g., Mesri, 2012; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008); however, there are a number of
studies that place males as experiencing higher levels of language anxiety (e.g.,
Capan & Simsek, 2012). The conflicting results require further investigations into
the role of gender in language anxiety. Hence, gender is taken into account as a
moderator variable in the present study. Moreover, LA affects all stages of cognitive
processing, as reported in Sect. 3.4.1, which are activated in the process of
5.1 Rationale of the Study 125
pronunciation learning. Therefore, the study also attempts to investigate the levels
of language anxiety experienced at the input, processing and output stages.
The second research questionRQ2: What are the pronunciation learning
strategies and tactics of EFL trainee teachers?targets pronunciation learning
strategies. The results of the research reviewed in Sect. 4.2 pinpoint that cognitive
(Pawlak, 2006, 2008, 2011; Wrembel, 2008) and memory (Caka, 2011) strategies
are applied most often, whereas affective, social (Caka, 2011) and metacognitive
(Pawlak, 2006) strategies are the least frequently deployed by Polish learners of
English pronunciation. A similar outcome is hypothesised in the present study.
Cognitive PLS entail formal practising with aspects of pronunciation, and memory
PLS involve repetitions and other actions that enhance pronunciation memorisation
as indicated in Sect. 2.3.1. Advanced EFL learners may be familiarised with these
strategies because of their earlier in-class experience that favours imitation, drills
and other formal classroom activities, as described in Sect. 2.1.1. However, in the
case of the participants of the present study, who are trained through a tailored
pronunciation course, the repertoires of PLS may be extended, leading to a more
frequent deployment of other PLS, such as compensation, metacognitive, affective
and social PLS. Therefore, the quantitative analysis is supplemented with qualita-
tive research in order to inspect the repertoires of pronunciation learning strategies
and tactics in detail. It is speculated that the undergraduate trainee teachers are well
aware of strategies consisting of, for instance, avoiding problematic pronunciation
in words which can be substituted for others. Therefore, there may be frequent
application of compensation PLS and tactics. These students may also be able to
use more strategies for planning and organising their pronunciation learning, as well
as those that value the positive affect and learning pronunciation with others.
This research question is also directed so as to investigate pronunciation learning
tactics, indicating how individuals approach pronunciation learning for a particular
goal. Earlier studies (cf. Sect. 4.2) reveal that the frequent approaches and actions
taken towards improving pronunciation are as follows: repetition (Pawlak, 2006,
2008), learning pronunciation rules (Pawlak, 2006), listening to a model provided
or listening to/watching radio/TV programmes, seeking exposure to English,
checking pronunciation in dictionaries, recording ones own pronunciation, reading
aloud (Pawlak, 2008; Wrembel, 2008), using transcription (Pawlak, 2008), talking
with friends, talking to oneself, imitating native speakers, singing English songs,
and transforming American accent into RP (Wrembel, 2008). Another aim of the
present study is to verify whether similar pronunciation learning tactics are fre-
quently used by the trainee teachers.
As with language anxiety, gender is reported to play a role in the use of learning
strategies (for an extensive overview cf. Takeuchi, Grifths, & Coyle, 2007). For
example, Ghee, Ismail, and Kabilan (2010) and Hashemi (2011) show that women
use affective strategies more frequently than men. However, there are studies in
which no signicant differences are found in the use of learning strategies as
deployed by females and males (e.g., Grifths, 2013). These inconsistent results call
for further research. Therefore, gender, as a moderator variable, is investigated in
order to provide a broader picture of PLS use.
It is of vital importance to bear in mind that many variables, such as language

anxiety, may interplay with PLS use. Since weak negative correlations are reported
to exist not only between LLS categories, such as memory, cognitive, compensa-
tion, metacognitive, affective and social, and LA levels (cf. Sect. 4.5), but also
between overall LLS use and LA (e.g., Liu, 2013; Mohammadi, Biria, Koosha, &
Shahsavari, 2013; Noormohamadi, 2009), it is justiable to investigate the degree
of the interplay between PLS and LA. This area is targeted in the third research
questionRQ3: What is the relationship between the levels of language anxiety
and the deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics? In order to
nd the answer to this broad question, a more general hypothesis is proposed. It is
substantiated by the results of the research outlined in Sect. 4.5, proving that less
frequent deployment of language learning strategies is observed among L2 learner
high in language anxiety than in the case of their more relaxed counterparts.
Therefore, pronunciation learning may be approached differently by highly anxious
and non-anxious students, and the corroboration of the following hypothesis is to
reveal these nuances:
H The deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics differs in the
groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of language anxiety.
Language anxiety may play a role in the use of various categories of pronun-
ciation learning strategies and tactics. The hypothesis proposed above is general, so
detailed hypotheses focusing on particular direct (memory, cognitive, compensa-
tion) and indirect (metacognitive, affective, social) PLS and tactics are required to
reveal an in-depth representation of this interplay. For instance, memory strategies
and tactics entail L2 manipulation through retention, storage and retrieval
(Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). A high language anxiety level may hinder, for
instance, memorisation of pronunciation features that in turn might affect the
activation of memory strategies. More specically, a highly anxious L2 pronun-
ciation learner who aims to be successful in pronunciation may have sound and
word pronunciation retention problems. In order to compensate for these de-
ciencies, he or she may deploy more memory PLS and tactics than a non-anxious
learner. Thus, the repertoires of memory pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics may differ between the groups of anxious and non-anxious learners. As a
result, a more specic hypothesis is urged:
Ha The deployment of memory pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of
language anxiety.
Cognitive strategies are higher order strategies than memory strategies (Grifths,
2013). They require a more extensive cognitive effort. In pronunciation learning
they refer to how learners acquire knowledge of L2 pronunciation. Language
anxiety may play a role in the application of cognitive PLS because of its interplay
with cognition at all stages of linguistic processing: input, processing, and output
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b). More specically, a high level of anxiety may affect
cognitive processes at the input stage. For example, an L2 learners attention to
pronunciation subtleties may be blocked by a selective attention component of LA;

in consequence, the learner may have problems with the application of pronunci-
ation strategies for encoding L2 sounds. Next, at the processing stage, formulation
of pronunciation hypotheses may be distorted by prior misinterpretation of L2
sounds. Finally, at the output stage of cognitive processing, an anxious L2 learners
pronunciation may be altered by higher tension in the tongue and pharyngeal
muscles. In consequence, a cognitive pronunciation learning tactic such as prac-
tising pronunciation rst slowly, then faster and faster may be problematic. In line
with the rationale presented above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hb The deployment of cognitive pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
language anxiety.
Compensation pronunciation learning strategies and tactics reflect the ability to
cope with pronunciation uncertainties and deciencies. While applying these
strategies, a pronunciation learner chooses from either taking a risk of mispro-
nunciation or withdrawing from this risk. These approach versus avoidance options
may be compared to the behaviour of learners more and less relaxed. The latter may
be afraid of mispronunciations because these may lead to a negative evaluation;
whereas the non-anxious student, disregarding what others think about his or her
enunciation, may choose to take more risks by applying a different set of tactics in a
similar situation. Hypothesis Hc is introduced to corroborate the above
assumptions:
Hc The deployment of compensation pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
language anxiety.
When an individual plans and organises his or her pronunciation learning, or
monitors and evaluates pronunciation, he or she deploys metacognitive pronunci-
ation learning strategies. These may also interplay with language anxiety. An
anxious learner might avoid these strategies because they focus, among others, on
self-perception of pronunciation abilities. For instance, while self-monitoring an
anxious individual compares his or her pronunciation with that of a model or a peer.
As a result, he or she may perceive his or her pronunciation to be insufcient. This
biased perception may stimulate language anxiety. In consequence, an anxious
pronunciation acquirer may be unable to monitor his or her speech. Thus, the
proposal of the following hypothesis is justied:
Hd The deployment of metacognitive pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels
of language anxiety.
Language anxiety may also interact with affective pronunciation learning
strategies and tactics. When these strategies are activated, an L2 learner should be
able to regulate his or her emotions, including language anxiety. Therefore, low
frequency of their use may indicate a lack of these regulative abilities, and also a
higher level of LA. For instance, an L2 pronunciation learner experiencing high LA

divides his or her cognitive potential between performing the task and worrying. In
consequence, there is little space for the application of consciously chosen affective
pronunciation learning strategies and tactics, or for those connected with reducing
anxiety, such as strategies for self-encouragement through positive statements about
pronunciation improvements. Therefore, the following hypothesis is favoured:
He The deployment of affective pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
language anxiety.
Social strategies deal with an L2 learners readiness to interact in order to learn.
What is more, in the case of L2 accent, Levelle and Levis (2014 in Moyer, 2014)
emphasise that social involvement may be an important strategy for those who
want to improve their pronunciation (p. 452). However, this social interaction may
be affected by LA the components of which refer to communication apprehension,
test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation of peers, teachers, and native speakers.
Communication apprehension is associated with the fear an L2 learner experiences
while interacting with others. This phenomenon may be accompanied by a per-
ceived low L2 pronunciation competence, affecting the choice of strategies. An L2
pronunciation learner who is afraid of a negative evaluation of their L2 pronunci-
ation on the part of the interlocutors and is exposed to oral L2 pronunciation testing
may refrain from using social strategies for pronunciation learning. Hence, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
Hf The deployment of social pronunciation learning strategies and tactics differs
in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of language
anxiety.
Apart from the quantitative investigations providing results which either cor-
roborate or reject the above hypotheses, a qualitative approach has been taken in
order to present an in-depth insight into pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
used by anxious and non-anxious trainee teachers. This complementary perspective,
often recommended for studies concerning strategies (cf. Cohen & Macaro, 2007;
Oxford, 2011) and language anxiety (cf. Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008), allows the
elaboration and validation of data from the quantitative approach in order to provide
a deeper insight. Therefore, the repertoires of pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics of the trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of language anxiety are
scrutinized for the purpose of providing a broader picture of interrelations between
them and LA, and for supplementing the response to RQ3 with qualitative data.
The choice of the sample is not arbitrary. Trainee teachers, being advanced
learners of L2, experience various levels of language anxiety, which may occur
while participating in an L2 pronunciation learning course. At the same time, they
are aware of the value of L2 pronunciation and pronunciation learning strategies in
order to pursue the career of L2 teachers, serving as pronunciation models for their
pupils. Moreover, they may feel the need to be equipped with an array of pro-
nunciation learning strategies that become useful tools in their teaching and in
accelerating their prospective students L2 pronunciation learning processes. This

awareness may place additional demands on them, affecting their language anxiety
level. For instance, they may feel pressure that their pronunciation will be evaluated
not only by their course tutors and peers but later by their pupils and students. They
may therefore experience high language anxiety, perceiving teacher training pro-
nunciation course as the last opportunity to improve their L2 pronunciation before
their professional careers. As a result of this need for pronunciation practice, trainee
teachers are likely to consciously develop an array of pronunciation learning
strategies, for example during their pronunciation course. Thus, it is interesting to
explore how language anxiety relates to pronunciation learning strategy deployment
in this specic group.
5.2 Method
In this section a detailed description of the participants, including their biodata and
years of L2 learning experience will be provided. The instruments used for data
collection will then be presented, including the pilot phase at which the tools were
validated. What follows is a record of the procedures concerning variables and
research stages. Finally, an explanation of the applied analyses of the quantitative
ndings will precede the description of the qualitative analysis of the results.
5.2.1 Participants
The research participants were 94 learners of English as a foreign language,

studying in their rst, second and third years at the Teacher Training College in
Opole, Poland in 2012. Enrolment in the courses offered by this institution entailed
a 3-year pre-service teacher training curriculum leading towards the achievement of
qualications for teaching English at lower levels of education (primary and junior
high school) in Poland. All trainee teachers were Polish and used Polish as their L1.
Their age ranged from 19 to 37, with an average being 21.5 years. Interestingly, in
the group comprising the oldest trainee teachers, only one participant was 37 years
old, one was 27, and two were 26. The remaining students were either 19 or in their
early 20s.
The whole group was treated as a more or less unied sample from the point of
view of their awareness of aspects of English pronunciation and their L2 pro-
ciency level. All students had either completed or were participating in a course of
pronunciation training, consisting of classes conducted once a week throughout two
semesters in their rst year of studies. The 60 h phonetics course focused mainly on
standard British pronunciation (RP) with some contrastive elements of General
American, and it offered some background information and practice on such aspects
of pronunciation as the RP sound system, transcription symbols, word and sentence
stress, rhythm, weak forms, aspects of fast speech (assimilation, linkage and elision)
and basic functions of intonation. A more detailed description of the course will be
included in the analysis of the qualitative part of the study.
The participants reported their English prociency attainment by presenting the
results of their high school leaving exam in Poland, which is an equivalent of
A-level exams. 30 participants declared their results for the standard level English
exam, with an average score of 87.6 out of 100; 60 students revealed their advanced
level English exam results, which ranged from 35 to 98% (M = 68.25). One par-
ticipant provided a 73% result for his bilingual level exam, whereas three indi-
viduals did not provide their results. The scope of linguistic requirements issued in
a brochure of the Central Examination Board (Informator o Egzaminie Maturalnym
od 2008 Roku, 2007) in Poland establishes the standard level as comparable with
the B1 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR), whereas the advanced level falls within the B2 level of the CEFR (Council
of Europe, 2001). Having analysed the data provided, the L2 prociency level of
the participants was established as between B1 and B2 CEFR, describing the stu-
dents as independent users of English (ibid., p. 23).
A predominant number of 75 female and 19 male participants reflected the
proportions of gender differences in the educational sector in Poland. The partici-
pants declared an average of approximately 11 years of learning English, ranging
from 5 to 17 years.
In order to scrutinize the use of pronunciation learning strategies in the groups of
high language anxiety (HLA) and low language anxiety (LLA), those two groups
were rst established on the basis of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety
Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986). For this purpose, the mean LA value
(M = 79) and standard deviation (SD = 21) for 94 participants were calculated. The
participants whose LA was equal to or greater than half the SD from the mean was
labelled the HLA group (LA 88). As many as 34 individuals belonged to this
group. Those whose LA was equal to or lower than half the SD from the mean
became the LLA group (LA 70), consisting of 32 members. The participants
whose LA reached the value within half the standard deviation (1/2 SD 10) plus
or minus from the mean (less than 10 from the mean) were excluded because they
constituted a group clustering around the average LA levels (ALA) in the sample
(Fig. 5.1). Their LA values ranged from 71 to 87, and there were 28 participants
within this group.
In order to conrm the difference in LA levels in both LLA and HLA groups, a
t-test for independent samples was applied (Table 5.1). The outcome of these
calculations indicated that LA levels differed signicantly in these two groups. The
mean value of LA in the LLA group reached 57, whereas in the HLA group it
almost doubled (M = 101). The t-test result for these two groups turned out to be
statistically signicant at p < 0.001, reaching the value of 16.27.
In the qualitative phase of the study, 22 out of 94 individuals agreed to partic-
ipate. There were 19 females and 3 males, who were assigned to three groups
according to their language anxiety levels calculated on the basis of the quantitative
5.2 Method 131
22
20
18
16
14
M=79
12
10
_ SD + SD
8
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Fig. 5.1 Histogram of language anxiety levels (LAhorizontal axis) of 94 participants (N = 94

vertical axis), the mean value of LA (M = 79), and indicated scope of the average LA group
(vertical dotted lines)
Table 5.1 Number of participants (N), means (M), standard deviations (SD) of LLA and HLA
groups, and a t-test value for LA levels between these groups
N M SD t-value
LLA 32 57 8.7 16.27***
HLA 34 101 13.09
***p < 0.001
outcomes of the study described above. As a result of these estimations each

individual was assigned to either a low, mid or high LA group (Table 5.2).
More specically, eight participants (5 females and 3 males) represented a group
low in language anxiety (LLA), six of whom agreed to be interviewed and recorded
while delivering their presentations. Six individuals of the LLA group wrote their
diaries on PLS. In this group, four teacher trainees were both recorded and sub-
mitted their phonetic diaries. Six females constituted a group high in language
anxiety (HLA). Quite unsurprisingly, only three highly anxious students agreed to
participate in the recording session, but all six members of this group handed in
their diaries. The remaining eight individuals scored mid-levels of language anxiety
(MLA), which excluded them from further investigations. In this group, seven out
of eight learners took part in the recordings and seven shared their reflections on
PLS in their diaries.
The LLA group consisted of the following members (in alphabetical order):
Alicja, aged 21, declared nine years of EFL learning and 68% score on her high
school leaving advanced level English exam; Baej, 21 years old, reported
11 years of EFL learning and did not mention his exam achievement scores;
132
Table 5.2 The participants of the qualitative part of the study assigned to low (LLA), mid (MLA) and high LA (HLA) groups
Participant LLA 70 Participant 70 < MLA < 88 Participant HLA 88
Recording session Diary Recording session Diary Recording session Dairy
Alicja + + Magda K. + + Angelika + +
Baej + + Basia + + Martyna +
Dagmara + Anna + Karolina C. +
Ela + + Magda + + Ola Z. + +
Jessika + Justyna + + Sabina S. +
Karolina + Ola J. + + Sonia + +
Maciej + + Milena + +
Mikoaj + Sabina O. +
5 Research on the Interplay Between Language Anxiety
5.2 Method 133
Dagmara, 23, noted 16 years of EFL learning and scored 90% on the high school
leaving standard level English exam; Ela, aged 20, marked a 12 year experience in
learning EFL and 80% score on her high school leaving standard level English
exam; Jessika, 20 years old, reported 13 years of EFL learning and 73% result on
the bilingual level of her high school leaving exam; Karolina, aged 21, reported
11 year experience in learning EFL and a 96% score on her high school leaving
standard level English exam; Maciej, aged 20, with 10 years of EFL learning
experience and the same high school leaving exam score in English as Karolina;
Mikoaj, 20 years old, reported a 17 year contact with English through learning, but
he did not provide the high school leaving English exam results.
The HLA group comprised the following individuals: Angelika, 20 years old,
declared an eight year-long EFL learning experience, and her high school leaving
English exam result reached 96% at the standard level; Karolina C. and Martyna
were the same age as Angelika, they declared 14 and 10 years of contact with EFL
respectively, and they scored 95 and 82% on their high school leaving standard
level English exams; Ola, aged 22, recorded a 12 year experience in EFL learning,
but failed to report her exam achievement results; Sabina, 23 years old, and Sonia,
who was three years younger, reported nine years of EFL learning, and their high
school leaving exam scores in English at the standard level were 82 and 95%
respectively.
5.2.2 Instruments
Seven instruments were applied during the study in order to compile the quanti-
tative and qualitative information. Primarily, the quantitative data were collected
with Questionnaire 1 consisting of a bio-data section and the following three tools:
the Pronunciation Learning Strategies Inventory (PLSI) adapted from Berkil (2008),
the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) developed by Horwitz
et al. (1986) and the Input-Processing-Output Anxiety Scales proposed by
MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b). The quantitative results were also obtained on the
basis of the Post-Interview Short Survey on Anxiety and Pronunciation (PISSAP).
Additionally, three other instruments were used in order to collect qualitative data:
an oral presentation, a semi-structured interview and a diary. In the following
sections, the description of quantitative instruments precedes the account of the
qualitative tools.
5.2.2.1 Quantitative Instruments
Questionnaire 1 consisted of a bio-data section and three scales: one on pronun-

ciation learning strategies and two pertaining to language anxiety levels. The
instrument administered to measure the frequency of pronunciation learning strat-
egy use was the Pronunciation Learning Strategies Inventory (PLSI) adapted from
Berkil (2008), whereas the instruments calculating LA levels were the Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) developed by Horwitz et al.
(1986) and the Input-Processing-Output Anxiety Scales proposed by MacIntyre and
Gardner (1994b). Two out of three instruments included in Questionnaire 1, i.e., the
FLCAS and the Input-, Processing-, Output Anxiety Scales, were widely applied in
research and acknowledged as reliable, as reviewed in Sect. 4.3. Nevertheless, the
PLSI required a more indepth scrutiny in order to conrm the reliability and validity
of this tool. Therefore, this instruments validation was planned, conducted and
described in greater detail.
At the beginning of Questionnaire 1, a note in Polish was directed towards the
participants stating the aim of the study, the researchers request for honest
responses and a statement ensuring condentiality. The necessity for conducting
non-anonymous research was expressed immediately afterwards, ensuring the
students awareness of the subsequent part of the study and giving them an
opportunity to consider voluntary participation. This was followed by space for the
participants signature giving their consent for participation and allowing their
personal data to be processed for the purposes of the study, in accordance with the
Personal Data Protection Act from 29 August 1997 (uniform text: Journal of Laws
of the Republic of Poland, 2002, No. 101, item 926 with further amendments). The
biographical information to be provided referred to the participants rst and second
names, e-mail address, age, years of learning English, and declared high school
leaving examination results at English standard, advanced and bilingual levels; in
other words, the Polish high school leaving examination results for English lan-
guage prociency.
Through email correspondence, the author of this study received written consent
from Berkil1 to apply the Pronunciation Learning Strategies Inventory (PLSI), the
tool which was administered to collect quantitative data on how frequently the
participants deployed PLS in their English pronunciation learning. The inventory
contained 52 items divided into six subsections, which reflected Oxfords (1990)
memory (items 1-6), cognitive (items 728), compensation (items 2935),
metacognitive (items 3643), affective (items 4448) and social (items 4952)
strategies respectively. Pronunciation learning tactics were operationalised in the
form of statements worded next to each item number. Therefore, for the purposes of
this research it is assumed that the PLSI consists of 52 pronunciation learning
tactics, 35 belonging to direct (memory, cognitive and compensation) pronunciation
learning strategies and 17 to indirect (metacognitive, affective and social) ones. For
example, item 1 was worded I use phonetic symbols or my own code to remember
how to pronounce words in English, item 7I imitate native speakers or my
teachers pronunciation, item 29I avoid saying words which I have difculties in
pronouncing, item 36I try to learn something about English phonetics, item 44
I have a sense of humour about my mispronunciations, and item 49I ask someone
else to correct my pronunciation. The responses were marked on a 5-point Likert
1
Personal communication, September 20th, 2011.
5.2 Method 135
scale indicating the frequency of PLS use ranging from almost never or never to
almost always or always. The minimum number of points to be obtained was 52,
and the maximum number was 260. The original items were intended for
Turkish EFL participants, and therefore the PLSI was translated into Polish with
some items adapted in a few areas. For instance, the word English was added to
several items to clarify the language reference, in items 4, 16, 27 and 45 the original
Turkish was changed into Polish. Polish examples like sejf or pot were used instead
of Turkish, for instance, in item 4I associate English pronunciation with Polish
pronunciation (e.g., safe with the Polish word sejf). Two open items were added
in order to provide an opportunity for the respondents to add the PLS they deployed
before and while giving oral presentations.
The Pronunciation Learning Strategy Inventory (PLSI), the instrument adapted
from Berkil (2008), was piloted in June 2011 with the aim of verifying its validity
and reliability. For the purpose of validation, two instruments were applied in the
pilot: the PLSI and The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) version
7.0 designed by Oxford (1990). The reliability of the PLSI was measured using
Cronbachs alpha and split-half internal consistency reliability.
The participants in this phase were 62 EFL teacher training college students in
their second and third year in 2011. It was not intended that these trainee teachers
would take part in the study proper because the main aim of the pilot study was to
verify the instrument. There were 50 female and 12 male participants in this phase,
with a mean age of 21.8 years. The procedure for administering the PLSI and the
SILL in the pilot is described in Sect. 5.2.3.
The SILL instrument was translated into Polish, and it consisted of 50 items
divided into six parts: A, B, C, D, E and F. Part A (items 19) reflected the
statements referring to memory strategies, for example, item 1I think of rela-
tionships between what I already know and new things I learn in English. Part B
(items 1023) focused on cognitive strategies, such as item 10I say or write new
English words several times. Part C (items 2429) comprised compensation
strategies, for instance, item 24to understand unfamiliar English words, I make
guesses. Part D (items 3038) described metacognitive strategies, as in item 30I
try to nd as many ways as I can to use my English. Part E (items 3944) and Part F
(items 4550) referred to affective and social strategies respectively, for example,
item 39I try to relax when I am afraid of using English, and item 45If I dont
understand, I ask a person to speak slowly or to repeat. The participants responded
to statements by marking the frequency of a strategys deployment on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1never or almost never to 5always or almost always.
The minimum-maximum score to be obtained was between 50 and 250.
The validity of the PLSI was investigated in order to state the degree to which
the PLSI measured what it was expected to measure. One of the methods of
verifying the construct validity of an instrument is establishing its correlation with
the results of another instrument measuring a similar concept (Oxford, 2011). It was
predicted that L2 learners who used pronunciation learning strategies more fre-
quently would probably use language learning strategies more often. Therefore, the
data from the PLSI and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) were
correlated. For this purpose, the value of a correlation coefcient was estimated
between the total scores from the PLSI and the SILL. Additionally, the strengths of
relationships between particular strategy groups were obtained from the PLSI and
the SILL. The correlation coefcient between the scores on the SILL and the PLSI
equalled r = 0.77, p < 0.05. Strong positive coefcients were also found between
the SILL and the PLSI for memory strategies (r = 0.42, p < 0.05), for cognitive
strategies (r = 0.63, p < 0.05), for metacognitive strategies (r = 0.63, p < 0.05),
and social strategies (r = 0.58, p < 0.05). Affective strategies were moderately but
signicantly correlated (r = 0.30, p < 0.05). However, a non-signicant relation-
ship was found between compensation the PLS and the LLS (r = 0.21). The reason
might be that the SILL items for compensation strategies concentrate mostly on
dealing with overcoming semantic problems with vocabulary, whereas the PLSI
focuses on pronunciation disregarding meaning. Generally, a high positive corre-
lation was found between the SILL and the PLSI conrming the construct validity
of the PLSI.
Moreover, in order to verify the PLSIs reliability, two statistical measures were
calculated using STATISTICA: Cronbachs alpha and split-half internal consis-
tency reliability. Following other researchers who had reported Cronbachs alphas
of the SILL and several other learning strategy scales (cf. White, Schramm, &
Chamot, 2007), the PLSI internal consistency reliability was calculated with
Cronbachs alpha reaching 0.90, which may be qualied as very high. Additionally,
the split-half method for calculating reliability of the scale was used to establish the
internal consistency of the items. More specically, the results obtained from even
and uneven items were assigned to two groups in order to calculate the split-half
reliability (Anastasi & Urbina, 1999), which equalled 0.91, indicating the instru-
ments strong internal consistency reliability.
The next quantitative tool contained in Questionnaire 1 was the Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz et al., 1986), an instrument widely
used in different studies with learners of various native and target languages. It was
selected to assess the level of language anxiety that the participants experienced
during their classes and lectures conducted in English at the teacher training college
in Poland. The scale was translated into Polish with minor alterations referring to
the substitution of the words foreign language or language with the words English
language, and adding the word lecturer next to the word teacher to adapt the
statements to the students context for L2 learning. The participants were asked to
respond to the 33 items, referring to their feelings of anxiety. For example, some
sample items were as follows: item 7I keep thinking that the other students are
better at English language than I am, item 9I start to panic when I have to speak
without preparation in language class, item 33I get nervous when the language
teacher/lecturer asks questions which I havent prepared in advance. Their
responses were marked on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated strong dis-
agreement, and 5strong agreement with a statement. When calculating the data
from the FLCAS, it was taken into consideration that nine items (1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18,
22, 28, and 32) were key reversed, which meant that the outcomes marked on the
scale as high had to be interpreted as low, and vice versa. The scores ranged from
5.2 Method 137
the minimal value 33 to the maximum of 165. The coefcient Cronbachs alpha was
calculated indicating the high internal reliability of the tool ( = 0.93).
Three scales devised by MacIntyre and Gardner (1994b) were used to assess LA
levels at different language processing stages: the Input Anxiety Scale, the
Processing Anxiety Scale, and the Output Anxiety Scale, each comprising 6 items
formulated as statements. For instance, the second item of the rst scale was It does
not bother me if my English notes are disorganized before I study them, translated
into Polish as Nie przejmuj si, jeli moje notatki z angielskiego s niepoukadane
zanim zaczn si z nich uczy. The Processing Anxiety Scale included items such as
I am anxious with English because, no matter how hard I try, I have trouble
understanding it, or I feel anxious if English class seems disorganized. The Output
Anxiety Scale specied the level of LA, which L2 learners experienced when they
used their already internalized L2. In this scale the sample items were I never feel
tense when I have to speak in English, and I feel condent that I can use the English
vocabulary that I know in a conversation. The participants used a 5-point Likert
scale to indicate how far they agreed with each statement, 1 implied I strongly
disagree and 5I strongly agree. There were several key reversed items in each
scale: in the Input Anxiety Scale these were items 1, 2, and 3; in the Processing
Anxiety Scaleitems 1, 5, and 6; in the Output Anxiety Scaleitems 1, 2, and 5.
The minimum number of points to be obtained on each of the three scalesthe
Input Anxiety Scale, the Processing Anxiety Scale and the Output Anxiety Scale
was 6 and the maximum was 30. Cronbachs alpha coefcients reached 0.68, 0.64,
and 0.79 respectively for each scale.
Additionally, the Post-Interview Short Survey on Anxiety and Pronunciation
(Questionnaire 2) containing closed-response items was distributed to address the
respondents levels of anxiety, their perceived relationship between anxiety and
pronunciation, and self-evaluation of pronunciation following each interview. In
other words, this instrument was applied to investigate the perception of an indi-
viduals here-and-now level of anxiety (item 1 and 2) and how this feeling affects
his or her pronunciation (item 3, 4 and 5). Moreover, it provided an opportunity for
self-evaluation of a participants pronunciation while delivering the presentation
(item 6). The items were as follows: 1. Were you anxious during the presentation?
2. To what extent? 3. Would you be equally anxious if the presentation was
delivered in front of the group? 4. If not, how anxious would you be? 5. Do you
notice changes in your pronunciation affected by anxiety? 6. How do you self-
evaluate your pronunciation during the presentation? The responses to items 1 and
3 were yes and no answers. A 5-point scale was used to mark the answers to items 2
and 4, ranging from 1not anxious at all to 5paralysing anxious. Three options
were given in response to item 5: a. for the worse, b. for the better, and c. I do not
notice. The trainee teachers evaluated their L2 pronunciation on a 5-point scale,
ranging from 1very poor and unintelligible pronunciation to 5pronunciation
close to English native speakers pronunciation.
5.2.2.2 Qualitative Instruments
The following instruments were applied in order to generate qualitative data: a

recorded presentation, a semi-structured interview and a diary. White et al.
(2007) establish the above qualitative tools as applicable to investigations into
language learning strategies. They emphasise the role of the emerging qualitative
data-collection procedures (p. 94) in strategy research because, among others,
these procedures allow the exploitation of context, which is signicant in studies on
learning strategies. The contextualised qualitative approach might be compared to a
lens though which a researcher is able to perceive how L2 learners apply language
learning strategies interrelated with, for instance, pronunciation learning tasks, their
environment, and the individuals cognitive and emotional perspectives. Moreover,
not one but [a] combination of qualitative methodologies is needed to allow a more
suited understanding and interpretation of learner strategy use in particular con-
texts (White et al., 2007, p. 108). For these reasons, three qualitative instruments (a
presentation, a semi-structured interview, a diary) were administered to collect the
repertoires of pronunciation learning strategies of trainee teachers declaring high
and low levels of language anxiety.
The rst qualitative tool used in the study was a recorded presentation, a form of
verbal report given by the participants on the individualised strategies they
deployed while learning English pronunciation. These presentations had been
previously prepared by the trainee teachers. At an earlier phase of the study, the
participants had been instructed with regard to the content of the presentation and
guided on approaching it through the pronunciation project described in detail in
Sect. 5.2.3. The presentations were delivered in English. This type of verbal report
accounted for a deeper level of insight into the types of PLS the trainee teachers
used while learning English pronunciation, their preferences in the choice of PLS
and the combinations of PLS employed in the form of sequenced strategies or
strategy chains. Additionally, the aim of giving this presentation was to trigger the
individuals actual use of PLS for the task. In other words, a participant reporting
the PLS had an opportunity to use some selected strategies while performing this
task. This instrument therefore promoted metacognitive awareness raising of the
PLS deployed by the trainee teachers. The presentations were recorded using a free
computer software Audacity, transcribed and analysed with the help of MAXQDA
software.
The second qualitative instrument was a semi-structured interview. Grifths
(2013) opts for this tool in studies on LLS because of its flexibility and because of
the rich information which such interviews can produce (p. 95). Moreover, a
semi-structured interview may generate supplementary and more contextualized
data (Newton, 2010); it may also disclose learners paths in learning English pro-
nunciation (Peterson, 2000; Samalieva, 2000). The participants were addressed
open-ended questions eliciting more in-depth responses on their preferred pro-
nunciation learning strategies. The sample questions were as follows: item 1
Which particular PLS did you use while preparing for this presentation? item 5
What are your preferred PLS? item 7Which strategies, in your view, are the most
5.2 Method 139
effective in learning pronunciation? Although a set of nine questions was

pre-prepared by the interviewer, there was on occasion no need to use them all
because the interviewees elaborated on the issue in a satisfactory manner without
further support. The interviews were conducted in Polish following the premise that
reporting in an L2 requires more cognitive capacity than reporting in an L1 and
that it thus limits the cognitive capacity available for the task (White et al., 2007,
p. 102).
The nal qualitative instrument used in the present study was a diary. Diary
writing is considered an important introspective tool in researching language
learning strategies (Halbach, 2000; Oxford, 2011; White et al., 2007). It is also one
of the effective, qualitative instruments serving the purpose of developing reflective
thinking that triggers formulation of thoughts on learning strategies used in the
acquisition of, among other areas, the L2 sound system (Pawlak, 2011; Peterson,
2000). This instrument leaves a writer considerable freedom in documenting their
individual perception of L2 learning processes in a fairly unstructured manner
(Wallace, 1998). It is particularly useful for prospective teachers in developing their
professional knowledge and reflectivity (Gabry-Barker, 2012), and in monitoring
and analysing their learning experiences (Farrell, 2007). Bailey (1990) denes a
diary as a rst-person account of a language learning or teaching experience,
documented through regular, candid entries (p. 215). The format of a diary varies
from that of a journal in the degree of formality: the latter being intended for public
reading, and thus more formal (Gabry-Barker, 2012). The diaries in this study were
unrestricted private accounts of the participants experiences and strategies entailing
the processes of L2 pronunciation learning written over a period of two months
(from March to May 2012). The choice of the language for diary entries was left to
the participants because, as Pavlenko (2007) underlines, in studies focusing on
narratives the insistence on one language only () deprives bi- and multilingual
speakers of an important linguistic resource (p. 172).
L2 students are signicant witnesses of their own language learning procedures
(Pavlenko & Dewaele, 2004). Reflecting on these processes is particularly impor-
tant for prospective teachers, as it raises their awareness, influences their opinions
Table 5.3 The instruments used in the study and the constructs they measure
Quantitative instruments Qualitative instruments
Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire
2
PLSI FLCAS Input- PISSAP Presentation Semi- Diary
processing- structured
output interview
anxiety
LA X X X
PLS X X X X
Pronunciation X
self-evaluation
on L2 acquisition, and indirectly affects their ways of teaching in the future

(Hanson, 2008). Therefore, the reasons above provide an additional dimension to
the main objective of the study, which is to investigate the interplay between
language anxiety and pronunciation learning strategies, reported with the help of
quantitative and qualitative tools (Table 5.3).
5.2.3 Procedure
For the purpose of responding to research questions, corroborating the hypotheses

and delineating a broader picture of the under-researched area of the interplay
between pronunciation learning strategies and language anxiety, both quantitative
and qualitative approaches have been used in this study. The quantitative part
follows both correlational and differential methods. According to Graziano and
Raulin (1993), the former designates the relationship between two or more variables
without stating causality; in this case it refers to the interplay between PLS and LA.
The latter allows observation of two or more groups dened on the basis of a
variable, which in this study is the LA level. Therefore, two groups differentiated on
the basis of different LA levels are scrutinised from the perspective of their
deployment of PLS. The qualitative approach in this study supplements the
quantitative data analysis, taking individual cases into account. The above approach
to the research complies with Oxfords (2011) sequential mixed design for
researching L2 learning strategies, in which a study consists of two phasesthe
quantitative, during which the quantitative data is collected and analysed, preceding
the qualitative one.
The structure of the research followed several phases (Table 5.4). Initially, in
Phase 1 a pilot study was conducted in order to verify the instrument for PLS data
collection. Both the PLSI and the SILL were translated into Polish and distributed
to validate the reliability of the PLSI. Both instruments were administered among
sixty two teacher training students during their classes in June 2011. It took
approximately 1 h for the participants to complete both scales. The respondents
were consulted with reference to the translation of the item and its meaning, but
there was no need for clarication. Then statistical measures, such as correlations
between the PLSI and the SILL, as well as Cronbachs alpha of the PLSI were
calculated.
The study proper took place in 2012 during the spring semester. First, consent
from the Principal of the Teacher Training College in Opole was obtained in order
to conduct the study in the institution. In March and April Questionnaire 1 con-
sisting of the PLSI, the FLCAS, and the Input Anxiety Scale, Processing Anxiety
Scale, and Output Anxiety Scale was then distributed among the teacher training
college students upon receiving their signed consent to participation in the study.
All ninety-four participants agreed to respond to Questionnaire 1. Orally and on
paper, they were informed of the aim of the study, asked to provide honest answers,
and it was afrmed that the outcomes would not affect their course evaluation and
5.2 Method 141
Table 5.4 Structure of the research

Research Time No. of Instruments Aim(s)
phase participants
The pilot study
Phase 1 June 2011 62 1. Oxfords (1990) to verify the
2nd, 3rd strategies inventory reliability and
year for language learning validity of the PLSI
trainee (the SILL), Version
teachers 7.0
2. Berkils (2008)
pronunciation
learning strategies
inventory (the PLSI)
The study proper
Quantitative approach
Phase 2 March-April 94 1. Questionnaire 1: To collect the data for
2012 1st, 2nd a. Bio-data the quantitative
and 3rd b. Berkils (2008) analysis:
year pronunciation to estimate the levels
trainee learning strategies of language anxiety
teachers inventory (the PLSI) to calculate the
c. Horwitz et al.s frequency of PLS
(1986) foreign use
language classroom
anxiety scale (the
FLCAS)
d. MacIntyre and
Gardners (1994b)
input anxiety scale,
processing anxiety
scale, and output
anxiety scale
Qualitative approach
Phase 3 MarchMay 32 To prepare the
Pronunciation 2012 1st year participants for
learning trainee qualitative data
strategies teachers collection:
project to revise an array of
pronunciation
learning strategies
to prepare the
participants for the
presentation on
pronunciation
learning strategies
to prepare the
participants for diary
writing on
pronunciation
learning strategies
to initiate the process
of diary writing
(continued)

Research Time No. of Instruments Aim(s)
phase participants
Phase 4 May 2012 16 1. Recorded To collect the data for
1st year presentation the quantitative
trainee 2. Recorded analysis:
teachers semi-structured to elicit individual
interview PLS and
3. Questionnaire 2 contextualised
the post-interview approaches to
short survey on pronunciation
anxiety and learning
pronunciation to investigate the
(PISSAP) participants
perception of their
level of anxiety
to investigate the
participants
perception of the
interplay between
anxiety and
pronunciation
to allow the
participants to
self-evaluate their
pronunciation while
delivering the
presentation
Phase 5 MarchMay 19 1. Diary To collect the data for
2012 1st year the quantitative
trainee analysis:
teachers to generate
individualised
approaches to
pronunciation
learning and PLS use
would be used only for the purposes of the study. Due to a dual
quantitative-qualitative design entailing the same group of participants, this part
was not anonymous. Therefore, the participants were requested to provide email
addresses for further contacts connected with the second, qualitative part of the
study. Nevertheless, four out of ninety-four students did not provide their email
addresses. The completion of the questionnaire took place in groups of approxi-
mately fteen students, ninety-four in total, during their classes at the teacher
training institution. The whole procedure of introducing and completing the
questionnaire lasted for a maximum of 1 h and 30 min, but most participants
completed it sooner.
5.2 Method 143
The qualitative part of the study was preceded by Phase 3, connected with a
Pronunciation Learning Strategy project (PLS project), the aim of which was to
raise the trainee teachers awareness of how they approach pronunciation learning.
The nal outcome of the PLS project was for the trainee teachers to give a pre-
sentation (Phase 4) on how they approach pronunciation learning and which PLS
they deploy. More specically, the rst year students who attended the pronunci-
ation course in the spring semester were requested to give a presentation on how
they learn English pronunciation. They were informed that while delivering the
presentation, their pronunciation would be evaluated as a part of their pronunciation
course requirements. To achieve this aim, they were asked to take several actions,
including keeping a diary, here also referred to as a phonetic diary, in which their
strategies for learning English pronunciation and reflections concerning their pro-
nunciation and that of their peers should be noted down. The information included
in the diary was expected to be supportive in structuring the content of the pre-
sentation. The students were provided with guidelines with a reference list of PLS
taken from the PLSI. These guidelines and suggested steps for effective and
appropriate preparation of the presentation were introduced to the participants, and
they were monitored from March 2012 till May 2012, a period of 6 weeks. During
that time the students wrote diaries on PLS either in Polish or English outside the
classroom and had the opportunity to discuss their observations and problems
through their diary entries at their weekly pronunciation classes. Information was
also provided stating that the contents of the diaries would not affect the evaluation
of the participants pronunciation.
In order to collect the largest possible data on PLS deployed by the trainee
teachers who exhibited high and low levels of language anxiety calculated in Phase
2, a presentation on PLS, a semi-structured interview and Questionnaire 2the
Post-Interview Short Survey on Anxiety and Pronunciation (PISSAP) were applied
in Phase 4. Although the PLS project was obligatory to all rst year students,
participation in Phase 4 was left to the individuals decisions. Therefore, of all the
students taking part in Phase 3, only 16 trainee teachers expressed consent to
participate in the recorded sessions of their presentations followed by a
semi-structured interview. Each recorded sample consisted of two parts. The rst
was a presentation, an outcome of the project delivered in English, during which a
participant described their PLS. The second part was a semi-structured interview
conducted in Polish which focused on the eliciting PLS used before and while
giving presentations. In this part, the participants had also the opportunity to clarify
any doubts resulting from the rst part. The recording sessions took place in May
2012 during the phonetics classes. Each participant entered the room individually,
was seated in front of the computer and the author of the study, and delivered a
presentation, which was recorded using the free computer software Audacity.
Subsequently, the researcher initiated the semi-structured interview by directing a
question in the participants native language. Having nished the interview, the
participant was requested to respond in paper to the PISSAP in order to share
additional information on anxiety and pronunciation. The recordings lasted
approximately 10 min each and were saved in MP3 les. They were later tran-
scribed, assigned codes and analysed in MAXQDA software.
The diaries were collected in May 2012 after completion of the presentations.
Only nineteen trainee teachers agreed to hand in the diaries, in which they described
their individualised approaches to pronunciation learning. The diary entries were
analysed manually.
Both quantitative and qualitative parts of the study were voluntary. However, the
attendance in the latter part was much lower than in the case of the former. The
reasons for this phenomenon were manifold. Namely, the rst questionnaire to be
introduced was that measuring PLS and LA levels. The students were then curious
and eager to provide answers, which mostly consisted of choosing from a set of
closed items, creating a secure zone. The qualitative part appeared to be more
demanding because the participants were asked to keep phonetic diaries for a
considerable period of time, and prepare a presentation on their pronunciation
learning strategies. Those oral accounts and interviews were to be recorded, and this
fact made many participants more reluctant to participate voluntarily in this part of
the study. All in all, sixteen participants kindly agreed to be recorded for their PLS
presentations and the semi-structured interview following them, and nineteen
submitted their phonetic diaries. As few as thirteen individuals both delivered their
pronunciation diaries and attended the recording session.
A number of variables is identied in the study. Although
independent-dependent variable distinction is not necessary in the correlational
research (Graziano & Raulin, 1993, p. 59) conducted in Phase 2 of the study, other
statistical measures are also applied here, so a non-manipulated independent vari-
able needs to be singled out. Thus, language anxiety measured with the FLCAS
(Horwitz et al., 1986) and Input, Processing and Output Anxiety Scales (MacIntyre
& Gardner, 1994b) is recognised as an independent variable. Whereas the depen-
dent variable is a set of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics operationalised
as the frequency of the use of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics
respectively, as measured with Berkils (2008) Strategy Inventory for Learning
Pronunciation (SILP), and pronunciation learning tactics identied in the qualitative
part of the study. There are also moderator variables, such as age, gender, declared
L2 prociency level, and length of L2 learning.
5.2.4 Analyses
In the rst part of the study quantitative data were obtained, and these required both
descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Thus, basic statistic measuresthe
Pearson product-moment correlation coefcient (r) and a students t-test for inde-
pendent sampleswere taken into account. In the analysis of the outcomes of the
qualitative part, the levels of LA assigned to the participants in the rst part and
PLS coding procedure described below were applied. All statistical calculations for
the study were computed using STATISTICA software, and the coding procedure
5.2 Method 145
applied to the analysis of the recorded presentations and transcripts of the

semi-structured interviews was supported with MAXQDA software.
The basic descriptive statistic measures describe a sample and data generated in
research in terms of central tendencies and variabilities (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989).
In other words, the mean (M) is used to indicate the average score in the sample,
and the standard deviation (SD) shows the distance of the results from the mean.
The lower the SD, the less varied the scores are for a particular measurement. The
minimum and maximum values are reported to indicate the range of scores.
The correlation coefcient is calculated to indicate the relationship between two
variables of the same group without indicating causation. The degrees of correla-
tions may range from 1, showing strong negative interplay between variables, to
+1, exemplifying a strong positive correlation; the value 0 means that the rela-
tionship is non-existent. Apart from the correlation coefcient (r), the sample size
(N) and the level of signicance (p) need to be specied in order to either conrm
or reject a hypothesis (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989).
The type of correlation coefcient applied depends on the type of scale used to
collect the data dening the variables. In the case of PLS, the instrument uses the
interval scale applicable when the measurement conveys information about the
ordering of magnitude of the measures and about the distance between the values
(Graziano & Raulin, 1993, p. 78). This justies the application of both the Pearson
product-moment correlation and the t-test (cf. Graziano & Raulin, 1993). In other
words, parametric statistics are applied to analyse the data in this study for estab-
lishing the degree of relationship between PLS and LA (the Pearson
product-moment) and for calculating the differences in PLS use between HLA and
LLA groups (t-test).
The analyses of the diary entries as well as the transcripts of the presentations
and the semi-structured interviews in the second part of the study followed four
stages. The rst of these consisted in creating a coding system for PLS which
mirrored the PLS and tactics taxonomy used in the PLSI. Therefore, there were six
major codes of PLS categories, also referred to as parent codes in MAXQDA:
memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategies.
Each of them encompassed codes which were the equivalents of the pronunciation
learning tactics mentioned in the PLSI. For instance, the parent code for pronun-
ciation learning compensation strategies contained seven codes, which referred to
the following pronunciation learning tactics: code 29I avoid words which I have
difculties in pronouncing, code 30I use mime or gesture to support my pro-
nunciation, code 31I use the synonyms of words that I have difculty in pro-
nouncing, code 32I use other words in the place of a single word that I do not
know how to pronounce, code 33I check the phonetic symbols of the words from
a dictionary when I have difculty in pronouncing them, code 34I listen to
pronunciation of words from electronic/multimedia dictionaries to correct my
pronunciation, and code 35I ask someone to pronounce words that I have dif-
culties in pronouncing. The coding system was entered in the software
MAXQDA.
Table 5.5 The intra-coder reliability of the coding system (calculated for coding in 2012 and
2015)
Number of PLS/tactics Intra-coder reliability coefcient
2012 187 r = 0.83***
2015 179
***p < 0.001
The second stage dealt with transcribing the recorded data from the presentations
and the semi-structured interviews and the analysis of the narratives. In the third
stage, codes were assigned to PLS and the tactics identied in the transcripts. Each
fragment describing a strategy or a tactic was matched with one code based on the
PLSI. For example, when an interviewee stated that to remember better I wrote the
transcription over the word, the code representing the following tactic: I use
phonetic symbols or my own code to remember how to pronounce words in English,
was assigned. This in turn located a particular tactic within one PLS category, in
this case, memory PLS. Moreover, the MAXQDA software allowed the addition of
new codes in the coding system if required. While analysing the transcripts three
new codes were added, namely I listen to a recording repeatedly, I warm-up my
speech organs and I sing. These belong to cognitive PLS.
Signicantly, in order to verify intra-coder reliability of the codes assigned, the
coding phase for all sixteen transcripts was repeated in time (in summer 2012 and in
winter 2015) by the same researcher (Table 5.5). The purpose of these repetitions
was to verify the quality of the measurement and obtain comparable interpretations
of the data from the same researcher at different times (Oxford, 2011, p. 172).
The intra-coder reliability in the study reached a high correlation of r = 0.83,
p = 0.00. The diary entries were analysed with the help of the same coding system,
but without the support of MAXQDA. Finally, the levels of LA were checked
against the FLCAS results from the rst part of the study for each participant,
grouping them as learners with high, medium and low language anxiety levels. For
the purposes of this study the deployment of PLS and tactics was analysed in two
groups, those of high and low language anxiety levels. The interpretation of the
frequency of PLS or tactics use followed the one proposed by Oxford (1990), in
which those mean values that ranged from 2.5 to 3.4 were moderately frequently
used, and those between 3.5 and 5.0 were highly frequently applied.
5.3 Results
The results of the quantitative part of the research are analysed rst in order to
address three research questions and corroborate the hypotheses. The outcomes of
the qualitative part are then presented in order to provide a more in-depth per-
spective on the interplay between language anxiety and pronunciation learning
strategy use, and supplement the response to the third research question. For this
5.3 Results 147
purpose, the repertoires of the trainee teachers exhibiting both high and low lan-
guage anxiety levels are delineated.
5.3.1 Language Anxiety Levels of EFL Trainee Teachers
In order to estimate the interplay between LA and the use of PLS, LA scores are
rst established for the FLCAS and the Input, Processing and Output Language
Anxiety Scales in the group of 94 participants (75 female and 19 male). Gender is
taken into account as it is a moderator variable which has been reported as sig-
nicant in the context of language anxiety in several studies (e.g., Capan & Simsek,
2012; Mesri, 2012; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). Additionally, language anxiety at the
stages of language processing is calculated for the groups that are assigned in
Sect. 5.2.1 to high and low language anxiety levels.
The descriptive statistics of LA in the group of 94 participants comprising 75
females and 19 males are presented in Table 5.6. Foreign language anxiety levels
measured with the FLCAS ranged from 38 to 146, with the total mean value of
79.22 and the standard deviation equalling 21.07. In the female group, the average
score of LA reached 83.94 and was higher than in the case of males (M = 60.57).
The t-test for independent samples (t = 4.76***) conrmed statistically signicant
difference between females and males in terms of their LA levels. Of the two
groups, the female participants scores were more diverse with a higher value of the
standard deviation (SD = 19.86) than in the case of males (SD = 15.41).
The minimum score on each of the Input, Processing, and Output Anxiety Scales
was 6 and the maximum was 29. The lowest mean values were calculated for males
Table 5.6 Basic statistical data (minimum and maximum values, means, standard deviations) of
foreign language anxiety for female and male participants, as well as t-test values (for gender
differences) and the level of signicance (p) indicating gender differences in LA levels
Variable Gender N Min. Max. M SD t-value
Language anxiety Female 75 47 146 83.94 19.86 4.76***
Male 19 38 91 60.57 15.41
Overall 94 38 146 79.22 21.07
Input anxiety Female 75 6 25 14.41 3.85 2.21**
Male 19 6 21 12.15 4.17
Overall 94 6 25 13.95 4.02
Processing anxiety Female 75 9 27 15.53 3.36 3.91***
Male 19 6 19 12.05 3.61
Overall 94 6 27 14.82 3.69
Output anxiety Female 75 6 29 17.90 4.14 4.46***
Male 19 6 23 13 4.57
Overall 94 6 29 16 4.66
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Table 5.7 Means and standard deviations of Input (IA), Processing (PA) and Output
(OA) Anxieties measured in groups low (LLA) and high in language anxiety (HLA), and a
t-test value indicating differences in IA, PA, and OA in these groups (p-the level of signicance)
Variable Means SD t-value
LLA (N = 32) HLA (N = 34) LLA HLA
Input Anxiety 11.5 16.2 3.4 3.8 5.35***
Processing Anxiety 11.9 17.6 2.8 3.3 7.63***
Output Anxiety 12.8 20.8 4 3.2 8.86***
***p < 0.001
on the Input Anxiety (M = 12.15) and Processing Anxiety (M = 12.05). The mean
score of Processing Anxiety for all the participants (M = 14.84) exceeded the mean
score for Input Anxiety (M = 13.95), but was lower than the mean score of Output
Anxiety (M = 16.91). Thus, in this case the participants experienced increasing
levels of anxiety at each of the cognitive processing stages. Interestingly, the results
of the t-tests for male and female groups indicated signicant differences in the
levels of Input, Processing and Output Anxieties. In the present study, females
consistently exhibited higher levels of language anxiety than males. These results
imply that gender is an important variable.
The language anxiety levels experienced at the input, processing and output
stages were also calculated for two distinct groups: trainee teachers with low
(LLA) and high levels of language anxiety (HLA), as measured with the FLCAS.
The procedure for this grouping was described in detail in Sect. 5.2.1. The results
are displayed in Table 5.7.
A t-test was implemented in order to show whether LLA and HLA groups
differed in their levels of Input, Processing and Output Anxieties. Interestingly
enough, the t-values conrmed that the average levels of Input, Processing and
Output Anxieties were signicantly lower in the LLA group than in its HLA
counterparts (t = 5.35*** for Input Anxiety, t = 7.63*** for Processing
Anxiety, and t = 8.86*** for Output Anxiety). The mean value of Input Anxiety
among non-anxious trainee teachers was 11.5. The Processing Anxiety level indi-
cated a minimally higher gure of 11.9, whereas the anxiety level at the output
stage peaked at 12.8 value. A similarly rising tendency for the mean values was
observed among the anxious participants. They declared on average the following
levels: 16.2 for Input Anxiety, 17.6 for Processing Anxiety and 20.8 for Output
Anxiety.
The above results targeted the rst research question, concerning the levels of
language anxiety among EFL trainee teachers. The next section provides data
supporting the discussion concerning the second research question, regarding
pronunciation learning strategies and tactics.
5.3 Results 149
5.3.2 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics

of EFL Trainee Teachers
The frequency of PLS use for each teacher trainee was estimated with the help of
the PLSI. Each participant responded on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the fre-
quency of PLS deployment. The results ranged from 108 to 218, with the minimal
possible score for the instrument being 52 and maximal 260. The mean frequency
of PLS in the group of 94 teacher trainees reached the value of 165.53, the median
166.5, the mode 171, and the standard deviation was 22.10. The distribution of the
scores was normal.
Additionally, the frequencies of PLS categories were calculated. The minimum
and maximum values for each strategy type differed considerably because the
distribution of statements in the PLSI referring to one category was unequal.
Memory PLS were measured against the frequency of use of six tactics, so that the
bottom value might be 6 and the top value 30. Cognitive PLS comprised 22
pronunciation learning tactics, with a possible minimum value of 22 and a maxi-
mum equalling 110. Compensation PLS consisted of seven, ranged between 7 and
35, and metacognitive PLS of eight tactics, with values from 8 to 40. Affective PLS
were represented by ve and social PLS by four pronunciation learning tactics.
In order to obtain comparable values reflecting how frequently PLS categories
were deployed, Oxfords (1990) calculation formula was followed. Therefore, for
each participant the sum of the results within one PLS category was estimated from
the PLSI data and then divided by the number of items within this category. The
mean outcomes of all individuals for this category were then calculated. For
example, in memory PLS, there were 6 items, the values of which ranged from 6 to
30, so the minimum mean score for all the participants equalled 1 and the maximum
5. Table 5.8 provides the comparable averages for each PLS category in order to
present those categories which are most and least frequently deployed.
Apart from social PLS, the mean frequency of PLS use was either equal to, as in
the case of memory PLS, or slightly above the average. The use of affective
strategies took rst place with mean use reaching 3.46, followed by compensation
(3.31) and cognitive PLS (3.24). However, the differences between these values
were meagre. The least popular PLS belonged to the social PLS category with a
value of 2.96. The overall average usage of PLS reached a moderate value of 3.16.
Table 5.8 Comparable PLS category Number of items Means SD

values of PLS category use
from the PLSI data Memory 6 3 0.78
Cognitive 22 3.24 0.75
Compensation 7 3.31 0.29
Metacognitive 8 3.01 0.36
Affective 5 3.46 0.35
Social 4 2.96 0.36
Overall PLS 52 3.16 0.18
The mean frequencies of the deployment of 52 pronunciation learning tactics

were calculated for all trainee teachers, and for female and male participants (see
Appendix A). The analysis of these values aimed to identify the tactics which were
most and least frequently used while learning English pronunciation. Moreover, the
comparison of the mean frequencies of the tactics as used by females and males
allowed for the establishing of signicant gender differences in the application of
particular tactics.
The top three most frequently used tactics for English pronunciation learning
were listening to tapes or CDs, television, movies or music in English (M = 4.65,
SD = 0.61), imitating native speakers or teachers pronunciation (M = 4.34,
SD = 0.69), and repeating pronunciation of a difcult English word (M = 4.21,
SD = 0.89). For all these three tactics the standard deviations were low, meaning
that all the respondents answers clustered around the means. The participants also
reported frequent capturing of pronunciation errors made by other Polish speakers
of English (M = 3.99, SD = 0.86), noticing the difference between Polish and
English pronunciation (M = 3.94, SD = 0.95), listening to pronunciation of words
from electronic or multimedia dictionaries to correct or verify pronunciation
(M = 3.86, SD = 1.1), and recognising different English accents and dialects
(M = 3.73, SD = 1.02). Rehearsing pronunciation in the mind before speaking
(M = 3.65, SD = 1.1), repeating after tapes, television, a movie or electronic dic-
tionaries (M = 3.60, SD = 1.07), checking transcription (M = 3.53, SD = 1.29),
and reading words or text passages out loud (M = 3.51, SD = 0.99) were tactics
which trainee teachers declared to use frequently.
The least frequently used tactics were recording ones voice to hear pronunci-
ation (M = 1.46, SD = 0.78) and making up songs or rhymes to remember how to
pronounce words (M = 1.77, SD = 0.92). In the case of voice recording, the par-
ticipants were quite consistent in declaring that they use it less frequently, which
was indicated by a low value of the standard deviation. Additionally, forming and
using hypotheses about pronunciation rules (M = 2.29, SD = 0.96), making asso-
ciations between English and Polish pronunciation (M = 2.33, SD = 1.2), trying to
imitate teachers mouth movements (M = 2.36, SD = 1.16), and doing exercises to
acquire English sounds (M = 2.41, SD = 1.03) belonged to less popular tactics.
One further nding demands attention. Standard deviations with highest values
(SD = 1.29 and SD = 1.27) referred to tactics based on using phonetic symbols in
pronunciation learning, which might imply that there were learners who preferred
and used these tactics frequently, but that there were still a number of learners who
avoided using transcription or their individual coding in their L2 pronunciation
learning. In other words, the values indicated a considerable deviation of individ-
uals answers from the mean values.
Eleven pronunciation learning tactics were used signicantly differently by
females and males. Eight of these were more frequently deployed by women,
whereas three tactics were more often chosen by men. The largest difference in the
frequency of use of pronunciation learning tactics was visible in the following
tactic: While preparing for a presentation, I note down words that are difcult for
me to pronounce. Females declared the use of this tactic signicantly more often
5.3 Results 151
than males did (t = 4.69***). They also checked the phonetic symbols of the words
from a dictionary (t = 4.33***), tried to imitate a teachers mouth movements
(t = 2.96**), avoided saying words difcult to pronounce (t = 2.41*), used pho-
netic symbols or their own code, (t = 2.4*), listened to pronunciation of words from
electronic dictionaries (t = 2.23*), asked someone for help with pronunciation
problems (t = 2.07*), and tried to recall how teachers pronounce a given word
(t = 1.38*) more frequently than men. Less frequent application of pronunciation
learning tactics among women was demonstrated in the case of the following
tactics: I choose to memorize, rather than read, a presentation (t = 3.32**); I
notice the difference between Polish and English pronunciation (e.g., in the word
pot) (t = 2.54*); and I record my own voice to hear my pronunciation (t = 2.1*).
Gender difference was signicant only for eleven out of fty two pronunciation
learning tactics entailed in the PLSI. Therefore, it can be inferred that the choice and
use of tactics is mostly, but not totally, independent of gender.
5.3.3 The Relationship Between Language Anxiety Levels

and the Deployment of Pronunciation Learning
Strategies and Tactics
The aim of this section is to provide data targeting the third research question that
focuses on the relationship between language anxiety levels and the deployment of
pronunciation learning strategies and tactics. The results given below facilitate
corroboration or rejection of the hypotheses proposed in Sect. 5.1.
In order to estimate the degree of the interplay between the two major constructs
of the study, LA calculated on the basis of the data generated from the FLCAS, the
Input, Processing, Output Anxiety Scales for female, male, and all participants were
correlated with total frequency of PLS use gathered with the help of the PLSI. The
Pearson product-moment correlation was applied. The results did not show any
signicant correlations (Table 5.9).
The coefcients calculated for PLS and LA measured with the FLCAS were
close to zero for female, male and both groups. Similarly, regardless of gender, no
relationships were found between PLS use and the levels of LA measured at the
Table 5.9 The Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients between overall PLS use and LA
level calculated for female, male, and both groups
PLS LA (FLCAS) Input LA Processing LA Output LA
Female 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.09
Male 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.10
Total 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.01
Table 5.10 The Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients for pronunciation learning
strategy categories and language anxiety (LA)
LA Pronunciation learning strategy categories
Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social
FLCAS 0.19 0.06 0.47*** 0.02 0.14 0.10
Input 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.23*
Processing 0.14 0.01 0.33** 0.04 0.01 0.11
Output 0.16 0.08 0.46*** 0.17 0.27* 0.21*
*p 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
input, processing and output stages of cognitive processing. In other words, sig-
nicant correlations between the overall frequency of PLS use and LA, Input,
Processing and Output Anxieties are practically non-existent.
Subsequently, having established the frequencies of use for memory, cognitive,
compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social PLS, the correlations between
each PLS category and LA measured with the FLCAS, the Input Anxiety Scale, the
Processing Anxiety Scale, and the Output Anxiety Scale were computed.
Table 5.10 presents the matrix of the Pearson product-moment correlation coef-
cients calculated for all the participants. Interestingly, there were several statistically
signicant outcomes indicating both positive and negative relationships between
the use of particular pronunciation learning categories and language anxiety.
The strongest positive link was stated between compensation PLS and LA
measured with the FLCAS (r = 0.47***), as well as two processing language
anxieties: Output LA (r = 0.46***) and Processing LA (r = 0.33**). Compensation
pronunciation learning strategies seem to play a role when an L2 pronunciation
learner exhibits high LA at the processing and output stages of cognitive
processing.
Moderate signicant negative correlation coefcients were calculated between
affective PLS and Output LA (r = 0.27*), as well as between social PLS and
Input LA (r = 0.23*) or Output LA (r = 0.21*). The participants whose LA
level was high at the output stage of cognitive processing rarely used affective or
social PLS. In other words, those who felt highly anxious while using their pro-
nunciation abilities, did not try to help themselves by lowering their LA level with
affective PLS. Moreover, the participants who reported a frequent use of social
PLS, that is learning L2 pronunciation with others, did not exhibit high language
anxiety either at the input or the output stages of cognitive processing. Unlike most
results of other studies on the interplay between LA and language learning strategy
use (cf. Sect. 4.5), the outcomes indicate both positive and negative values of
correlation coefcients in the relationship, which underlines the specic nature of
L2 pronunciation learning processes.
The following results present various degrees of relationship between LA and 35
direct pronunciation learning tactics comprised within memory, cognitive and
compensation PLS categories (Table 5.11). Positive values of the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefcients were mostly found between the values
5.3 Results 153
Table 5.11 Means (M), standard deviations (SD) of pronunciation learning tactics constituting a
set of direct PLS (memory, cognitive, and compensation), and their Pearson product-moment
correlation coefcients (r) with language anxiety (LA) measured with the FLCAS
PLS Pronunciation learning tactics M SD r (LA)
(adapted from Berkil, 2008)
Memory 1. I use phonetic symbols or my own code to 3.14 1.27 0.24*
remember how to pronounce words in English
2. I make up songs or rhymes to remember how 1.77 0.92 0.01
to pronounce words
3. I associate words which I dont know how to 3.18 0.97 0.05
pronounce with the words I know how to
pronounce
4. I associate English pronunciation with Polish 2.33 1.2 0.13
pronunciation (e.g., safe with a Polish word
sejf)
5. I try to recall how my teachers pronounced a 3.37 1.13 0.18
given word
6. I repeat pronunciation of a difcult word over 4.21 0.89 0.06
and over
Cognitive 7. I imitate native speakers or my teachers 4.34 0.69 0.24*
pronunciation
8. I repeat pronunciation aloud after a teacher 3.41 1.12 0.06
9. I repeat aloud after tapes, television, a movie 3.60 1.07 0.05
or electronic dictionaries
10. I repeat pronunciation silently 3.10 1.19 0.15
11. I talk aloud to myself 3.31 1.09 0.02
12. I say things silently to myself 3.05 1.04 0.11
13. I read words or text passages out loud 3.51 0.99 0.00
14. I do exercises/practice to acquire English 2.41 1.03 0.10
sounds
15. I practise sounds rst in isolation (only 2.45 1.11 0.06
sounds), and then in context (in words or
sentences)
16. I capture pronunciation errors made by 3.99 0.86 0.19
other Polish speakers of English
17. I notice mouth positions and watch lips 2.51 1.17 0.10
18. I concentrate intensely on pronunciation 3.39 1.00 0.08
while listening
19. I form and use hypotheses about 2.29 0.96 0.18
pronunciation rules
20. I try to imitate my teachers mouth 2.36 1.16 0.21*
movements
21. I listen to tapes, television, movies or music 4.65 0.61 0.25*
in English
4.00 0.73 0.00
(continued)

22. I concentrate intensely on pronunciation
while speaking
23. I speak slowly to get the pronunciation right 3.05 1.04 0.14
24. I record my own voice to hear my 1.46 0.78 0.13
pronunciation
25. I notice different English accents and 3.73 1.02 0.20*
dialects
26. I practise word pronunciation rst slowly 2.98 1.20 0.10
and then faster
27. I notice the difference between Polish and 3.94 0.95 0.27*
English pronunciation (e.g., in the word pot)
28. I mentally rehearse how to say something in 3.65 1.10 0.29*
English before speaking
Compensation 29. I avoid saying words which I have 2.84 1.08 0.36*
difculties in pronouncing
30. I use mime or gesture for the words when 3.22 1.09 0.38*
my pronunciation could make their meaning
unclear
31. I use the synonyms for words that I have 3.33 1.03 0.27*
difculty in pronouncing
32. I use more words in the place of a single 3.11 1.01 0.23*
word that I do not know how to pronounce
33. I check the phonetic symbols of the words 3.53 1.29 0.30*
from a dictionary when I have difculty in
pronouncing them
34. I listen to pronunciation of words from 3.86 1.10 0.30*
electronic/multimedia dictionaries to correct my
pronunciation
35. I ask someone to pronounce words that I 3.30 1.09 0.30*
have difculties in pronouncing
*p 0.05
indicating the levels of LA and the frequency of use for compensation tactics.
Interestingly, the frequency of use for all these tactics in the PLSI interplayed with
LA. The strongest positive correlations were calculated between LA and using
mime or gesture for the words when the participants believed their pronunciation
could make the meaning unclear (r = 0.38*), as well as between LA and avoiding
saying words difcult to pronounce (r = 0.36*). Moreover, the higher the level of
LA declared, the more frequent was the reported use of the following compensation
pronunciation learning tactics: using the synonyms for words that the participants
had difculty in pronouncing (r = 0.27*), checking the phonetic symbols of words
from a dictionary when pronunciation problems occurred (r = 0.30*), listening to
pronunciation of words from electronic/multimedia dictionaries to correct
5.3 Results 155
Table 5.12 Means (M), standard deviations (SD) of pronunciation learning tactics constituting a
set of indirect PLS (metacognitive, affective, social), and their Pearson product-moment correlation
coefcients (r) with language anxiety (LA) measured with the FLCAS
Metacognitive 36. I try to learn something about English 3.05 1.08 0.15
phonetics
37. I read reference materials about 2.55 0.95 0.02
pronunciation rules
38. I try to pick up model English sounds 3.21 0.92 0.00
39. I purposefully focus my listening on 2.88 1.03 0.03
particular sounds
40. I purposefully focus on learning particular 2.73 1.03 0.01
English sounds
41. I try to memorise English sounds well 3.52 0.86 0.07
42. I choose to memorize, rather than read, a 2.56 1.32 0.21*
presentation
43. While preparing for a presentation, I note 3.52 1.38 0.38*
down words that are difcult for me to
pronounce
Affective 44. I have a sense of humour about my 3.97 1.02 0.18
mispronunciations
45. I have fun with pronouncing English or 3.32 1.29 0.02
Polish words, e.g., pronouncing Polish word
with an English accent or vice versa
46. I encourage myself by making positive 2.89 1.21 0.07
statements, such as My pronunciation is
improving
47. I take risks in pronouncing words regardless 3.51 0.91 0.26*
of the possibility of making mistakes
48. I pay more attention to my pronunciation if 3.59 1.12 0.08
my pronunciation is appreciated by others
Social 49. I ask someone else to correct my 3.45 1.13 0.01
pronunciation
50. I talk with people around me in English 2.98 0.99 0.28*
51. I learn pronunciation with someone else 2.43 1.13 0.10
52. I teach or help someone else with their 2.99 1.02 0.08
English pronunciation
*p 0.05
pronunciation (r = 0.30*), asking someone to pronounce words when having dif-

culties in pronouncing them (r = 0.30*), and using more words in the place of a
single word that the participants did not know how to pronounce (r = 0.23*).
One memory tactic, using phonetic symbols or ones own code in order to
remember how to pronounce words in English (r = 0.24*) was reported to be more
frequently used by those experiencing higher LA levels. Out of the set of cognitive
pronunciation learning tactics, only two were found to correlate positively: mental
rehearsal of pronunciation before speaking (r = 0.29*), and trying to imitate a

teachers mouth movements (r = 0.21*); whereas four correlated negatively:
noticing the difference between Polish and English pronunciation (e.g., in the word
pot) (r = 0.27*), listening to tapes, television, movies or music in English
(r = 0.25*), imitating native speakers or teachers pronunciation (r = 0.24*),
and noticing different English accents and dialects (r = 0.20*).
In the group of indirect pronunciation learning strategies, eight tactics represent
metacognitive PLS, ve tactics belong to affective PLS, and four tactics exemplify
social PLS. Table 5.12 provides the outcomes of basic statistics and the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefcients measuring the interplay between LA and
individual pronunciation learning tactics associated with indirect PLS.
Out of the total number of 17 tactics, ve were reported to be used highly
frequently. These were: having a sense of humour about mispronunciations
(M = 3.97, SD = 1.02), paying more attention to pronunciation if it is appreciated
by others (M = 3.59, SD = 1.12), noting down words that are difcult to pronounce
while preparing for a presentation (M = 3.52, SD = 1.38), trying to memorise
English sounds well (M = 3.52, SD = 0.86), and taking risks in pronouncing words
regardless of the possibility of making mistakes (M = 3.51, SD = 0.91). The only
tactic reported to be rarely used (the average below 2.5) was learning pronunciation
with someone else (M = 2.43, SD = 1.13). However, the standard deviation indi-
cates that the group was not homogenous in their reports on the use of this tactic.
Interestingly enough, attention might be drawn to one more tactic: taking risks in
pronouncing words, regardless of the possibility of making mistakes. The minimal
value of this is 2, which means that none of the respondents declared that it was
never or almost never used by them. In other words, all the participants reported
that they had taken at least some risk while learning English pronunciation. Apart
from that, this tactic belongs to those more frequently used (M = 3.51), as declared
by the trainee teachers, and is signicantly negatively correlated with LA
(r = 0.26*).
A statistically signicant relationship was discovered between LA and four out
of 17 of the indirect pronunciation learning tactics. The participants with higher
levels of LA reported a more frequent use of the tactic connected with preparation
for the oral presentation (r = 0.38*). However, the other three tactics were found to
be negatively correlated with LA. The more frequently the participants chose to
learn pronunciation through talking to other people in English, the lower the levels
of LA they had (r = 0.28*). Higher LA levels were also reported among those
who did not often take risks in pronouncing words regardless of the possibility of
making mistakes (r = 0.26*). Additionally, less anxious learners more frequently
opted for memorizing, rather than reading, a presentation (r = 0.21*).
The analysis of the data calculated from the FLCAS and the PLSI shows that the
interplay between LA and pronunciation learning tactics exists, but not in the case
of every tactic. Moreover, the correlation coefcients take either positive or nega-
tive values depending on individual tactics. Those pronunciation learning tactics
which correlate positively with LA mostly belong to compensation PLS.
Additionally, few individual memory, cognitive and metacognitve tactics,
5.3 Results 157
Table 5.13 The results of a PLS LLA (N = 32) HLA (N = 34) t-value
t-test for independent samples
M SD M SD
(t-value), Means (M),
standard deviations (SD) of Memory 16.97 3.43 19.21 3.43 2.97**
PLS categories and overall Cognitive 69.56 10.19 72.62 10.19 1.34
PLS use in LLA and HLA Compensation 20.73 5.03 25.29 5.03 3.80**
groups
Metacognitive 23.41 4.88 24.41 4.88 0.842
Affective 17.84 3.15 17.12 3.15 0.919
Social 11.97 3.55 11.61 1.84 0.508
Overall PLS 160.47 22.47 170.26 22.47 1.99*
*p 0.05, **p < 0.01
frequently linked with an increased level of effort put into pronunciation learning,
are found to have a positive relationship with LA. A negative signicant interplay is
discovered between LA and four cognitive, one metacognitive, one affective, and
one social pronunciation learning tactic.
Bearing in mind that correlational tests implemented in this part need to be
supported with a stronger measurement tool, further statistical analyses are pro-
posed in the following sections of the book.
5.3.3.1 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics Amongst

Trainee Teachers Displaying Both Low and High Levels
of Language AnxietyQuantitative Analysis
Further steps that were taken focused on groups of low (LLA) and high language
anxiety levels (HLA) in order to investigate, compare and contrast the PLS, their
categories and tactics as deployed by the trainee teachers belonging to these groups.
The procedure for assigning the participants to the LLA and HLA groups was
described in detail in Sect. 5.2.1.
First, the sums of all the responses to the PLSI for each participant belonging to
the LLA and HLA groups were established to indicate the total frequencies of PLS
use. Similarly, the sums of PLS categories were calculated. Following Oxfords
(2011) advice on using parametric tests for cumulative data of the SILL, a t-test for
independent samples was used for the cumulative data collected from the PLSI, i.e.,
for the total PLS use and PLS categories use. In the case of individual pronun-
ciation learning tactics, the same statistical measurement was applied in order to
reveal whether LLA group differed in their use of tactics from the HLA group.
The results (Table 5.13) demonstrate a signicant difference in frequency of the
overall PLS use in the two groups (t = 1.99*). Compared to LLA trainee teachers
(M = 160.47), those high in LA reported a more frequent use of PLS in general
(M = 170.26). The discrepancy in the use of PLS categories between LLA and
HLA trainee teachers was also visible in their use of memory (t = 2.97**) and
compensation strategies (t = 3.8**). HLA individuals declared signicantly more
frequent deployment of these PLS categories while learning English pronunciation

than the non-anxious participants. However, no signicant differences were found
in the deployment of cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social categories of
PLS.
The difference in use of particular pronunciation learning tactics in LLA and
HLA groups was calculated with the t-test for independent samples (Appendix B).
Out of the total number of 52 tactics, 11 were used signicantly differently in the
two groups. The majority of them, ten pronunciation learning tactics, was deployed
more frequently by more anxious participants. These were two memory tactics:
using phonetic symbols or code to remember how to pronounce words in English
and trying to recall how teachers have pronounced a given word; two cognitive:
speaking slowly to get the pronunciation right and rehearsing mentally how to say
something in English before speaking; ve compensation: avoiding saying words
which are difcult to pronounce, using mime or gesture, checking the phonetic
symbols of the words from a dictionary, listening to the pronunciation of words
from electronic or multimedia dictionaries and asking someone to pronounce dif-
cult words; and one metacognitive PLS: noting down words that are difcult to
pronounce while preparing for a presentation. The above tactics used more often by
trainee teachers displaying high levels of anxiety indicate that compensation
strategies are particularly important for them. Apart from this, they choose to
support their pronunciation learning by putting an increased effort into preparations
for oral presentations, mental rehearsal before speaking, and working with dic-
tionaries. They also nd transcription useful. By avoiding words which are difcult
to pronounce or using their synonyms, HLA learners prefer not to take risks.
The pronunciation learning tactic more often applied among non-anxious
learners belonged to social PLS. This tactic referred to talking with people around
in English, and was more often chosen by those who were not afraid of being
appraised as incompetent in L2 pronunciation. The above results show that there are
several pronunciation learning tactics, which are used signicantly differently in
LLA and HLA groups.
Although no signicant relationship was found between LA and the overall use
of PLS, a detailed analysis disclosed very interesting interconnections at the levels
of PLS categories and tactics. The difference in overall PLS use in LLA and HLA
groups was corroborated. The deployment of two PLS categoriesmemory and
compensationemerged as particularly striking among LLA and HLA participants.
Firstly, the correlation between LA and both memory and compensation PLS was
positive, meaning that highly anxious pronunciation learners turned to memory and
compensation pronunciation learning strategies more often than those who were
low in anxiety. Secondly, the signicant positive interplay was also conrmed at the
level of pronunciation learning tactics, because two out of six memory pronunci-
ation learning tactics, and ve out of seven compensation pronunciation learning
tactics were used more frequently by highly anxious participants. Finally, the data
conrmed that a number of pronunciation learning tactics are used signicantly
differently in LLA and HLA groups.
5.3 Results 159
5.3.3.2 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics Amongst

Trainee Teachers Displaying Both Low and High Levels
of Language AnxietyQualitative Analysis
The records of presentations, semi-structured interviews and phonetic diaries of

LLA and HLA participants provide supplementary and insightful ndings regarding
the deployment of PLS and tactics. Below, the results generated on the basis of the
presentations and semi-structured interviews will be presented before the outcomes
of the diary data analysis are considered. First, the ndings based on the presen-
tations and the semi-structured interviews will be preceded by a short description of
the participants based on Questionnaire 2, amended to the recording session, the
aim of which was to elicit PLS and tactics as deployed by non-anxious and anxious
trainee teachers. Since each interview immediately followed a presentation, and the
data from both instruments are transcribed and coded in one le, the ndings
generated from both tools will be analysed in one section. The data from the
presentations will be quoted in English, whereas those from the semi-structured
interviews will be reported, as originally recorded, in Polish and then translated into
English on the basis of the premises presented in Sect. 5.2.2. The order for the
analysis of the results follows the PLS taxonomy adopted in the study, in which
direct PLSmemory, cognitive, compensationprecede indirect PLSmetacog-
nitive, affective and social. Therefore, the diary entries will also be scrutinised in
order to search for memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and
social PLS and pronunciation learning tactics. Finally, general conclusions will be
drawn to summarise the deployment of PLS reported by LLA and HLA trainee
teachers. For purposes of clarity, the analysis of the data from the individuals with
low LA levels precedes those obtained from the trainee teachers who are high in
LA.
Presentations and Semi-structured Interviews
Having nished the presentations and semi-structured interviews, the six trainee
teachers who displayed low levels of LA responded to Questionnaire 2 concerning
their feelings of anxiety during the presentation, their pronunciation in a stressful
situation, and their pronunciation self-evaluation. Two male interviewees, Baej
and Mikoaj, reported a lack of anxiety during their presentations, while the
remaining four individualsAlicja, Dagmara, Ela and Maciejstated that they
were quite anxious, selecting the value of three on a 5-point Likert scale. Alicja
and Dagmara would feel more nervous if they had to give the presentation in front
of the group, Elas anxiety would be at the same level, and all three male trainee
teachers in this group would feel little or no stress. Mikoaj did not notice any
change in his pronunciation in a stressful situation. All the others admitted that their
pronunciation would deteriorate under stress. Mikoaj self-evaluated his pronun-
ciation as very hightop ve on a 5-point scalestating that his pronunciation was
close to that of an English native speakers. Maciej marked 4 for his pronunciation,
suggesting that it was almost without mistakes, though with a slight Polish accent.
Alicja, Baej, Dagmara and Ela evaluated their pronunciations as 3some
pronunciation mistakes occur but generally pronunciation is good with a slight

Polish accent.
Regarding memory PLS, only a few instances of their use occured. In the rst
case, Dagmara and Baej reported the use of transcription in order to make mental
linkages with pronunciation: And over the word I wrote the transcription which I
found correct (Dagmara); jak zaczem je [symbole IPA] rozrnia I wiedziaem
jaki dwik produkuj, to czasem lepiej si z tego korzysta [having identied these
symbols and learnt the sounds they represent, I sometimes think it better to use
them]2 (Baej). Secondly, Maciej retrieved his teachers pronunciations from
memory before he practised further pronunciation: I try to remind myself how my
teachers speak at school and repeat after them.
Nevertheless, the trainee teachers who were low in LA enumerated many cog-
nitive PLS referring to imitation of English native speakers, practising pronuncia-
tion of words and individual sounds, listening to English recordings, watching
English TV and lms, noticing the differences between English accents, and
warming up the speech organs. Baej, Maciej and Ela paid attention to the pro-
nunciation of English native speakers: I listen [to] how they speak, I try to imitate
them (Baej), I speak with my friends from other countries and I try to speak just
like the[m] (Maciej), I was trying to copy the pronunciation of actors and actress
[es], like K. N. or H. M. (Ela). Ela concentrated a lot on the pronunciation of others
by hearing how people speak and what is going on with their lips and tongue. She
also deployed a strategy that had never been mentioned beforeexercising her
articulators to make them more flexible: I was trying to warm up my speech organs
at home. She considered it important for better pronunciation. Dagmara and Alicja
practised pronunciation by repeating words: I was repeating the words that the
actress said, () the words or the phrases (Dagmara), powtarzaam sobie przede
wszystkim te trudniejsze sowa [I repeated rst of all those more difcult words]
(Alicja). Maciej worked on a th sound in front of the mirror: staem przed lustrem,
wiczyem sobie th sound [I was standing in front of the mirror and practising the
th sound]. What is more, he shared his interesting approach to stress and sound
pronunciation practice:
What is interesting, I like [practising] a technique which [focuses on] stress pattern and the
th sound and I think Im good at this technique. I can even say Polish words using this
technique, for example, the Polish word Macaw with th will be mathlaw and with a
stress it will be MAthlaw.
All trainee teachers in this group mentioned that they learnt English pronunci-
ation while watching English TV, lms, cartoons, listening to authentic recordings,
audiobooks, music or playing computer games. As a result, most of them were able
to notice the differences between British and American pronunciations. For
example, Alicja watched American production[s] so () I have learned somehow
() American vocabulary and I think it was easy for me to speak in an American
accent. Maciej and Mikoaj even boasted about their abilities to use both British and
2
All translations of the participants transcripts and diary entries are mine.
5.3 Results 161
American varieties: I just want to say that Ive got two accents British and
American but now I prefer the American accent, because it is much easier for me
(Maciej), I can switch to [British] English and American. Thats not a problem for
me (Mikoaj). Dagmaras words best summarise her attitude to identifying English
accents: we should be aware of () what we are saying and in which dialect were
saying these words.
During the interview, Alicja, Baej and Dagmara reported how they used dic-
tionary transcription to cope with their pronunciation problems. Alicja deployed it
on encountering difculties while reading: I read, and when I have some difculties
with problematic words or phrases I like to check the transcriptions in the dic-
tionary. Baej found dictionary transcription useful when playing computer games:
one hand on a keyboard and a dictionary in the other hand checking what they said
or what is written on the screen. When in need, Dagmara checked the pronunciation
of problematic words: I was often unsure how to pronounce some of the words, e.g.,
grind or guild, then I looked up these words in the dictionary. All in all, there
was some evidence for the deployment of compensation PLS in the group which
was low in LA.
Planning and organising pronunciation work was visible in a number of
instances of metacognitive PLS and PLS chains. Two non-anxious trainee teachers
monitored their speech: I pay attention to what Im saying and how Im pro-
nouncing the English words and I think it is very important (Dagmara), staram si
skupia na tym jak mwi na zajciach zawsze [I always try to concentrate on how
I speak during classes] (Ela). Alicja extended her knowledge on pronunciation
aspects through reading: staraam si wanie o connected speech czyta infor-
macje [I tried to read about connected speech]. Dagmara, Ela, Alicja and Maciej
reported elaborate PLS chains in their pronunciation learning before delivering their
presentations:
In my preparation for the presentation I used the following steps. The rst one was to
underline the words (), which I found difcult. (...) I underlined the words that (...) I
didnt know how to pronounce (...). And the second step was to listen to them again. And I
wrote the transcription over the spelling of the word (...). And the third step was to write
these words in my notebook (...). The fourth step was to repeat all the words (Dagmara).
Najpierw napisaam sobie podstawowe punkty, o czym chciaam powiedzie, chocia i tak
nie powiedziaam wszystkiego. Prbowaam sobie jeszcze raz posprawdza ca wymow
w sowniku jak to mniej wicej wyglda (...) staraam si te mwi jako tak bardziej
pynnie i wolniej [First, I wrote the main points of what I wanted to say, even though
eventually I did not say everything. Once again I tried to check the pronunciation in the
dictionary (...) I tried to speak more fluently and slowly] (Ela).
Pierwsza transkrypcja, to na pewno, potem prbowaam connected speech, prbowaam
poczy w zdania te wyrazy i na kocu byo powtarzanie po prostu [First, transcription, for
sure, then I tried connected speech I tried to connect these words in sentences, and
repetition came last] (Alicja).
Staem przed lustrem, wiczyem sobie th sound (...) Mwiem moj prezentacj rodzi-
com, mamie. Nie wiedzieli o co chodzi, ale tak, Maciek, dobrze, jest dobrze [I was
standing in front of the mirror, practising the th sound (...) I delivered my presentation to
my parents, my mum. They did not understand, but they said, yes, Maciek, ne, its ne]
(Maciej).
The above PLS chains demonstrated a very carefully planned approach to

pronunciation practice before oral presentations. The chains consisted of at least
three consecutive tactics, frequently focusing on transcription and suprasegmental
aspects. However, not all teacher trainees in this group organised their pronunci-
ation learning before oral presentations so meticulously. Baej and Mikoaj
admitted that they had not worked on their pronunciation before the presentations
because then it would sound a bit articial (Baej).
Of all non-anxious interviewees, Maciej was the only individual who reported
the use of affective PLS. Moreover, he deployed a number of affective strategies,
not just one. For instance, he encouraged himself by saying: my pronunciation and
my English is much better, and I think Im good [at] this technique. He also enjoyed
playing with English accents: I try to speak like native speakers and me and my
friends, sometimes for fun, speak as American or British people. His favourite PLS
was connected with manipulating stress patterns by pronouncing Polish or English
words and shifting stress to different syllables:
Ulubion strategi jest stress pattern. Na przykad mwi polskie imiona, na rne
[sposoby] i podkadam sobie rny stress, czy angielskie wyrazy te, vegetable, tak
sobie mog ca gam sw przetadowa [A favourite strategy is stress pattern. For
example, I say Polish names in different ways, shifting stress placement; English words as
well, vegetable, I can practice like that with a number of words] (Maciej).
The strategy of playing with English sounds indicated Maciejs original

approach to pronunciation learning: the Polish word Macaw with th will be
mathlaw and with a stress it will be MAthlaw. Denitely, an element of joy
accompanied Maciejs pronunciation learning.
Social PLS seemed to be among the most valued in this group. Almost all (ve
out of six) trainee teachers who were low in LA reported that they needed others in
their pronunciation learning. Mikoaj described his close and regular contact with
two native English speakers, who influenced his pronunciation: There [at high
school] I met two twins. Theyre native speakers from England. Their level of
Polish was not so good then, so I was the only person that could speak to them
normally, so I can say I can thank them for who I am now. They taught me a lot:
how to speak, how to pronounce. Similarly, Baej revealed his frequent encounters
with English online computer game players: I have playmates from the United
States and from Great Britain. So we talk about the strategies which our com-
manders introduced during the second world war (...). We share experiences
between us, so I think its a better way to get knowledge of how to pronounce the
words, how to talk than reading it in books. Ela and Maciej chose cooperation with
their friends and teachers. She learned pronunciation while talking with friends and
teachers at college, and Maciej cooperated with his peers: Jak z kolegami z grupy
rozmawiam, to mwimy takimi dialogami, (...) mwimy do siebie po angielsku
[When I talk to my classmates, we do it in the form of dialogues, (...) we speak
English]; me and my friends, sometimes for fun, speak as American or British
5.3 Results 163
people. What is more, he noticed their pronunciation mistakes and corrected them: I
try to improve (...) their pronunciation when I hear that they speak improperly.
Teaching English pronunciation to others was the PLS chosen by Alicja: I started to
tutor, too, because I found it very useful. However, she considered it quite difcult
to explain sound differences to primary school students: ciko jest mi tak
przekaza, tak wytumaczy jak dan gosk si wymawia [It is hard for me to
explain how to pronounce a given sound]. Alicja also claimed to have had contacts
with American teachers at a private school and to seek opportunities to use English
when abroad.
The collation of responses referred to above focused on the group of the trainee
teachers displaying low levels of LA (LLA 70); whereas the following part of
this section will inspect the qualitative results for the participants exhibiting high
LA levels (HLA 88), as assigned in Sect. 5.2.1. The order of the analysis from
direct to indirect PLS and tactics will be sustained.
Immediately after the recorded presentations and semi-structured interviews, the
three HLA participants completed Questionnaire 2, in which they conrmed their
feelings of apprehension during their PLS presentations. On a 5-point scale
describing the degree of anxiety from 1not anxious at all, to 5extremely
anxious, Angelika reported to be very anxious4, whereas Ola Z. and Sonia
anxious3 during their recorded semi-structured interviews. They stated that their
level of nervousness would be the same in the case of performing in front of the
group. Angelika and Ola Z. observed that their pronunciation deteriorated in the
situations that they perceived as stressful, which in turn triggered word loss, stut-
tering, and even self-deprecating thoughts, like potem sobie tylko myl, e mogam
o wiele lepiej to powiedzie, a niestety zawiodam sam siebie [then I think that I
could have said it better, but unfortunately I failed] (Angelika). On a 5-point scale,
Sonia self-evaluated her pronunciation as 4almost faultless with a slight Polish
accent, and Angelika and Ola Z. marked their pronunciation during the recording
session as 3some pronunciation mistakes occur but generally pronunciation is
good with a slight Polish accent. The largest number of PLS and tactics in the HLA
group belonged to the cognitive category. However, there were also some memory,
compensation, metacognitive, affective and social PLS detected.
Beginning with memory PLS, Sonia declared that she had sometimes used
transcription in order to remember the pronunciation of longer, new words: jak jest
jakie nowe i dugie swko, no to do gry dwa slashe i transkrypcja [when there is
a new word, then I note the transcription using two slashes above the word].
Angelika recalled her teachers pronunciation of a consonant or a vowel, and
articulating words after [her] teacher, or native speakers.
From the list of cognitive PLS reported by the HLA group, quite a few focused
on conscious speech perception. For example, Angelika analysed the movements of
English native speakers articulators: I try to pay attention to how an actor or
actress moves their lips or tongue. A number of cognitive PLS pertained to various
types of pronunciation practice. Angelika read transcription to check the difference
between British and American pronunciation. Watching English TV channels and
listening to English music were pronunciation learning tactics enumerated by all
three interviewees. Sonia and Angelika added either silent or loud repetitions to
themselves after listening to a model: When I watch something, I repeat after an
actor or actress (Sonia); powtarzam sama do siebie [I repeat to myself] (Angelika).
Generally, repetitions were among the pronunciation learning tactics frequently
mentioned by the HLA interviewees. Apart from that, they completed pronuncia-
tion exercises offered by an item of dictionary software (Angelika), and exploited
transcription to prepare well for oral presentations (Angelika, Sonia).
Only a few pronunciation learning tactics were intended to compensate for
pronunciation inaccuracies. When in trouble, for example, Angelika and Ola Z.
listened to the pronunciation of a word in an online dictionary. They also requested
others to help with pronunciation: Ja si pytaam kilka osb jak to si wymawia [I
ask a few people how to say it] (Ola Z.); dopytam jak to trzeba (...) mwi [Ill ask
how to say it] (Angelika). Sonia mentioned that she tried to avoid pronunciation
mistakes.
Metacognitve PLS entailed pronunciation monitoring and planning. For
instance, both Sonia and Angelika were aware of their pronunciation mistakes: I
nd some bad habits in my speaking language (Sonia), Podczas tej prezentacji dwa
razy zorientowaam si, e inaczej trzeba byo to wymwi [During this presen-
tation I realised twice that it should be pronounced differently] (Angelika). They
also planned their oral presentation by implementing a numer of pronunciation
learning tactics, such as transcribing certain selected words: [transkrypcj] miaam,
ale nie wszystkich [sw], tylko takich co nie byam pewna [I had transcription but
not for all [words], only those for which I was not sure] (Angelika), and noting
down more difcult items: [zapisywaam] takie pojedyncze sowa z kocwkami, bo
z tym te mam czsto problem, czy /z/czy /z/[I noted down some individual words
with endings, because I often have problems with these endings, /z/czy/z/] (Sonia).
Angelika conrmed that she had sometimes tried to prepare the response in her
mind before she spoke: [jak] byo zadane prdzej pytanie I ja wtedy czasami ju
sobie prbuj co uoy w gowie [after a question had been addressed, I some-
times try to mentally plan [how to respond to it]].
Regarding affective PLS, Sonia encouraged herself to learn pronunciation by
engaging in certain forms of mental effort: I think that if I continue to complete
certain [pronunciation] exercises, it [pronunciation] will be better and better. She
also mentioned laughter resulting from pronunciation practice: [mama] si ze mnie
mieje, (...) jak co tam mwi (...) czasami razem si miejemy [[My mum] laughs
at me when I say something (...) sometimes we laugh together]. Although Ola Z.
observed a deterioration of her pronunciation when nervous, she did not suggest
any tactics to reduce it. Angelika perceived in-class contact with native speaker
teachers and other teachers as being more stressful than interacting with native
speakers in an out-of-class environment. However, similarly to Ola Z., she did not
express how she would reduce her level of anxiety.
Finally, the social PLS used by the group of anxious trainee teachers were very
limited. Ola Z. mentioned that her cousin had helped her with her pronunciation:
My pronunciation was so (...) bad, so my cousin gave me some lessons. Angelika
also appreciated cooperation with others, stating that with my friends and the
5.3 Results 165
phonetic teacher, learning English pronunciation was more pleasant and effective
(Angelika). Sonia, however, resorted to solitary pronunciation learning.
Apart from the above PLS and tactics, Sonia and Angelika provided some
examples of PLS chains. Sonias favourite way of learning pronunciation consisted
of two simultaneously performed tactics: watching a lm and repeating some
phrases after actors. Angelika in turn focused on listening to and reading a songs
lyrics at the same time. In these cases, the cognitive PLS of paying attention was
accompanied by a memory or another cognitive strategy.
The data collected from the presentations and the semi-structured interviews
added some important facts to the quantitative analysis of both LLA and HLA
groups. The trainee teachers who were low in LA chose an array of cognitive PLS
and emphasised the value of noticing the differences between pronunciation
models. They also reported elaborate PLS chains helping them to prepare for the
presentation. Social PLS were noted as important in the process of pronunciation
learning. Whereas the group of anxious participants recounted repetition, though
not miming, as the most frequently deployed pronunciation learning tactic. They
also mentioned using transcription, electronic dictionaries, watching and listening
to English native speakers in the media. There was evidence for the deployment of
cognitive formal practice on pronunciation and careful metacognitive planning for
the oral presentation. All three interviewees conrmed the negative influence of
stress on their pronunciation, though they failed to apply anxiety reducing strate-
gies. Little emphasis was given to learning pronunciation with others. Finally, there
were only some limited instances of PLS chains.
Diaries
Of all the trainee teachers who submitted their pronunciation diaries, there were six
whose scores from the FLCAS indicated low levels of LA. Their data will be
analysed before the data collected from the diaries of the other six trainee teachers
who were high in LA. The contents of the diaries varied in quality from systematic
entries with clear dates to randomly collected notes. Nevertheless, they were all
thoroughly analysed in search for PLS in the same order as in the case of the
analyses of transcripts from the presentations and semi-structured interviews: direct
memory, cognitive and compensation PLS preceding indirect metacognitive,
affective and social strategies.
Memory PLS of the participants low in LA pertained mainly to the repetition of
words and phrases in order to memorise pronunciation. Four writers mentioned this
tactic: I repeat one word many times to remember how to pronounce it3 (Karolina),
Im repeating words: bean, heel, meal, peel (...) I can remember how to pronounce
words when I hear native speakers and I repeat after them or talk at the same time
(Jessika), [I was] repeating all difcult words and phrases (Alicja), I was trying to
remember words and repeat what they [friends and teachers] said. Sometimes I had
to repeat difcult and long words a few times (Ela). Apart from that,
3
The participants mistakes in the original scripts of their phonetic diaries were not edited unless
they obscured the meaning.
Karolina P. admitted to deploy her own coding system: I use phonetic symbols or
my own code to remember how to correctly say English words, and then she
provided one example of her own notation of English sounds in a word.
Regarding cognitive PLS, the group displaying low LA deployed an array of
pronunciation learning tactics. Among other tactics, they noted the differences
between British and American pronunciation, paid attention to others pronuncia-
tion, imitated native speakers of English, focused on the naturalistic practice of
watching and listening to English recordings, and made use of electronic
dictionaries.
Observation of differences between accents was mentioned by four participants.
Baej noted that although they [British and American people] speak the same
language, I found differences in the way they pronounce individual words. During
her trip abroad, Alicja had a possibility (...) to listen [to] different accents.
Observation was sometimes accompanied by adoption of a conscious choice for or
evaluation of the pronunciation model: I decided to speak in American English. Its
bad that I mix both [British and American] pronunciations. I must think about it in
big details (Jessika), I denitely prefer British to American (...) British English is
smoother and more melodious for me (Ela).
Alicja, Karolina, Maciej, Ela, and Baej paid attention to how others spoke
English. Alicja admitted that the main way [of improving English pronunciation] is
to listen to native speakers or teachers at school. Karolina, Maciej and Ela addi-
tionally imitated native speakers of English and English teachers. For example, Ela
admitted that she loved listening [to] Keira Knightly or Hellen Mirren. [ She]
tried to copy their speaking, sometimes worse or better. Maciej tried to speak just
like [his] teachers at school. Ela and Maciej both noticed the difference between
Polish and English pronunciation, for example, [I] see difference between Polish
and English pronunciation (Ela), Sometimes I speak Polish words with an English
accent (Maciej).
Interestingly, Karolina, Jessika and Maciej provided examples of thinking in
English: I arrange in my mind how to say something, before I start speaking
English (Karolina), Recently, I realised that my thoughts are very often in English
(Jessika), Sometimes I compose a sentence in my mind which I want to say aloud, I
often think in the English language (Maciej). Maciej and Alicja talked to them-
selves in English: I speak to myself aloud in English (Maciej), Sometimes I have
talked to myself in English when there was nobody to talk with (Alicja).
Jessika, Ela, Alicja and Karolina practised pronunciation by watching English
lms, TV, listening to songs and authentic recordings. Ela was particularly keen on
English music, which reflected her interests because she attended a school choir.
Alicja had been learning rather from songs and lms that were American pro-
ductions. She additionally explained how she approached her pronunciation
learning through watching lms: I try to watch lms only with the subtitles because
that lets me hear the original language of actors and even [notice the] differences
between [spoken] and written text.
Karolina, Ela and Maciej conrmed the use of electronic dictionaries for pro-
nunciation practice: [f]rom time to time I listen to the pronunciation of words which
5.3 Results 167
I dont know in the electronic dictionary on the Internet (Maciej). Baej used
transcription to note down the differences between British and American pronun-
ciation of several words, such as re, March, uniform, staircase, headquarters.
Jessika appreciated formal practice though preferred naturalistic interaction with
native speakers. She challenged herself by taking up extra tasks supporting pro-
nunciation acquisition: My uncle asked me yesterday to create Polish subtitles in
one lm which is in English. I think its a great challenge for me. Ela also
undertook an unusual activity in order to make her speech organs more flexible: I
have started to use warm up activities to prepare the organs of speech. However,
she confessed that she had not used transcription in her notes or before the pre-
sentation because she appreciates learning pronunciation in more naturalistic way,
through listening.
As far as compensation PLS are concerned, there were a few instances of coping
with pronunciation problems noted in the diaries. Karolina used synonyms to
substitute a word which was difcult to pronounce: I use a lot of different words if I
dont know how to pronounce one, and she also engaged others in seeking clari-
cation on her pronunciation problems: I ask someone to say the word with which I
have a problem. While encountering pronunciation difculties, Ela resorted to
gestures: [I] use body language to express and explain well what I want to say.
Alicja in turn veried uncertainties against a dictionary transcription: When I have
some difculties with pronunciation of certain words, I check their transcription in
the dictionary.
Of all metacognitive PLS, those referring to pronunciation rules and
self-awareness of pronunciation strengths and weaknesses were noted in the diary
entries, such as [I] speak a lot [during classes] respecting phonetics rules (Alicja), I
think Im pretty good at stressed syllables and -(e)s endings (Karolina), The hardest
for me was th and schwa sound. Sometimes I pronounced all words wrong (Ela).
Moreover, PLS chains provided evidence for conscious planning of pronunciation
practice.
Quite a number of pronunciation learning tactics belonged to the affective PLS.
For instance, Jessika encouraged herself: Im better and better [at pronunciation];
she approved of others compliments, When I rst heard praise I was very proud
that even other people see that Im good at it [pronunciation]; she accepted her
failures in pronunciation, Even if I dont pronounce some words well, Im not
discouraged. Similarly, Ela was grateful for being corrected by others: I appreciate
that someone tells me about my [pronunciation] mistakes and tries to correct me.
Having fun with English pronunciation was favoured by Karolina and Maciej: I
enjoy playing with Polish words pronounced with an English accent and vice versa
(Karolina), Sometimes for fun I talk with my friends as Americans or [British]
English people (Maciej). They both had a similar attitude to their pronunciation
mistakes: I have a sense of humour in relation to my mistakes in pronunciation
(Karolina), I laugh at my mistakes in English (Maciej). Generally, the trainee
teachers with low LA tended to trigger their positive affect. On the one hand, they
favoured playful approach to pronunciation learning, which created a relaxed
atmosphere. On the other hand, they seemed to understand that making
pronunciation mistakes was a part of learning and that they should not be dis-
couraged by it.
Through a number of pronunciation learning tactics belonging to the category of
social PLS, the trainee teachers who were low in LA revealed their preference for
pronunciation learning with the help of either peers or native speakers of English.
Sometimes their interactions took unconventional forms, such as regular conver-
sations via the Internet or through being a member of an international team in an
online strategy game:
At the beginning of 3rd class in high school, I registered on an international website where I
could meet people from all over the world. In a short time I met some interesting people.
We were communicating in English of course. One day I met a boy there (...) He wanted to
talk with me by Skype. I had never been so scared. (...) I agreed and we started to talk. [He]
changed my life (...) We were speaking every evening (Jessika).
By playing [online strategic games], I met many British and American native speakers.
I maintain contact with them and we talk about what interests us, that is the Second World
War (Baej).
They valued the use of English in regular contacts with others and sought
opportunities to interact and take risks. For instance, Ela said I am looking for
occasions in which I will be able to speak with natives, (...) I listen to and talk with
my colleagues [whose] pronunciation is better than mine. Jessika took a chance to
participate in an international event where she engaged in conversations: I met
many people who were speaking English: Russians, Germans and, of course,
Americans and English. It was an awesome day and the best practice in my life.
Alicja taught others and she considered it very useful for herself and for her pupils:
I also continue tutoring and when my students are asked to learn to read some text I
have an opportunity to show them some techniques or explain the rules of correct
pronunciation of British English and even say something about different accents in
different countries. She also used the opportunity to speak English abroad during
her holiday. Maciej in turn focused on correcting others: I try to improve the
pronunciation of my friends when I hear that they speak incorrectly. All in all,
social PLS were amply evidenced in the diaries of the LLA group.
The diaries of this group reflected the use of several PLS chains. For instance,
Jessika rst focused on speech while watching a lm, next she chose transcription
practice and nally she memorised the pronunciation of the selected words through
reading: Today I saw Johnny EnglishReactivation with English dubbing and
subtitles. I wrote down unknown words with phonetic transcription, I read them
many times and Im sure Ill remember them. Karolina practised her pronunciation
by watching English lms, too, but she followed different steps: Every week I watch
4 serials. I watch each one twice: once without subtitles and the second time with
subtitles [because] I can hear the accent. Probably, repetitive viewing allowed her
to notice more subtleties of English pronunciation and remember them better.
Karolina evidenced the use of another PLS chain for improving her pronunciation.
She formed a hypothesis concerning the pronunciation of a word by guessing it
before consulting the dictionary: Czytajc ksik po angielsku, gdy widz nowe
5.3 Results 169
sowo zastanawiam si jak to naley poprawnie przeczyta, a pniej dla pewnoci

sprawdzam to [While reading a book in English I wonder how to say a new word
that I encounter, then, to be sure, I check it]. Maciej tried to identify the words of a
song he was listening to, noted them down, and then compared his version with the
written song text: Staram si nie zaglda do sw piosenki, ktr sucham, po to,
eby samemu usysze sowa, ktre s w niej zawarte. Nastpnie zapisuj je i
sprawdzam czy zgadzaj si z tekstem piosentki [I try not to look at the written
transcript of the song I am listening to in order to identify the words on my own.
Next I note down the words and later I check against the transcript]. He also
deployed social and cognitive PLS simultaneously: I talk with my friends from
other countries and compare my accent with their[s].
There were a few interesting remarks written in the diaries of this group. Firstly,
many writers pointed to their self-condence in pronunciation: In general, I think
that my pronunciation is on a good way to being nice and delightful (Ela), Im good
at the th sound and stress [placement]. I think Im good at counting syllables
(Maciej), I passed the high school leaving exam quite well (I mean in speaking, I
had 95%) (Jessika). Secondly, although they scored low on LA, they were not
devoid of it and frequently indicated its interplay with spoken English: I still feel
quite nervous in many situations in which I have to talk with English speaking
people (Ela), I speak better when I am talking to myself, when no one can hear me,
because I dont feel stressed then (Karolina), I speak better when I talk with people
who I know (Maciej). Finally, they expressed concerns for lack of pronunciation
practice at schools: I hope to (...) learn the fluent pronunciation of British English
and speak as teachers should (Alicja), Unfortunatelly, at that time [primary school]
there was no time for phonetics, or no space for it in the curriculum (Ela), Now I
can see that teachers in High School and Secondary School dont care about our
pronunciation. Even [though] this is important (Karolina), or even worse, concern
over incorrect pronunciation teaching: Phonetics is hard to learn because my
teachers from primary school and gymnasium taught me wrong pronunciation of
many words (Jessika).
The group who displayed low levels of LA approached pronunciation learning in
a very diverse way. Being mostly aware of their pronunciation strengths and
weaknesses, they deployed all types of PLS and, above all else, valued contacts
with others, providing considerable evidence for the deployment of social PLS. Not
only was pronunciation learning in this group frequently associated with interacting
with either peers or native English speakers, but also with openness towards taking
risks so as to communicate messages without overdue concern for imperfect pro-
nunciation. The non-anxious trainee teachers engaged in unusual and challenging
activities that, in their opinions, positively influenced their pronunciation learning.
For instance, Baej took an unconventional approach to his phonetic diary writing.
He embedded his PLS and tactics in a military context. His diary entries were
narrated by a soldier taking part in action, who noted down his observations on the
differences between British and American accents and provided several instances of
those discrepancies in IPA. Jessika underlined her regular contacts with an English
friend and active participation in international events where she faced many
opportunities to improve her English pronunciation. Karolina and Maciej enjoyed

practising pronunciation by introducing humour.
Six anxious participants agreed to deliver their phonetic diaries. Nevertheless,
this was twice as many trainee teachers high in LA as those who took part in the
presentations and the recorded interviews, as shown in Table 5.14. Their avoidance
with regard to giving the presentations in front of the microphone might be addi-
tional evidence for their high levels of language anxiety in a situation they per-
ceived as stressful. The order of data analysis follows the PLS taxonomy adopted in
the present study, beginning with direct memory, cognitive and compensation PLS,
and nishing with indirect metacognitive, affective and social PLS.
Many HLA authors of the phonetic diaries emphasised their concern for pro-
nunciation learning. Karolina C. stressed the role of regular pronunciation practice
from the very beginning of L2 learning. She also added disapprovingly that in
primary schools, teachers do not pay attention to students correct pronunciation.
Martyna in turn paid attention to the choice of a pronunciation model: I had to
decide which pronunciation I want to learnBritish or American. Finally, Sabina
noted that working in the future as an English teacher, I would like to be an
authority for my students in terms of their good pronunciation. The above instances
imply that these highly anxious trainee teachers do care about L2 pronunciation and
are motivated to engage in its improvement.
Regarding memory PLS, several references to the use of transcription in order to
memorise the pronunciation of new or difcult words were recorded in the diaries.
For example, Karolina C., Sabina S. and Martyna included in their diary entries
several instances of transcriptions of words they were learning, such as work,
pronunciation, abbreviate, coincide, and many more. Sonia wrote: Gdy nie
wiedziaam jak wymwi sowo, zapisywaam jego wymow [When I did not know
how to pronounce a word, I noted down its pronunciation]. Sabina declared I write
down the meaning and the phonetic transcription of unknown words. Apart from
using the IPA for memorising pronunciation, the writers mentioned repetition and
recalling a teachers pronunciation as their pronunciation learning tactic: When I
learn a new difcult word, what I try to do is pronounce it very slowly. I say some
particular word very slowly 45 times to get the stress, to know where the stress is.
Then, the opposite, I speak as fast as I possibly can (Martyna), and I try to
remember my teachers pronunciation of those words which I have problems with
(Sabina S.).
More pronunciation learning tactics were detected in the cognitive PLS realm.
These could be divided into speech analysis, naturalistic and formal practicing PLS.
The rst comprised recording ones voice, focusing and noticing L2 pronunciation
Table 5.14 The number of anxious (HLA) and non-anxiuos (LLA) participants who delivered
their phonetic diaries and took part in the recorded presentations and interviews
LLA 70 HLA 88
Phonetic diaries 6 6
Presentations and interviews 6 3
5.3 Results 171
features. Martyna and Karolina explained that they register their pronunciations, for
instance, I tried to read a lot and record myself but it was a little difcult for me
(Martyna), I record my voice to hear my mispronunciation, and then listen carefully
to the recording to see where I make mistakes (Karolina C.). There were a few
examples of focusing on L2 pronunciation and noticing its features:
Zauwaam rnice w rnych sowach [I notice the difference [in pronouncing] various
words] (Sonia).
Teraz, cho zdarza mi si robi jeszcze bdy, zwracam na nie uwag i zauwaam, e
nabieram nowych, dobrych nawykw [Now, although I still make mistakes, I pay attention
to them, and I notice that I start to learn new, good habits [in pronunciation]] (Sonia).
I create in my mind a sentence with a correct pronunciation of every word before I speak
the sentence aloud (Sabina S.).
When I learn the stress [word stress placement], I am able (when people speak faster) to
pick this difcult word up. I can catch the word (Martyna).
Cognitive naturalistic PLS consisted of listening to or watching L2 native

speakers and imitating them, for instance, I very often watched BBC World News
and tried to repeat after the native speakers (Martyna), I try to repeat phrases from
songs which I heard (Martyna), What I also do is reading books and listening to
audio-books at the same time. I think this strategy can improve my pronunciation
because I can listen to the native speaker who reads the book (Martyna), Today I
listened to the BBC radio (Karolina C.), Today I watched my favourite serial
Gossip Girl without subtitles. I focussed on the speech of the main characters
(Karolina C.), Angelika mentions watching British and American series, and TV
channels such as CNN, Bloomberg TV Europe, or CNBC on a number of occa-
sions. Speaking to oneself, a naturalistic PLS, was also detected among HLA
participants: I started talking to myself in a mirror (Martyna), I spoke loudly to
myself when I was alone at home (Karolina C.).
Cognitive formal practising of PLS included completing pronunciation exercises
and reading texts, for example, I do a lot of spoken and written phonetic exercises
to improve my pronunciation skills (Sabina S.), I did the test called Test your
English pronunciation from www.antimoon.com, and I have to practice more and
more (Karolina C.), [I] did dictation exercises and stress in words on Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English (Angelika), I learned for a phonetics test
(Angelika). Karolina C. used phonemic symbols in her preparation for an oral
presentation: I rewrote all my presentation written in phonetic language [tran-
scription]. I took a lot of time but its better for me to learn pronunciation when I
look at the transcription (Karolina C.). Sabina and Martyna focused on reading: I
try to read articles in magazines and on the Internet, and fragments of books in
English (Sabina S.) I practise reading aloud which, I hope, helps me achieve
fluency in speaking (Martyna).
Two compensation PLS were found in the diaries, the rst of which was
avoiding words difcult to pronounce: I talk my way around pronouncing words
with difcult sounds (Sabina S.), and the second one pertained to checking
pronunciation with dictionaries, which seemed to be more frequent, for instance, I

check out what is the correct pronunciation. I use for this dictionaries with both
audio recordings and phonetic transcription (Martyna), Gdy nie wiedziaam jak
wymwi sowo, zapisywaam jego wymow [When I didnt know how to say a
word, I noted down its transcription] (Sonia).
The highly anxious trainee teachers enumerated a few tactics belonging to
metacognitive PLS. There was a clear reference to learning about English pro-
nunciation: I read about the rules and principles of English pronunciation (Sabina
S.), On the Internet I try to nd lessons which are interesting to me and which are
taught by native speakers. In this way I can (...) nd out the rules of American
pronunciation (Martyna), [I] watched on YouTube short movies about British
pronunciation (Angelika). Moreover, the metacognitive strategies for organising
pronunciation learning were evidenced indirectly through the descriptions of PLS
chains, discussed below. Although these PLS chains entailed a number of pro-
nunciation learning tactics, they exemplied the writers careful metacognitive
planning and conscious steps taken to achieve pronunciation learning goals.
Rare instances of both affective and social PLS were detected. Ola Z. made one
evaluative note on how her affective states influenced pronunciation: I speak better
when I am relaxed () I speak worse when I am in stress. However, she did not
suggest any strategies that she had taken to relax or reduce anxiety. Similarly,
Martyna expressed her view on pronunciation video programs (e.g., www.engrid.
com) [that] can be fun and very productive. But nothing was said as to whether she
had used them in her strategic pronunciation learning. There was hardly any ref-
erence to social PLS. Angelika mentioned her short conversation with a friend in
English, and Karolina C. admitted that she had spoken with her Italian friends via
Skype.
Furthermore, there were some PLS chains activating a number of tactics
deployed consecutively. For example, a focused listening was followed by a
memory strategy and then cognitive practice again: I try to listen to audio
recordings (). I try to memorize part of the recordings, and then say them from
memory imitating a native speaker (Martyna), or I was listening to English songs,
reading the lyrics and tried to repeat the words correctly (Angelika). While
preparing for a presentation, Sabina S. reported the following sequence: When I
need to present something to my group by reading it, the most important thing for
me is the opportunity of time to prepare for this, through reading a lot about the
topic, through working with a dictionary, and, of course, through delivering the text
of my presentation several times aloud to myself in a mirror (Sabina S.). Careful
planning over time indicated her use of metacognitive strategies combined with
cognitive PLS. Martyna and Karolina also noted down clusters of cognitive PLS
consciously selected and deployed in a sequence: Every time I look up a word, I
read its phonetic transcription. Then I listen to the recording and try to imitate it
(Martyna), I listened to some English songs and paid attention to how they pro-
nounced each word. I also sing with appropriate diction (Karolina C.), Today I
decided to use my electronic dictionary. I took some readings and started to read
5.3 Results 173
aloud. There was a lot of words which I didnt know, so rst I checked their
phonetic transcription and then I articulated them (Karolina C.).
All in all, a considerable amount of effort in pronunciation learning with memory
(repetitions, use of transcription), cognitive (naturalistic and formal practice), com-
pensation (avoidance, using dictionaries and transcription), and metacognitive
(reading more about pronunciation, planning and applying PLS chains) strategies was
evidenced in the HLA groups diaries, whereas affective and social PLS were scarce.
The qualitative data from presentations, semi-structured interviews and phonetic
diaries provided more evidence, creating a bigger picture of PLS as deployed by
trainee teachers with low and high levels of LA. These ndings generally support
the quantitative data. Summarizing the quantitative and qualitative ndings pre-
sented in this chapter, the following conclusions might be drawn:
The female trainee teachers in this study are more anxious than the male trainee
teachers
They deploy compensation PLS more frequently than the male trainee teachers
Compensation and memory PLS are used more frequently in the case of a higher
LA level
Higher input anxiety levels are connected with less frequent use of social PLS
Higher processing anxiety levels correlate with more frequent use of compen-
sation PLS
Higher output anxiety levels coexist with more frequent use of compensation as
well as less frequent use of affective and social PLS
Anxious students declare a more frequent deployment of the following pro-
nunciation learning tactics:
using transcription and checking pronunciation in dictionaries,
recalling the teachers pronunciation,
speaking slowly to get the pronunciation right,
rehearsing pronunciation mentally and noting down the pronunciation of
difcult words before speaking,
avoiding words which are difcult to pronounce,
using mimes and gestures,
resorting to other sources (e.g., electronic dictionaries) for compensation
investing more effort in preparation before an oral performance
learning pronunciation through repetition and formal practice.
Students with low levels of language anxiety declare a more frequent deploy-
ment of the following pronunciation learning tactics:
noticing the difference between Polish and English pronunciation,
talking with people around in English,
taking more risks,
valuing social contacts in pronunciation learning,
deploying orchestrated PLS chains while preparing for presentations
deploying individualised affective pronunciation learning tactics
The aim of this section was to present the details of the study and the analyses of
ndings from the research into the interplay of language anxiety and pronunciation
learning strategies of the trainee teachers who are in the process of mastering their
English pronunciation. The data were collected through questionnaires, presenta-
tions, semi-structured interviews and phonetic diaries, and analysed quantitatively
and qualitatively. The next section centres around the discussion of the results with
reference to the research questions and the hypotheses. It proposes plausible
explanations and interpretations of the results.
5.4 Discussion
This section presents a discussion of the ndings that have been reported earlier.
For clarity, the order follows the three research questions and hypotheses proposed
previously in Sect. 5.1. First, the language anxiety levels addressed in the rst
research question (RQ1) are scrutinised in order to obtain a general overview of the
research area crucial for this study. This is followed by a discussion concerning the
second research question (RQ2) regarding pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics. Finally, the deliberations associated with the third research question (RQ3),
and the hypotheses stemming from it, concerning the relationship between the
language anxiety levels and the deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics are approached.
5.4.1 Language Anxiety Levels of EFL Trainee Teachers
The rst research question RQ1: What are the levels of language anxiety among
EFL trainee teachers? is formulated to provide a broad picture of an anxious
language learner who is an advanced EFL student training to become an EFL
teacher. The average LA level reported in the study can be interpreted as moderate,
because it reaches a value which is lower than the mid-value between the minimum
and maximum score obtained on the FLCAS. Compared to Piechurska-Kuciels
(2008) study, where the adolescent secondary school students in Poland report their
LA levels (year 186.85, year 282.75; year 380.70), in the present study
slightly older EFL learners report LA levels whose mean value is lower.
Interestingly, this fact concurs with international research (e.g., Arnaiz & Guilln,
2012; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Hismanoglu, 2013), supporting the
claim that the levels of LA gradually decrease in time. In other words, older
learners, who are more experienced in L2 learning and frequently more procient,
tend to be less anxious in their process of L2 learning than their less trained
counterparts. This might be explained through taking into account their levels of
familiarity with L2 and novelty appraisal. Due to an extended exposure to
5.4 Discussion 175
classroom L2 learning, more advanced EFL individuals are familiarised with a

range of pedagogical approaches and classroom scenarios, which might affect the
way they appraise the language learning situation. Those who are novice students
face more unexpected classroom behaviours that might evoke more negative
appraisals.
Even though the LA levels of EFL trainee teachers are not high, there are
interesting discrepancies between female and male trainee teachers. The ndings
conrm gender differences in the levels of LA. The reported results also show that
these differences are consistently signicant in LA levels associated with three
cognitive processing stages: Input Anxiety, Processing Anxiety, and Output
Anxiety. Female trainee teachers exhibit signicantly higher LA levels than men
while receiving the input for L2 learning, also during the phase of processing
information associated, among others, with memory capacity, and nally at the
output stage when pronunciation plays a supportive role in L2 speaking. These
results are in line with the studies of, for instance, Hismanoglu (2013), Mahmood
and Iqbal (2010), Mesri (2012), and Piechurska-Kuciel (2008).
The explanation might be embedded in the perceived cultural roles of women
and men, as Capan and Simsek (2012) suggest while discussing the interplay
between LA and gender. In Poland, following Piechurska-Kuciel (2012), females
are expected to pay more attention to the quality of their work, devote more time to
studying regularly, and have a more positive attitude to language learning (p. 239)
than males. From early stages of their Polish education, girls are envisaged as more
diligent students of humanities subjects, including foreign languages; whereas boys
are expected to take a more scientic focus. Although the educational policy in
Poland has recently made efforts to change this cultural image, for example through
the introduction of maths as a compulsory subject on the high school leaving
examination, the associations connected with girls and boys roles still exist. In
consequence, women feel a greater pressure in L2 learning to full the expectations
that may augment their LA levels.
Moreover, biological gender differences may create conditions for the signicant
female-male discrepancies in LA levels observed in this study. Throughout their
mature lives, women experience cyclically swinging doses of hormones which are
the most probable causes of their anxiety sensitivity, leading to the augmented LA
experience (ibid., p. 239). Finally, lower levels of LA among male trainee teachers
might also be attributed to the assumption that men in many cultures, Polish
included, may feel reluctant to acknowledge feelings of anxiety because these are
perceived as a form of non-masculine weakness (Capan & Simsek, 2012).
Another interesting set of data regarding Input, Processing and Output Anxieties
indicate the role of anxiety in language processing. The results conrm that there
are signicant differences in anxieties at all three cognitive processing stages
between the groups of EFL trainee teachers both high and low in LA. In other
words, the anxious participants levels of Input, Processing and Output Anxieties
are signicantly higher than those of more relaxed individuals. Moreover, these
levels have a rising tendency in both groups. More specically, the Output Anxiety
level is higher than the Processing Anxiety level, whereas the Input Anxiety level is
the lowest of all for participants of low and high LA levels. It may be inferred that
the processes at the three consecutive stages suffer along with the systematically
increasing levels of LA. For instance, an anxious EFL trainee teacher may have
problems with attending to, concentrating on, and encoding (cf. Piechurska-Kuciel,
2008), among other areas, pronunciation aspects of a target language. At a high LA
level, L2 sounds may not be noticed and encoded appropriately, limiting the
quantity and quality of the input. This in turn may lead to an increased appre-
hension at the next stage, where the input is cognitively processed. There, mem-
orisation and retrieval of the information, for example concerning L2 sounds, is
hindered by an even higher language anxiety level than that at the previous stage.
An anxious pronunciation learner has to face a particularly demanding challenge at
the output stage, when expected to perform in L2. This is due to an awareness of his
or her L2 pronunciation limitations which is generated at the earlier stages of
linguistic processing. Since this performance is associated with the peer or teacher
evaluation of the speakers pronunciation, fluency, and other linguistic aspects, the
anxious individuals apprehension escalates.
In conclusion, the EFL trainee teachers exhibit on average a moderate level of
LA, which is lower than that reported in the study on LA in secondary grammar
school students in Poland (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). These outcomes support the
claim that LA decreases in time with growing prociency. Moreover, the study also
conrms that higher levels of LA are observed among females than males. Finally,
LA levels increase at each stage of cognitive processing, regardless of the general
LA level.
5.4.2 Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics

of EFL Trainee Teachers
Apart from language anxiety, this study has concentrated on a second area of
researchpronunciation learning strategies and tactics, which are addressed in the
second research question (RQ2): What are the pronunciation learning strategies
and tactics of EFL trainee teachers? In order to respond to this, a discussion on the
frequency of use of both pronunciation learning strategies and tactics precedes the
deliberations concerning the role of gender in PLS application.
Generally, as measured with the PLSI, the results indicate the following PLS use
from most to least frequent: affective, compensation, cognitive, metacognitive,
memory, and social. On average, PLS are used moderately frequently, not
exceeding the threshold of highly frequent usage, according to Oxford (1990) (cf.
Sect. 5.2.4). The only PLS category approximating the highly frequent usage is the
affective category. Therefore, it can be inferred that generally EFL trainee teachers
associate their pronunciation learning with the affective domain. This goes in line
with Guiora et al.s (1983) classic research, indicating the interplay between
affective variables and pronunciation, discussed in Sect. 2.1.3.1. In brief, L2
5.4 Discussion 177
pronunciation is associated with the activation of the area of the right-brain

hemisphere responsible for affect. The way a learner pronounces an L2 is associated
with the degree he or she accepts a new self, a new identity (Guiora, Buchtel,
Herold, Homburg, & Woken, 1972). Affective pronunciation learning strategies
may be perceived as remedies alleviating the negative affective states triggered by
L2 pronunciation. For instance, the pronunciation learning tactics that constitute
this category entail a positive approach towards pronunciation mistakes, an element
of joy, self-encouragement, the role of risk taking and self-praise in the process of
pronunciation acquisition. The highly frequent deployment of the affective PLS
may reflect the individuals positive approach to English pronunciation learning,
which is also conrmed in the diary narratives. Particularly those participants with
low LA levels describe their original approaches to pronunciation learning entailing
affect. For instance, they play with their pronunciation, and they are encouraged by
others or encourage themselves to practice pronunciation.
The least frequently used pronunciation learning strategy belongs, surprisingly,
to the social category. The trainee teachers comparatively rarely ask others to
correct pronunciation, interact in English, learn pronunciation with others, and
teach or help peers with English pronunciation. There might be several reasons for
this. Firstly, all the participants of the study are Polish and trained in Poland, where
English has the status of a foreign language. Thus, the most frequent language
among trainee teachers in out-of-class communication is Polish. Interacting in
English among Polish native speakers is approached as a short-time experience,
sometimes perceived as articial. Consequently, interacting with others in English
and asking others to correct English pronunciation might occur infrequently.
Secondly, occasional teaching of pronunciation to others may reflect the status of
EFL pronunciation teaching in Poland. Having rarely been taught pronunciation by
their teachers, the trainee teachers may perceive the role of pronunciation teaching
as marginal. Moreover, teaching pronunciation requires the expertise they lack.
A more detailed picture of the participants preferences and choices in pro-
nunciation learning can be drawn on the basis of the results referring to pronun-
ciation learning tactics. The most frequently chosen tactic is listening to tapes,
television, movies or music in English. This should not be surprising in the era of
open access to authentic materials designed for native speakers of English, for
purposes which include entertainment. In the qualitative part of the study the trainee
teachers declare that they often choose this approach for pronunciation learning
because it gives them pleasure and enjoyment. Additionally, this approach is
receptive from the perspective of pronunciation learning. In other words, an indi-
vidual passively receives the stimulus. However, the second most frequent tactic
imitating native speakers and teachers pronunciationis more productive, and
requires an element of active engagement on the part of the learner. This result, in
line with Wrembel (2008), seems to be of vital importance for EFL teachers whose
pronunciation may strongly affect that of their students, choosing to learn pro-
nunciation through imitation. The next tactic, in order of frequency, is I repeat
pronunciation of a difcult word over and over. Repetition has been observed as a
popular approach to pronunciation learning by Pawlak (2006, 2008). Inclass
pronunciation practice frequently exploits drilling techniques (cf. Celce-Murcia,

Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010; Komorowska, 2005). Students are well
familiarised with this approach and this might be the reason why they also choose
repetition in order to learn pronunciation outside classroom. This in turn calls for
pronunciation learning strategy training programmes, the implementation of which
may raise L2 learners awareness of an array of strategies available for pronunci-
ation acquisition.
The least frequently used tactics are voice recording and inventing songs and
rhymes to memorise pronunciation. The rst of these tactics requires the access to
the recording equipment, knowledge of English pronunciation aspects and at least
minimal analytical skills on the part of the learners. Additionally, the authors
experience in in-class voice recording sessions indicates that an affective aspect
may play a role. Simply, some EFL learners dislike listening to their voices,
regardless of the language of the recording. On hearing their recorded samples, they
report that their voices sound different, unnatural, or distorted. For these reasons,
this approach to pronunciation learning may not be favoured. The second of the
least frequent tacticsinventing songs and rhymestriggers a degree of creativity.
In order to memorise, for instance, a word pronunciation through rhymes, the
students need to invest not only time but also some effort in the search for another
rhyming word. Perhaps the participants of the study were not ready for such
investments. All in all, the tactics deployed by the participants are more often
cognitively less demanding than those least frequently used.
Analysis of the use of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics from the
perspective of gender differences is justiable due to the inconclusive results of
many studies on learning strategies (cf. Grifths, 2013). In the present investigation,
there are no signicant gender differences in the overall use of PLS. However,
having scrutinized the results from the perspective of PLS categories, a signicant
disparity in the female-male application of compensation PLS is discovered.
Women use compensation PLS more frequently. To explain this, a brief reference
to pronunciation accuracy is helpful. Moyer (2013) asserts that there are premises
for claims that women concentrate more on accuracy of pronunciation. If this is the
case, females may also resort to a more frequent use of compensation PLS in order
to avoid inaccuracies. Additionally, a social aspect of womanhood may play a role.
From their early school days, girls are expected to be accurate and high quality
language learners (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2012). Therefore, avoiding words which are
difcult to pronounce, using synonyms or circumlocution may lead them to more
accurate pronunciation outcomes. This justication, however, still needs to be
substantiated.
Eight pronunciation learning tactics are deployed signicantly more frequently
by women. These tactics refer to noting down words which are difcult to pro-
nounce before an oral presentation, checking and listening to pronunciation in
dictionaries, using phonetic symbols or personal code. These all require some
additional mental effort in the process of pronunciation learning, which females are
ready to invest in (Gu, 2002). There might be another reason why females in the
study devote more energy to improving pronunciation. They are more anxious than
5.4 Discussion 179
males, and a high language anxiety level may trigger mechanisms for investing a
greater cognitive effort in order to reach a satisfactory outcome. Two pronunciation
learning tactics belonging to compensation PLS are used more frequently by
females. These are avoiding words which are difcult to pronounce, and asking for
help with pronunciation problems. The avoidance approach may be connected with
the affective dimension of an individual. Unless a word pronunciation is perceived
as easy, there is a risk of mispronouncing it, which is face threatening. In order to
avoid the danger of being negatively evaluated on the basis of an incorrect pro-
nunciation, females resort either to not uttering the word, or to asking others for
support in its pronunciation. Women also imitate teacher movements of speech
organs, and try to recall how teachers pronounce a given word more frequently.
Being diligent students focused on accuracy, females pay attention to the pro-
nunciation model applied by the instructor, and try to follow it in their approaches
to pronunciation learning.
The men in the study apply three pronunciation tactics more often than the
women. They choose to deliver a presentation without notes rather than to read it
out from a script. They also choose to record their pronunciation or notice L1 and
L2 pronunciation differences more usually than females. The rst two tactics are
associated with risk taking in the production of L2 pronunciation. Delivering an
oral presentation without the help of a written text may trigger a greater risk of
deviating from the pre-planned content, but generates more extemporaneous
speech, which is rich in terms of a more natural delivery of the suprasegmental
pronunciation features, such as rhythm and intonation. The application of this tactic
may also be associated with low LA levels. Apparently, male participants are more
prone to taking risks because they may not perceive the oral presentation as a
detrimental experience. Moreover, males, whose language anxiety levels in the
study are signicantly lower than those of the females, choose to register their
voices to learn L2 pronunciation more often. They may have a more relaxed attitude
to the outcomes of the recordings; whereas anxious female students, on hearing
their recorded pronunciation, may feel dissatised with their voice quality, which in
turn leads to lower pronunciation self-evaluation, boosting language anxiety levels.
In consequence, females may avoid the tactic consisting in pronunciation recording
and voice analysis. However, it must be noted that, in general, voice recording is
one of the least frequently used tactics by the participants of the study. Lastly,
language anxiety may play a role as a moderator variable in gender differences as
far as noticing L1 and L2 pronunciation differences is concerned. Higher anxiety
levels in women may block the cognitive ability to distinguish subtle L1 and L2
sound differences, so they do not deploy this tactic because it is not perceived as
effective.
5.4.3 The Interplay Between Language Anxiety

and Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Tactics
The third research question, RQ3: What is the relationship between the levels of
language anxiety and the deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics? addresses the interplay between the two broad research areas scrutinized
above. The discussion focuses on the results from correlational statistics, providing
plausible explanations for the outcomes regarding the relationship between the
overall use of PLS and LA, as well as PLS categories and Input, Processing and
Output Anxieties.
No signicant value for the correlation coefcient was found between the overall
use of PLS and LA levels measured with the PLSI and the FLCAS respectively.
This outcome may indicate that the construct of PLS should be viewed as an
ensemble of strategies and tactics that are applied individually in a given context
and for a specic goal, in this case, for the purpose of pronunciation learning. This
set varies depending on an individual. Therefore, some PLS and tactics may
interplay positively with individual differences, but others may not. This line of
inquiry is supported by Grifths (2013), who calls for cautious consideration of the
existing taxonomies and careful interpretation of the results, which should reflect
learning contexts, participants characteristics, and their learning goals. Lack of
signicant correlation between overall frequency of PLS use and LA, however,
does not exclude mutual interplay, which may occur at a more microscopic level of
pronunciation learning strategy and tactic usage. This result may also indicate that
more nely-tuned statistical measures are needed to investigate the mutual interplay
between PLS and LA.
Language anxiety levels differ not only across learners but also within one
learner, when experiencing anxiety at various language processing stages. The
results from the correlational statistics on the relationship between Input,
Processing, Output Anxieties and PLS use provide some interesting data discussed
below.
There are positive relationships between Compensation PLS and general LA, as
well as anxieties experienced at the processing and output stages of language
processing. These results comply with Eysenck and Calvos (1992) processing
efciency theory and Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2012) integrated model of
anxiety and perceptual-motor performance discussed in Sect. 3.1.2. In other words,
high LA levels experienced by L2 pronunciation learners generate worrisome
thoughts, which in turn trigger the use of pronunciation learning strategies to
compensate for inadequate pronunciation processing and performance. More
specically, anxiety impedes cognitive processing by distracting a learner from
focusing on a task. In order to make up for these impediments, a learner employs
compensation strategies, for example compensation pronunciation learning strate-
gies, to improve the outcome (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009). In a similar vein,
Eysenck (1979) postulates that highly anxious learners, conscious of the causes of
cognitive interference anxiety, try to increase their efforts in order to achieve their
5.4 Discussion 181
learning goals. Compensation PLS seem to serve an important role in the process of
pronunciation learning for highly anxious students, particularly those who suffer
from high levels of anxiety at the processing and output stages. These strategies
enable them either to avoid difcult phonetic aspects or approach pronunciation by
investing their effort in preparation.
A negative interplay is noted between affective PLS and LA at the output stage.
This outcome indicates that anxiety experienced at the output stage, for example
while pronouncing L2, interplays with affective strategies, such as an ability to use
positive self-talk about ones pronunciation, or having a sense of humour con-
cerning ones mispronunciations. The evidence shows that an L2 learner high in
Output LA, while performing in L2, does not seem to consider affective PLS as
worth applying in this situation which evokes apprehension. Two components of
language anxiety: fear of negative evaluation and communication apprehension
may block positive self-talk because anxious L2 users perceive pronouncing L2 in
front of others as threatening. Moreover, awareness of the fact that others notice
their mispronunciations may further affect their apprehension and minimize their
strategic approach based on a sense of humour towards pronunciation mistakes.
Signicant weak negative values of correlation coefcients are found between
social PLS and Input as well as Output LA levels. The more frequently the trainee
teachers interact with others in order to learn English pronunciation, the lower are
the Input and Output Anxiety levels they exhibit. In L2 pronunciation learning,
learners with a high LA level at the input and output stages of cognitive processing
tend to avoid social PLS, and they rarely engage in interactions in order to improve
their L2 pronunciation. Collaborative pronunciation learning is not the preferred
option for them. They may be afraid of a negative social evaluation. Moreover, a
high LA level partially blocks the information to be taken in, which may result in
poor pronunciation progress. In other words, anxious L2 learners avoid practising
pronunciation with others, who are perceived as anxiety inducing. If anxious stu-
dents are to cooperate in their pronunciation practice, their input and output anxiety
levels are so high that they have difculty in absorbing the messages they aim to
learn, and they are afraid of performing in front of others. For these reasons social
strategies may not be perceived as effective by anxious learners. For example, a task
based on identifying vocalic sounds in minimal pairs performed in pairs may be
viewed as difcult for an individual exhibiting high input anxiety. He or she, faced
with a partner pronouncing minimal pairs, may not recognise subtle differences
between vowels because Input Anxiety blocks the information to be cognitively
processed. Additionally, learners high in Output Anxiety, triggering worrisome
thoughts about negative social evaluation, may have problems with pronouncing
these sounds. This in turn may lead to avoidance of cooperation in L2 pronunci-
ation learning.
5.4.4 Deployment of Pronunciation Learning Strategies

and Tactics Amongst Groups of Trainee Teachers
Displaying Both High and Low Levels of Language
Anxiety
In this section the response to the third research question (RQ3) is substantiated
with the discussion on the results generated from a stronger statistical measure, a
t-test, that was applied to address the more detailed hypothesis H: The deployment
of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee
teachers displaying high and low levels of language anxiety, and six derivative
hypotheses: Haf, proposed in Sect. 5.1. Additionally, the deliberations on the
qualitative data supplement the reply to RQ3.
The hypothesis (H): The deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and
tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of
language anxiety draws the attention to two groups of the trainee teachers: those
reporting high and low LA levels. So far the discussion has pertained to the cor-
relational statistical measures of the results, referring to the relationship between the
deployment of PLS and LA levels. Below, PLS and tactics are explored from the
perspective of the two groups. The result of a t-test for independent samples
regarding the overall use of PLS by the trainee teachers exhibiting low and high LA
levels fully corroborates H.
The individuals high in LA use pronunciation learning strategies signicantly
more frequently than the EFL trainee teachers low in LA. The processing efciency
theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) may provide a plausible
explanation for this. The cognitive element of anxietyworrylimits cognitive
processing capacity and triggers motivation to decrease anxiety. This motivation in
turn stimulates an increased effort in applying available resources to compensate for
the decient performance caused by anxiety. In other words, if a highly anxious
individual wants to achieve a goal, for example to pronounce an utterance properly,
his or her cognitive processing while pronunciation learning will be affected by his
or her language anxiety, limiting the potential outcome. At the same time, he or she
may be driven to additionally apply the available resources, for instance, pronun-
ciation learning strategies, to make up for the impairments to performance resulting
from worrisome thoughts. For this reason, anxious pronunciation learners may
deploy more PLS, particularly those which learners perceive as effective, familiar
and non-threatening. Motivated individuals are simply internally driven to apply
PLS to compensate for their potentially poor pronunciation. Those individuals who
are low in LA do not have that drive resulting from anxiety, which might prompt
them to use auxiliary resources; therefore, they deploy PLS less frequently while
learning L2 pronunciation. This interpretation, however, is tentative and requires a
more in-depth investigation. The focus on more detailed hypotheses, proposed as
the derivatives of H, draws attention to particular pronunciation learning categories
and tactics.
5.4 Discussion 183
Another explanation may be proposed within the framework of Carver and

Scheiers (2014) control-system self-regulation model described in Sect. 3.1.2. This
model claries the place of anxiety in self-regulated goal-directed processes. An
individual who sets a goal to acquire a target language pronunciation also has
standards or guidelines for achieving it. In other words, he or she knows the target
model and is aware of his or her current pronunciation. Pronunciation learning
strategies and tactics are actions and behaviours that a learner chooses on their way
towards the goal. Having deployed a selected tactic, he or she confronts its effec-
tiveness and compares existing conditions with the desired ones. This process,
referred to as a feedback loop, is repeated in time. If the perceived discrepancies
between the existing and target pronunciation diminish, the learners self-regulated
behaviour moves towards achieving the goal. However, according to Carver and
Scheier (2014), the rate of progress is determined by the affective loop. Anxiety
emerges when the perceived progress is not satisfactory to an individual. In this
case, even though a number of pronunciation learning tactics are deployed, the
sense of progress towards achieving a desired pronunciation is minimal, and as a
result anxiety is activated. This model provides a plausible explanation for the way
in which deployment of pronunciation learning strategies and tactics may interplay
with anxiety.
The following hypothesis (Ha): The deployment of memory pronunciation
learning strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying
high and low levels of language anxiety has been partially corroborated. The results
conrm that the overall deployment of memory pronunciation learning strategies is
signicantly more frequent among anxious EFL participants than among the
non-anxious ones; however, at the level of tactics, only two out of six are used to a
signicantly different level in high and low LA groups.
Anxious trainee teachers deploy memory PLS signicantly more frequently than
their more relaxed counterparts. This result underscores the salience of this PLS
category in pronunciation learning among anxious and non-anxious trainee teach-
ers. The deliberations on the nature of memory strategies may add to the expla-
nation of these results. Firstly, according to Grifth (2013), memory strategies
termed base strategiesare more frequently deployed among less advanced stu-
dents. Although the participants of the study are all advanced L2 learners, they
might not be perceived as such with reference to English pronunciation learning,
since their pronunciation course has been limited to 60 contact hours. Therefore, as
inexperienced pronunciation learners, those who suffer from high levels of LA also
rely largely on memorisation strategies.
Secondly, pronunciation aspects are frequently taught through repetition
enhancing memorisation in class, for instance minimal pairs practice. Thus, anxious
students are well familiarised with this approach to pronunciation learning and they
resort to what is already known. They adapt a set of non-threatening, in their view,
but mechanical strategies. Therefore, repetitions belonging to memory PLS may be
perceived as safe strategies for pronunciation learning.
Finally, memory strategies are not deep processing strategies (cf. Oxford, 2011),
which facilitate long-term retention and, in consequence, learning. The deployment
of memory PLS largely consists in shallow processing, devoid of making lasting

mental associations. Additionally, LA may limit memorisation at the processing
stage of cognitive operations (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b). Eysenck and Calvos
(1992) processing efciency theory attempts to interpret the relationship between
anxiety and working memory system, where task-irrelevant thoughts triggered by
anxiety disturb the proper functioning of memory components: central executive,
phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad. Therefore, acquiring L2 pronunci-
ation through memorisation may be linked to the limited ability of deeper pro-
cessing of an anxious learner. A high level of LA may divide the full cognitive
potential of a learner between worrisome thoughts and focus on pronunciation
learning, during which he or she chooses PLS strategies to achieve a goal. These
distractive thoughts, however, limit the use of deeper processing pronunciation
learning strategies, giving way to more frequent deployment of shallow processing
strategies, like memory PLS, which are perceived as effective and non-threatening.
In other words, an anxious learner tries to maximise the outcome of pronunciation
learning by a more frequent application of memory strategies. Despite their frequent
use of memory PLS, the L2 pronunciation performance might not necessarily be
satisfying. Tentative as they are, such conclusions require more detailed investi-
gation into the tripartite interplay of LA, PLS, and pronunciation performance.
The memory pronunciation learning tactics more often deployed by anxious
trainee teachers are: using phonetic symbols or code to remember how to pronounce
words in English and trying to recall how teachers pronounced a given word. The
trainee teachers who display high levels of LA also report a frequent deployment of
memory PLS in their diaries. While learning English pronunciation, an anxious
individual adheres to the transcription that instigates pronunciation memorisation:
for example Sonia, Sabina and Martyna note down the transcription of words in
order to internalize pronunciation. Apparently, the application of the symbols is
apperceived as effective despite the increased mental effort this tactic requires on
the part of the learner, who needs to learn the code rst, deduce how to transfer the
sounds to the code or check the transcription in a dictionary, note down the symbols
and memorise them. Pronunciation learners suffering from high LA may resort to
memorising English enunciation with the help of phonetic symbols or their own
codes, because they perceive this as facilitative and non-threatening. Similarly, they
nd recalling their teachers pronunciation of a given word useful. Regrettably,
little is known about the effectiveness of these attempts on L2 pronunciation out-
comes. Nevertheless, this fact draws attention to the signicance of the teachers
pronunciation as a model for L2 learners. Moreover, repetition is frequently
reported by the anxious participants. As stated earlier, this may be explained by the
degree of familiarity of the students to the listen-and-repeat technique often used in
in-class pronunciation learning. Knowing the technique of repetition well, an
anxious individual may perceive it as safe and accept it as a helpful strategy in
memorizing L2 pronunciation.
The second narrower hypothesis (Hb): The deployment of cognitive pronunci-
ation learning strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers dis-
playing high and low levels of language anxiety cannot be totally rejected.
5.4 Discussion 185
Although there is no signicant difference in the overall frequency of use for

cognitive pronunciation learning strategies and most cognitive tactics, there are
instances of tactics that are signicantly more frequently depoyed by anxious
participants and one interesting tactic that the trainee teachers who are low in LA
tend to use more often than their anxious peers.
The quantitative analysis has revealed that anxious trainee teachers mentally
rehearse how to say something before speaking signicantly more frequently than
the non-anxious individuals. The role of this cognitive pronunciation learning tactic
is also emphasised in the anxious participants presentations and diaries.
Additionally, they record focusing on pronunciation exercises, using dictionaries to
check pronunciation and reading aloud. This shows their readiness to invest some
effort in their preparation for oral performance. Their behaviour appears to comply
with the following maxim: the better I prepare before a presentation, the more
condent I may feel during the performance.
The participants low in LA report a more frequent use of one pronunciation
learning tactic, classied among cognitive PLS, which refers to noticing differences
between Polish and English pronunciation. This is conrmed in qualitative analysis.
The concept of noticing is viewed as indispensable in L2 acquisition (cf. Ellis,
2008, p. 265). Schmidt (1990) proposes the Noticing Hypothesis, which, in its
strong form, states that input must be noticed in order to be taken in and then
processed; in other words, learning cannot take place without noticing. Therefore,
acquiring new phonological representations should be preceded by noticing the
differences between L1 and L2 pronunciation features. In this sense, this pronun-
ciation learning tactic seems to play a crucial role in the process of L2 pronunci-
ation acquisition. Additionally, a high level of LA may distract pronunciation
learners from noticing L1 and L2 pronunciation differences, and therefore only
learners low in LA nd this tactic useful and applicable in L2 pronunciation
learning. Moreover, the tactic based on noticing the difference between Polish and
English pronunciation entails cognitive processing at the input stage. Following
Tobiass (1986 in MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a) model, LA may impair functioning
of all three stages: input, processing, and output. Therefore, highly anxious learners
may have problems with noticing disparities in Polish and English sound systems.
Consequently, they do not nd the tactic based on noticing pronunciation contrasts
applicable to their pronunciation learning.
Compensation pronunciation learning strategies and tactics are targeted in the
following hypothesis (Hc): The deployment of compensation pronunciation
learning strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying
high and low levels of language anxiety, which is fully corroborated. These
strategies are used signicantly more frequently by anxious participants than their
non-anxious counterparts. Since the explanation regarding compensation pronun-
ciation learning strategies has been addressed in Sect. 5.4.3, the discussion below
concentrates on compensation tactics.
As many as ve out of seven compensation pronunciation learning tactics are
frequently deployed by highly anxious teacher trainees: avoiding saying words
which are difcult to pronounce, using mime or gesture, checking the phonetic
symbols of the words from a dictionary, listening to pronunciation of words from

electronic or multimedia dictionaries and asking someone to pronounce difcult
words. By applying them, the anxious individuals show how important it is for
them to avoid pronunciation mistakes. Either avoidance or careful and effortful
pronunciation preparation are the preferred options for the anxious trainee teachers.
The compensation tactics, such as avoiding saying words which are difcult to
pronounce, or using mime or gesture belong in fact to avoidance strategies, the use
of which is reported to interplay with LA (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). Therefore,
highly anxious pronunciation learners apply them to protect the ego (e.g., cog-
nitive or affective avoidance) and [these strategies might] serve the purpose of
reducing, at least temporarily, tension, physiological arousal and intense negative
feelings (p. 213). If an anxious pronunciation learner avoids pronouncing difcult
words, he or she fails to take the risk of mispronouncing them, protecting himself or
herself from the negative evaluation of others, but limiting the opportunities to learn
at the same time.
However, not all compensation pronunciation learning tactics deployed fre-
quently by anxious L2 learners may be qualied as avoidance strategies. There are
several which focus on an increased mental effort on the part of the pronunciation
learner in order to solve problems, for instance checking the phonetic symbols of the
words from a dictionary, listening to pronunciation of words from electronic or
multimedia dictionaries and asking someone to pronounce difcult words. These
form, together with two other frequently used tactics (rehearsing mentally how to
say something in English before speakingcognitive and while preparing for a
presentation, noting down words that are difcult to pronouncemetacognitive), a
set of tactics the anxious trainee teachers choose in their pronunciation learning.
Characteristic of these tactics is that they require a greater effort on the part of a
learner in perfecting English pronunciation. Using dictionaries, transcription and
working on pronunciation before giving presentations seem to serve the same
purpose as avoidance strategies, namely avoiding risk taking, a negative evaluation
of committing a pronunciation mistake, and face-threatening situations. The
increased effort put into preparation for pronunciation performance is perceived by
an anxious pronunciation learner as important and, to some extent, protective: the
more effort that is put into the stage of preparation, the less threatening the pro-
nunciation performance might be perceived.
Compensation strategies, recorded as being amply used in the quantitative
analysis by the anxious trainee teachers, are less numerous in the presentations,
semi-structured inteviews and diaries. Moreover, the qualitative reports on com-
pensation PLS in the anxous and non-anxious groups do not differ signicantly.
This might be explained by the fact that a compensation strategy may be used in a
particular, highly unpredictable situation. During the period of writing the diary or
giving the presentation, the participants may not have experienced too many situ-
ations of this sort. Hence, their qualitative record of compensation PLS is low.
From among the eight metacognitive pronunciation learning tactics, one related
to the preparation for the oral presentation is deployed differently by anxious and
non-anxious group members, which proves that the hypothesis (Hd): The
5.4 Discussion 187
deployment of metacognitive pronunciation learning strategies and tactics differs in

the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and low levels of language anxiety
cannot be rejected. While preparing for a presentation, those individuals high in LA
declare a more frequent application of the tactic, consisting in noting down those
words which are difcult to pronounce. Putting some effort into planning delivery
of an oral presentation is an increased attempt on the part of the individuals high in
LA to compensate for the potential failure in approaching a situation that is per-
ceived as apprehensive. In order to avoid a negative evaluation in the case of
mispronounced areas of a presentation performed in front of others, an anxious L2
learner chooses to plan and organise this oral performance well beforehand, for
instance by checking and noting down problematic enunciation.
It is of vital importance to emphasise the deployment of pronunciation learning
strategy chains among the trainee teachers low in LA, revealed with the support of
the qualitative tools. The non-anxious students report cautiously planned and
deliberate approaches to pronunciation learning through the deployment of two or
more pronunciation learning tactics which are logically sequenced. This orches-
tration frequently entails tactics focusing on practice with authentic recordings and
a selected pronunciation aspect. Surprisingly enough, the anxious students also
declare their use of PLS chains. However, their chains mostly consist of two
pronunciation learning tactics, so they are not as elaborate as those reported by the
less anxious students. Interesting as this is, the deployment of pronunciation
learning strategy chains is still an under-researched area, and it is too early to make
any generalisations without further investigations.
The hypothesis (He): The deployment of affective pronunciation learning
strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and
low levels of language anxiety is rejected on the basis of the results from the t-test.
This may be explained by the fact that the affective PLS in the study are the most
frequently used strategies of all, regardless of LA levels, which is discussed in
Sect. 5.4.2. However, the correlational measurement indicates that one affective
tactic referring to taking risks in pronunciation, is reported signicantly more often
by less anxious trainee teachers. This tendency may be explained by the fact that
less anxious learners are not so afraid of their mispronunciations in front of others,
they do not focus on negative evaluation in the case of failure and are ready to take
risks in order to learn appropriate pronunciation. Saito and Samimy (1996) also
agree that highly anxious learners take fewer risks than their non-anxious coun-
terparts, who may be more insensitive to any appraisal associated with mispro-
nunciations, and take more risks also with regard to their pronunciation.
Interestingly enough, the qualitative results of the study emphasise an affective
approach to pronunciation learning among trainee teachers whose LA is low.
Creating a relaxed atmosphere and triggering a positive affect while learning
English pronunciation appears to be important in this group, whose members use
positive self-talk about their pronunciation abilities, play with their pronunciation,
laugh at pronunciation mistakes and appreciate being corrected by others. Unlike
more anxious trainee teachers, less anxious pronunciation learners appreciate the
value of affective PLS. In the high LA group, there is no qualitative evidence for
deploying any affective pronunciation learning tactics to support positive and

reduce negative affect in pronunciation learning. This might imply that highly
anxious pronunciation learners are either unable to regulate their affect or they do
not perceive these affective strategies as supportive in pronunciation learning.
One social pronunciation learning tactic, talking with people around in English,
is signicantly more frequently used by the low LA group. This result partially
corroborates the hypothesis (Hf): The deployment of social pronunciation learning
strategies and tactics differs in the groups of trainee teachers displaying high and
low levels of language anxiety. The quantitative results of the study indicate that
while learning pronunciation, non-anxious trainee teachers choose to talk with
people around them in English more frequently than those who are high in LA. The
qualitative outcomes fully conrm the application of social strategies by the
non-anxious trainee teachers, who value the interaction with either English native
speakers or other learners and teachers of English. This is evidenced in multiple
diary entries, for example, in those from Elas, Baejs, Jessikas, and Maciejs
diaries. Those who are low in LA opt for conversing in English in order to improve
their pronunciation. They seem to deploy this tactic because it gives them a chance
to compare their L2 phonological abilities with those of others. Moreover, this
situation is not so threatening for them as for the anxious individuals. They are not
afraid of taking risks in order to acquire English pronunciation. Seeking opportu-
nities to speak with either their peers or native speakers of English seems to
outweigh the fear of a negative evaluation of their pronunciation. Many fragments
of the presentations and the semi-structured interviews of the trainee teachers who
are low in LA additionally support their preference for social contacts while
learning English pronunciation, for instance Mikoaj learns pronunciation with his
friends who are native speakers of English, Baej focuses on pronunciation while
playing online computer games with Americans, and Alicja learns pronunciation
while teaching it to her pupils. However, interacting with others in L2 seems to be
particularly challenging for those who experience high levels of LA. It is apparent
that the anxious learners perceive the situation in which they use English with their
peers as apprehensive. Talking with people around in English means that the
interlocutors take the risk of being evaluated by others. Their L2 pronunciation may
be scrutinized and censured. Thus, this tactic is more often chosen by those who are
not afraid of being appraised as incompetent in L2 pronunciation; whereas anxious
individuals may feel apprehensive while learning with others because their pro-
nunciation might then be exposed to a negative evaluation. Therefore, unsurpris-
ingly, social PLS are somehow marginalized in the diary entries of the anxious
trainee teachers. Only one person mentions a short conversation in English with a
friend, and another one reports speaking with Italian friends via Skype. Although
highly anxious participants appreciate the role of extended contact with native
speakers, they seem to avoid pronunciation learning through direct contact with
them.
The aim of this chapter was to provide the details of the empirical research into
the interplay of language anxiety and pronunciation learning strategies of the trainee
teachers. The descriptions of the rationale of the study and its methodology were
5.4 Discussion 189
followed by the presentation of the outcomes and the discussion focusing on three
research questions and the hypotheses. Several tentative explanations based on the
theoretical assumptions outlined in Chaps. 2 and 3 were offered. The two PLS
categories belonging to direct pronunciation learning strategiesmemory and
compensationturned out to play a signicant role for those high in LA. It was
proposed that memory strategies might serve as both supportive and
condence-building factor in the process of pronunciation learning, particularly for
anxious pronunciation learners; whereas compensation strategies seemed to play a
different role. They functioned as protection from a negative evaluation triggered by
fear of mispronunciations. The quantitative outcomes were generally supported by
the qualitative data that helped to delineate a broader picture of strategic pronun-
ciation learning among anxious and non-anxious trainee teachers.
Chapter 6 addresses the most important ndings of the study. It outlines tentative
proles of pronunciation learners displaying high and low levels of language
anxiety from the perspective of pronunciation learning strategy and tactic deploy-
ment, enumerates the limitations of the study, and indicates directions for future
research. Additionally, several pedagogical suggestions stemming from the out-
comes of the study are proposed. An array of implications for teaching pronunci-
ation are directed particularly towards advanced, motivated learners, including
trainee teachers of the English language who suffer from excessive levels of lan-
guage anxiety.
Chapter 6
Conclusions
The aim of the concluding chapter is to outline the key ndings of the study which
are reflected in the proposed tentative proles of pronunciation learners displaying
high and low levels of language anxiety. The purpose is also to indicate the limi-
tations of the study and show directions for further research in the area of language
anxiety and pronunciation learning strategies. The nal objective is to offer several
recommendations for the EFL classroom regarding pronunciation teaching and
teacher training.
As Oxford (1990) asserts, the affective side of the learner is probably one of the
very biggest influences on language learning success or failure (p. 140). In line
with this statement, the main goal of the study was to identify the degree of
interplay between one of the affective constructs, language anxiety, and pronun-
ciation learning strategies as deployed in the process of English pronunciation
acquisition in a group of trainee teachers, whose L2 pronunciation would serve as a
model for EFL learners in the Polish educational system. This purpose has been
achieved with the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches, which comple-
mented each other and enabled the generation of data, on the basis of which two
tentative proles of an anxious and a non-anxious trainee teacher acquiring L2
pronunciation are outlined below.
Creating a prole of an anxious English pronunciation learner, a trainee teacher,
proves challenging. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that the individual is a female
who generally uses pronunciation learning strategies more frequently than her
non-anxious male peer. What distinguishes her from the trainee teachers who are
low in LA is a frequent application of memory and compensation PLS. Thus, while
learning English pronunciation she tries to memorize it by using transcription.
Rarely does she engage in deeper processing cognitive pronunciation learning
strategies, manifested in such tactics as noticing the differences between Polish and
English pronunciation, or perceiving different English accents or dialectsmost
probably her high LA level obscures her acuity of sound perception, and imitating
native speakers pronunciation. This inability may also be a result of the physical
tension in speech muscles caused by LA. Whenever faced with a phonetically
192 6 Conclusions
challenging situation, she abstains from risk taking in mispronouncing an item, so

as not to be negatively evaluated by others. What she therefore chooses is a cir-
cumlocution for a problematic word. She also checks word pronunciation for which
she is uncertain beforehand, either in a resource book, in an electronic dictionary,
or, on rare occasions, with another person to avoid a pronunciation mistake. Using
mime and gestures for clarifying difcult pronunciation is not infrequent.
Additionally, she is a conscientious learner of pronunciation, preparing meticu-
lously for oral presentations, and noting down difcult word transcriptions so as to
rehearse them in advance. However, if given the choice, she would rather read a
text than present it by heart. As for the affective PLS, the anxious trainee teacher
does not take risks in pronouncing words, regardless of the possibility of making
mistakes as often as the non-anxious individual. Speculating on the basis of the
qualitative data, she rarely uses laughter, self-encouragement or any other strategies
to lower anxiety while learning pronunciation. Unlike the less anxious pronunci-
ation learners, our student does not often communicate with others in English in
order to improve her articulatory skills. These social interactions, perhaps, create
the medium for the germination of a negative evaluation and communication
apprehension.
An important conclusion that might be drawn on the basis of the analysis of the
trainee teachers who are low in LA, is that they tend to be men, who generally use
pronunciation learning strategies less frequently than their more anxious counter-
parts. However, there are some PLS that such a student deploys more often than his
anxious peer. These are cognitive pronunciation learning tactics: noticing the dif-
ferences between Polish and English pronunciation and imitating a native speakers
pronunciation. He also chooses to practise pronunciation using authentic materials
like watching lms, TV series, or listening to music. Interestingly, the non-anxious
trainee teacher rarely uses sound symbols for extensive formal pronunciation
practice, as in the case of the anxious students. Apart from occasional instances of
deploying transcription for memorization and in PLS chains, codes of the sound
system are mainly used passively, for checking pronunciation in dictionaries.
Nevertheless, the ability to plan his pronunciation learning in an orchestrated
manner is evidenced in his use of PLS chains consisting of at least two logically
sequenced tactics, frequently associated with the authentic stimuli mentioned
above. What a non-anxious pronunciation learner values is interaction with others.
More often than an anxious individual, he talks with people around him in English
in order to improve his pronunciation. He seeks opportunities to use English with
native speakers, teachers and even with himself in his mind. The trainee teacher
who is low in language anxiety takes risks and generally accepts pronunciation
mistakes as a part of the learning process. In other words, pronunciation mistakes
do not discourage him from taking risks. What is more, he is able to laugh at his
mispronunciations and appreciate someone elses corrections. Interestingly, he
frequently chooses very original paths in his pronunciation learning. For instance,
he may pay attention to pronunciation differences while playing computer games, or
may entertain himself and others while practising various aspects of pronunciation.
Tentative as they are, the proles of the pronunciation learners who display high
6 Conclusions 193
and low levels of language anxiety demonstrate very different approaches in the
process of acquiring L2 phonetic aspects.
This study is not devoid of flaws that need to be addressed. The limitations entail
the sample, instruments applied, and potential moderator variables. Therefore, these
aspects are scrutinized in more detail below. Additionally, further research direc-
tions stemming from the study as described in Chap. 5 are suggested.
The number of participants is particularly important in statistical approaches.
The larger the sample the better, in order to draw generalizable conclusions. The
trainee teachers invited to take part in the study form a group selected on the basis
of their availability to the researcher. The cohort was limited to the number of
students in one institution for two reasons. First and foremost, the research con-
sisted of several phases requiring access to the same individuals. Secondly, the
researcher was able to approach the participants at their convenience. Nevertheless,
similar samples might be expected in other teacher training institutions. Replication
of the study in a number of teacher training centres and universities would denitely
provide more generalizable data.
Moreover, one further limitation concerning the participants needs to be
addressed. The research demanded access to the same group of trainee teachers at
different phases of the research. For this reason, data collection was not anonymous.
Although condentiality was asserted, the individuals taking part in the study might
have been tempted to make a positive impression on the researcher and provide
answers that would put them in a positive light and sustain their positive self-image.
Although the instrument applied in order to measure PLS and tactics in the study
had been validated before its application, it still needs to be veried with a larger
number of respondents, and perhaps with learners of different levels of pronunci-
ation prociency. Besides, it is important to bear in mind that the number of tactics
included in the PLSI is limited, and there are other pronunciation learning tactics
that the instrument disregards. Furthermore, the PLSI is a self-report questionnaire
with the following potential limitations: a respondent may misinterpret an item,
and/or may report a tactic that is not in fact used (White, Schramm, & Chamot,
2007). Finally, the tool estimates the frequency of PLS use, which does not nec-
essarily correspond with the efcacy of the strategy (cf. Grifths, 2013) in pro-
nunciation acquisition. Thus, in the research into effective PLS in L2 pronunciation
learning, the instrument should be supplemented with qualitative approaches in
order to arrive at reliable, in-depth conclusions.
Investigating individual learner differences, such as language anxiety and
learning strategies, calls for a cautious interpretation of the results due to the
number of moderator variables that might affect the process of L2 pronunciation
learning. One of these, gender, was addressed in the study, but there are many more
that still need to be considered. For instance, motivation affects both pronunciation
performance (Purcell & Suter, 1980) and self-condence, which, according to
Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997), entails language anxiety. Therefore,
further studies might delve into the extent to which motivation interplays with
language anxiety, the choice of pronunciation learning strategies and an L2 pro-
nunciation performance. The L2 prociency level and age are other factors that
194 6 Conclusions
determine language anxiety levels and the deployment of language learning

strategies. Nevertheless, these variables are rarely investigated in the context of the
above constructs, in foreign, not second, language learning. Less procient and
younger L2 learners choose different strategies for L2 learning, as with pronunci-
ation learning, than those selected by their more advanced and older counterparts.
Future research may also address prociency levels and age factor in order to
investigate their interplay with LA levels.
Moreover, language anxiety is dynamic, so it fluctuates within a particular
learner over time. At different periods of L2 learning, an individual may exhibit
different LA levels. The present study captures the trainee teachers static LA levels,
but it might be interesting to explore how the changes in LA levels relate to the
choice and frequency of PLS and tactics at different moments of L2 pronunciation
acquisition.
Language anxiety results in increased muscle tension, including those respon-
sible for speech production. Therefore, it is justiable to hypothesise that LA levels
may interplay with pronunciation accuracy and fluency. Interesting as an investi-
gation into this area might be, it would require very precise instrumentation in order
to detect muscle tension. Additionally, an experiment might be proposed showing
the degree of effectiveness for reducing LA levels and the tension of speech organs
through affective pronunciation learning strategies and tactics.
According to Blanchette and Richards (2010), anxiety is related to both attention
and interpretation of the perceived input. Following Strange and Shafers (2008)
Automatic Selective Perception model of an L2 speech perception addressed in
Sect. 2.1.3, another area for future research therefore emerges. It may be hypoth-
esised that while listening to an L2, a highly anxious pronunciation learner may
have problems with discriminating the target language sounds because attention
that should be given to the pronunciation perception task is shifted to a
threat-related stimulus, switching on the learners automatic L1 speech perception
mode. In other words, an L2 listener assigns the L2 sounds to L1 phonological
categories, creating potential problems for L2 pronunciation misinterpretation. This
hypothesis, however, requires further detailed investigation.
Not all hypotheses, however, have been fully corroborated in the present study.
The deployment of most cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social PLS does
not reveal any signicant relationship with LA levels. These results conrm the
complexity of pronunciation learning processes. Perhaps, in the case of PLS, a
detailed perspective investigating individual tactics deployed in achieving L2
pronunciation learning goals indicates the direction to be taken in future research.
Generally, the research presented in this book paves the way for a number of
further investigations that might shed more light on the process of L2 pronunciation
learning entailing the affective dimensions of an EFL learner. This study and the
future research stemming from it may lead to several practical applications to be
implemented on both teacher training curricula and within the EFL classroom.
The results of the study reveal a few signicant implications and recommen-
dations for the EFL classroom. First and foremost, the tertiary level of education,
including teacher training courses, needs to be addressed. However, it is of vital
6 Conclusions 195
importance to bear in mind that the lower educational levels are also affected by
trainee teachers experience, because the knowledge and skills that students gain
during their training may be and should be later applied in their teaching.
As the present study shows, L2 learners at the tertiary level of education are not
devoid of language anxiety. Their levels of LA are lower than in the case of
secondary school students, but academic teachers should still be aware of the
existence of the phenomenon, identify it, and create a supportive, anxiety-reducing
atmosphere. As language anxiety can manifest in physical, emotional, linguistic or
social behaviours (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014, p. 13), these four spheres are
tackled below from the perspective of pronunciation learning strategies.
The physical aspect of anxiety affects the speech organs, whose flexibility is
indispensable for pronunciation. Muscle tension in, for instance, the tongue or lips
of an anxious learner may be approached with the use of a pronunciation learning
tactic applied by one of the participants in the qualitative part of the study. She
relaxed her articulators by warming them up before pronunciation practice.
A number of short exercises such as yawning, spreading lips, or manipulating
tongue movements may be easily introduced in EFL classes on any educational
stage. Their in-class application may feed the awareness of EFL students who can
later deploy them consciously as tactics belonging to the category of metacognitive
pronunciation learning strategies.
Apparently, the emotional realm of an anxious pronunciation learner relates to
his or her deployment of compensation pronunciation learning strategies. Inclined
towards seeking security, an anxious pronunciation learner opts against taking risks
in mispronouncing words because they are perceived as potentially threatening. He
or she worries excessively about others opinions, whereas more relaxed learners
are ready to mispronounce words or utterances regardless of how others evaluate
them. This information is valuable for pronunciation teachers who organise pair-
and group-work, during which anxious learners may abstain from interaction.
Moreover, the tactic of miming native speakers pronunciation is chosen more
frequently by non-anxious individuals. Mimicry requires not only flexibility of
speech muscles, but primarily, a degree of freedom from fear of appearing foolish in
front of others while miming. Therefore, this approach to pronunciation learning
may not be suitable for training anxious pronunciation learners. Even if a pro-
nunciation trainer insisted on applying this technique, which might otherwise be
appealing to non-anxious trainees, the anxious individuals should be informed
about its objectives and cautiously guided in order to avoid their withdrawal from
the participation in training.
Language anxiety also interplays with an EFL learners linguistic and cognitive
domains. According to Woodrow (2006), L2 learners experience either
competence-based anxiety or retrieval interference anxiety. The rst is linked to
insufcient L2 skills, and also to insufcient knowledge of L2 pronunciation and
abilities. A learner perceives his or her language abilities, for example L2 pro-
nunciation, as insufcient and worries how he or she will be evaluated by others,
which affects the level of LA. The second form of anxiety is due to worry and task
irrelevant thoughts that occupy valuable cognitive capacity during communication
196 6 Conclusions
in the foreign language (p. 312). Woodrow advocates teaching learning strategies
to the rst group of L2 learners and applying anxiety reducing techniques to the
second. In L2 pronunciation teaching, both of these approaches would be benecial.
Along with the syllabus content and L2 pronunciation practice, L2 learners, par-
ticularly high LA trainee teachers, should be familiarised with an array of pro-
nunciation learning strategies and tactics they can choose from and apply in the
process of learning and later teaching pronunciation. The awareness of a range of
PLS and a guided in-class deployment of them may build an L2 pronunciation
learners condence in his or her pronunciation competence that might result in
lower anxiety. Simultaneously, relaxation and breathing techniques should be
introduced before pronunciation practice. As mentioned above, these lower the
muscle tensions that accompany anxiety, and make speech organs physically more
flexible and prepared for pronunciation practice.
Moreover, a signicant difference in the application of memory pronunciation
learning strategies among anxious and non-anxious students needs to be addressed.
Although the intention of the researcher is not to indicate the cause-effect direction
of the interplay between PLS and LA, a logical explanation for this dynamic would
be that there are anxious L2 learners who make greater efforts to compensate for L2
pronunciation incompetence through a more frequent application of memory PLS.
These individuals may be perfectionists (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014) who set
unrealistically high L2 pronunciation goals. However, the deployment of memory
pronunciation strategies is associated with shallow cognitive processing. Therefore,
the effectiveness of these strategies in L2 pronunciation acquisition might be
questionable, and still needs to be investigated and veried. It is, however, apparent
that memory PLS and tactics are perceived by anxious learners as valuable.
Consequently, pronunciation instructors may teach these PLS as non-threatening
and face-saving steps for students, leading towards the improvement of pronunci-
ation. For example, the results of this study indicate the relationship between lan-
guage anxiety levels and the application of transcription in order to memorise L2
pronunciation. Thus transcription activities, viewed as non-threatening, may be
exploited more frequently in the groups of more anxious learners of English.
The social behaviours of an anxious student may result from those of an emo-
tional and cognitive nature. For a more anxious pronunciation learner, any learning
tactic entailing interaction may trigger the mechanism of apprehension with regard
to how they are perceived by others. The results of this study imply that talking to
Polish peers in English in an environment where English has the status of a foreign
language is perhaps unrealistic for anxious learners. Consequently, a danger exists
that individuals engaging in such a practice may be evaluated negatively by others.
Nevertheless, learning pronunciation without social interaction sounds unrealistic.
Thus, a more acceptable recommendation for a pronunciation trainer might be the
use of a systematic desensitization (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). This may be
done through the repeated exposure of anxious individuals to imaginary interactive
pronunciation learning tasks which potentially arouse anxiety. A relaxed and
comfortable atmosphere should be introduced before performing these tasks.
During this desensitization process, the participants become aware of the constraints
6 Conclusions 197
that anxiety imposes upon the process of pronunciation learning, and they are
gradually prepared for real interactive pronunciation learning.
In line with recent didactic assumptions, an EFL teacher should focus more on
the processes of learning (yliska, 2013) and individualised approaches, leading
towards learner autonomy and self-directed learning (Komorowska, 2007).
Therefore, implications resulting from the outcomes of studies into pronunciation
learning strategies and their interplay with individual learner differences, such as
language anxiety, feed the teachers awareness of those processes in the realm of
pronunciation learning. They also provide useful insights into a learners L2 pro-
nunciation acquisition and factors accelerating and inhibiting this process.
Awareness of an anxious learners personal preferences or aversions with regard to
pronunciation learning strategies, and an understanding of why these preferences
occur ensures that an L2 teacher or an L2 pronunciation instructor will be more
sensitive to the learners needs. This leads in turn to creation of a non-threatening
atmosphere in the classroom. In consequence, pronunciation may be practised
through tasks and activities more calibrated towards the needs of an anxious learner.
What is more, a word of encouragement with regard to risk-taking in pronunciation
may also be very supportive. Generally, knowledge of the strategic choices made by
anxious and non-anxious L2 pronunciation learners may serve as a guide for an
EFL teacher in making choices about the form of pronunciation practice adapted to
learners needs and preferences.
The idea of strategy instruction is not new to L2 pedagogy. It stems from the
premise that language learning strategies are teachable (cf. Grifths, 2013; Oxford,
1990, 2011; Rubin, Chamot, Harris, & Anderson, 2007). Moreover, strategy
training is considered supportive in developing high quality education (cf.
Komorowska, 2011). Thus, pronunciation learning strategies may also be effec-
tively integrated in high quality pronunciation instruction courses (Varasarin,
2007). However, it is essential to bear in mind that different learnersfor example,
those who differ in terms of their levels of language anxietydeploy different
repertoires of pronunciation learning strategies that might lead to various outcomes
of L2 pronunciation learning (Sardegna, 2012). Hence PLS assistance should be
tailored to their needs. Effective strategy training or strategy assistance is dened as
any form of support that takes a learners needs into account and is provided with
the aim of helping him or her to become a more effective L2 learner (Oxford, 2011,
p. 176). More specically, an L2 pronunciation trainer is rst obliged to identify
learner variables, including a learners LA level, motivation, learning style, or
beliefs (Grifths, 2013), before choosing sets of PLS that would suit the students
best. This study, for instance, reveals that among the tactics which benet highly
anxious pronunciation learners, are those based on phonemic transcription and
thorough preparation before an L2 oral performance. Apart from these, compen-
sation and memory PLS are reported to be valuable for anxious students. Therefore,
on the one hand, the application of these pronunciation learning tactics and
strategies within a group of anxious pronunciation learners may create a more
learner-friendly classroom atmosphere. On the other hand, insistence on social
pronunciation strategies without considering the language anxiety levels of the
198 6 Conclusions
learners may feed feelings of apprehension in this group. Additionally, the

instructor might draw anxious learners attention to the value of affective strategies,
which seem to be neglected in the group researched in this study. The teachers
approach to pronunciation learning with positive attitudes and emotions, such as
maintaining a sense of humour with regard to mispronunciations might be bene-
cial in creating a positive, supportive classroom atmosphere for more relaxed
pronunciation practice, lowering LA levels.
The more the learners are aware of pronunciation learning strategies and their
deployment, the easier it becomes for them to make a conscious, suitable choice of
strategy for the purpose of pronunciation learning. They can then experiment with
the use of one or more PLS, choose those which are perceived as non-threatening,
and evaluate their effectiveness, thus becoming more self-directed learners.
Generally, strategy assistance serves the purpose of helping learners become more
active, more autonomous, more self-directed, and more discerning of what strate-
gies are best for them as individuals (Oxford, 1996, p. 228), particularly for those
who suffer from high levels of language anxiety. A better calibration of pronun-
ciation learning strategies may make an anxious individual more condent in
managing challenging pronunciation learning processes, and it may also help him
or her to be more inclined to practise pronunciation. Hopefully, the results pre-
sented in this dissertation will contribute to an understanding of the complex
interplay between language anxiety and pronunciation learning strategies, and all
anxious L2 pronunciation learners will be better able to implement Senecas
maxim: all adversities should be perceived as training.
Appendix A
Means, standard deviations (SD) of the frequency of pronunciation learning tactics

deployed by female (F), male (M) and both groups (total), and t-test values indi-
cating the difference in the use of pronunciation learning tactics in female and male
groups.
No. Pronunciation Learning Tactics Means SD t-value

(adapted from Berkil, 2008) F M Total F M Total
1. I use phonetic symbols or my 3.29 2.53 3.14 1.21 1.31 1.27 2.4*
own code to remember how to
pronounce words in English
2. I make up songs or rhymes to 1.72 1.95 1.77 0.87 1.05 0.92 0.96
remember how to pronounce
words
3. I associate words which I dont 3.15 3.32 3.18 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.68
know how to pronounce with the
words I know how to pronounce
4. I associate English 2.37 2.16 2.33 1.19 1.23 1.20 0.69
pronunciation with Polish
pronunciation (e.g., safe with a
Polish word sejf)
5. I try to recall how my teachers 3.45 3.05 3.37 1.13 1.05 1.13 1.38*
pronounced a given word
6. I repeat pronunciation of a 4.29 3.89 4.21 0.78 1.17 0.89 1.76
difcult word over and over
7. I imitate native speakers or my 4.32 4.42 4.34 0.70 0.67 0.69 0.56
teachers pronunciation
8. I repeat pronunciation aloud 3.51 3.05 3.41 1.05 1.32 1.12 1.58
after a teacher
9. I repeat aloud after tapes, 3.69 3.21 3.60 1.06 1.00 1.07 1.78
television, a movie or electronic
dictionaries
10. I repeat pronunciation silently 3.09 3.11 3.10 1.23 1.02 1.19 0.04
(continued)

Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50642-5
200 Appendix A
(continued)
11. I talk aloud to myself 3.31 3.32 3.31 1.03 1.30 1.09 0.03
12. I say things silently to myself 3.07 3.00 3.05 1.06 0.92 1.04 0.25
13. I read words or text passages out 3.57 3.26 3.51 0.94 1.12 0.99 1.22
loud
14. I do exercises/practice to acquire 2.44 2.32 2.41 0.98 1.17 1.03 0.47
English sounds
15. I practise sounds rst in isolation 2.52 2.16 2.45 1.08 1.18 1.11 1.27
(only sounds), and then in
context (in words or sentences)
16. I capture pronunciation errors 3.99 4.00 3.99 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.06
made by other Polish speakers of
English
17. I notice mouth positions and 2.65 1.95 2.51 1.23 0.69 1.17 2.39
watch lips
18. I concentrate intensely on 3.43 3.26 3.39 0.98 1.02 0.99 0.64
pronunciation while listening
19. I form and use hypotheses about 2.33 2.11 2.29 0.98 0.85 0.96 0.92
pronunciation rules
20. I try to imitate my teachers 2.53 1.68 2.36 1.17 0.80 1.16 2.96**
mouth movements
21. I listen to tapes, television, 4.63 4.74 4.65 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.69
movies or music in English
22. I concentrate intensely on 4.03 3.89 4.00 0.73 0.72 0.73 0.70
pronunciation while speaking
23. I speak slowly to get the 3.04 3.11 3.05 1.05 0.97 1.04 0.24
pronunciation right
24. I record my own voice to hear 1.37 1.79 1.46 0.61 1.20 0.78 2.10*
my pronunciation
25. I notice different English accents 3.67 4.00 3.73 0.97 1.17 1.02 1.27
and dialects
26. I practise word pronunciation 2.97 3.00 2.98 1.18 1.30 1.20 0.09
rst slowly and then faster
27. I notice the difference between 3.81 4.42 3.94 0.96 0.75 0.95 2.54*
Polish and English
pronunciation (e.g., in the word
pot)
28. I mentally rehearse how to say 3.76 3.21 3.65 1.11 0.95 1.10 1.97
something in English before
speaking
29. I avoid saying words which I 2.97 2.32 2.84 1.10 0.86 1.08 2.41*
have difculties in pronouncing
(continued)
Appendix A 201
(continued)
30. I use mime or gesture for words 3.33 2.79 3.22 1.10 0.95 1.09 1.96
when my pronunciation could
make their meanings unclear my
pronunciation
31. I use the synonyms for words 3.40 3.05 3.33 1.03 .94 1.03 1.32
that I have difculty in
pronouncing
32. I use more words in place of a 3.16 2.89 3.11 1.02 0.91 1.00 1.02
single word that I do not know
how to pronounce
33. I check the phonetic symbols of 3.80 2.47 3.53 1.14 1.31 1.29 4.33***
words from a dictionary when I
have difculty in pronouncing
34. I listen to pronunciation of 3.99 3.37 3.86 1.03 1.22 1.10 2.23*
words from
electronic/multimedia
dictionaries to correct my
pronunciation
35. I ask someone to pronounce 3.41 2.84 3.30 1.06 1.09 1.09 2.07*
words that I have difculties in
pronouncing
36. I try to learn something about 3.05 3.05 3.05 1.04 1.19 1.08 0.00
English phonetics
37. I read reference materials about 2.55 2.58 2.55 0.91 1.09 0.95 0.13
pronunciation rules
38. I try to pick up model English 3.28 2.95 3.21 0.87 1.05 0.92 1.41
sounds
39. I purposefully focus my 2.93 2.68 2.88 1.00 1.13 1.03 0.94
listening on particular sounds
40. I purposefully focus on learning 2.80 2.47 2.73 0.99 1.14 1.03 1.23
particular English sounds
41. I try to memorise English sounds 3.60 3.21 3.52 0.78 1.06 0.86 1.77
well
42. I choose to memorize, rather 2.35 3.42 2.56 1.29 1.04 1.32 3.32**
than read, a presentation
43. While preparing for a 3.83 2.32 3.52 1.17 1.49 1.38 4.69***
presentation, I note down words
that are difcult for me to
pronounce
44. I have a sense of humour about 3.87 4.37 3.97 1.07 0.58 1.02 1.94
my mispronunciations
(continued)
202 Appendix A
(continued)
45. I have fun with pronouncing 3.25 3.58 3.32 1.29 1.27 1.29 0.98
English or Polish words, e.g.,
pronouncing a Polish word with
an English accent or vice versa
46. I encourage myself by making 2.85 3.05 2.89 1.20 1.23 1.21 0.64
positive statements, such as My
pronunciation is improving
47. I take risks in pronouncing 3.45 3.74 3.51 0.87 1.02 0.91 2.40
words regardless of the
possibility of making mistakes
48. I pay more attention to my 3.65 3.32 3.59 1.14 1.03 1.12 0.96
pronunciation if my
pronunciation is appreciated by
others
49. I ask someone else to correct my 3.45 3.42 3.45 1.15 1.04 1.13 0.68
pronunciation
50. I talk with people around me in 2.88 3.37 2.98 0.95 1.04 0.99 0.69
English
51. I learn pronunciation with 2.40 2.53 2.43 1.11 1.19 1.13 1.38
someone else
52. I teach or help someone else 3.04 2.79 2.99 0.96 1.20 1.02 1.76
with their English pronunciation
*p 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Appendix B
The t-test results for pronunciation learning tactics use in the LLA and HLA
groups.
PLS PL tactic LLA (N = 32) HLA (N = 34) t-value p-level

Mean SD Mean SD
Memory Tactic 1 2.69 1.31 3.59 1.18 2.94 0.00
Tactic 2 1.75 0.95 1.85 0.93 0.45 0.66
Tactic 3 3.31 0.97 3.18 0.94 0.58 0.56
Tactic 4 2.09 1.15 2.62 1.26 1.77 0.08
Tactic 5 3.03 1.12 3.65 0.98 2.38 0.02
Tactic 6 4.09 1.12 4.32 0.64 1.03 0.31
Cognitive Tactic 7 4.50 0.62 4.26 0.67 1.48 0.14
Tactic 8 3.19 1.38 3.56 0.93 1.29 0.20
Tactic 9 3.41 1.19 3.74 0.99 1.22 0.23
Tactic 10 2.91 1.20 3.26 1.24 1.19 0.24
Tactic 11 3.41 1.19 3.44 0.93 0.13 0.89
Tactic 12 2.97 1.12 3.18 1.03 0.78 0.44
Tactic 13 3.59 1.10 3.62 0.89 0.10 0.92
Tactic 14 2.13 1.13 2.50 1.02 1.42 0.16
Tactic 15 2.28 1.02 2.56 1.08 1.07 0.29
Tactic 16 4.09 0.86 3.82 0.83 1.30 0.20
Tactic 17 2.28 1.05 2.59 1.10 1.15 0.25
Tactic 18 3.47 1.02 3.38 0.89 0.37 0.71
Tactic 19 2.16 0.99 2.56 0.93 1.71 0.09
Tactic 20 2.00 1.02 2.53 1.13 1.99 0.05
Tactic 21 4.75 0.51 4.56 0.75 1.21 0.23
Tactic 22 3.94 0.72 3.97 0.76 0.18 0.86
Tactic 23 2.81 1.00 3.32 1.04 2.04 0.05
Tactic 24 1.56 0.88 1.41 0.70 0.77 0.44
(continued)

204 Appendix B
(continued)
PLS PL tactic LLA (N = 32) HLA (N = 34) t-value p-level
Mean SD Mean SD
Tactic 25 3.88 1.01 3.53 1.08 1.34 0.18
Tactic 26 2.84 1.37 3.15 1.02 1.02 0.31
Tactic 27 4.09 0.93 3.65 0.95 1.93 0.06
Tactic 28 3.31 1.12 4.03 0.87 2.91 0.00
Compensation Tactic 29 2.41 1.01 3.12 1.25 2.53 0.01
Tactic 30 2.84 1.22 3.62 0.99 2.84 0.01
Tactic 31 3.06 1.08 3.56 1.11 1.85 0.07
Tactic 32 2.91 1.12 3.26 1.02 1.36 0.18
Tactic 33 3.16 1.35 4.00 1.13 2.77 0.01
Tactic 34 3.47 1.34 4.24 0.74 2.89 0.01
Tactic 35 2.88 1.13 3.50 1.05 2.33 0.02
Metacognitive Tactic 36 3.16 1.17 3.00 0.85 0.62 0.54
Tactic 37 2.50 0.95 2.59 0.89 0.39 0.70
Tactic 38 3.19 0.90 3.24 0.82 0.23 0.82
Tactic 39 2.84 1.02 2.91 1.06 0.27 0.79
Tactic 40 2.69 1.00 2.76 1.02 0.31 0.76
Tactic 41 3.38 0.91 3.59 0.78 1.02 0.31
Tactic 42 2.75 1.24 2.26 1.29 1.56 0.12
Tactic 43 2.91 1.51 4.06 0.98 3.70 0.00
Affective Tactic 44 4.03 1.00 3.74 1.21 1.08 0.29
Tactic 45 3.47 1.27 3.35 1.18 0.38 0.70
Tactic 46 3.00 1.27 2.91 1.26 0.28 0.78
Tactic 47 3.78 1.01 3.32 0.94 1.90 0.06
Tactic 48 3.56 1.24 3.79 0.84 0.89 0.38
Social Tactic 49 3.38 1.16 3.50 .96 0.48 0.63
Tactic 50 3.16 1.08 2.65 0.85 2.14 0.04
Tactic 51 2.50 1.30 2.38 0.95 0.42 0.67
Tactic 52 2.94 1.08 3.09 0.97 0.60 0.55
References
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Abercrombie, D. (1991). Teaching pronunciation. In A. Brown (Ed.), Teaching English
pronunciation: A book of readings (pp. 8795). London and New York: Routledge.
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Copes construct of foreign language
anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 155168.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1999). Testy psychologiczne [Psychological tests]. Warszawa:
Pracownia Testw Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
Arnaiz, P., & Guilln, F. (2012). Foreign language anxiety in a Spanish university setting:
Interpersonal differences. Revista de Psicodidctica, 17(1), 526.
Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language
learning (pp. 127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asan, E., Steinke, M., & Lesch, K. (2013). Serotonergic innervation of the amygdala: Targets,
receptors, and implications for stress and anxiety. Histochemistry and Cell Biology, 139,
785813.
Aydin, S. (2009). Test anxiety among foreign language learners: A review of literature. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 127137.
Aydin, S. (2008). An investigation on the language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation among
Turkish EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 421444.
Aydin, S. (2013). Factors affecting the level of test anxiety among EFL learners at elementary
schools. Online Submission, e-International Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 6381.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED540987).
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Correlates of anxiety at three stages of the
foreign language learning process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 474490.
Bailey, K. M. (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. C. Richards &
D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 215226). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at
and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented
research in second language acquisition (pp. 67103). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury
House Publishers Inc.
Baker, A. (2006). Ship or sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Balogh, E. (2008). Hungarian student language attitudes towards speakers of regional
American English accent varieties. In E. Waniek-Klimczak (Ed.), Issues in accents of English
(pp. 150168). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baran, M. (2004). Field independence as a predictor of success in foreign language pronunciation
acquisition and learning. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Zeszyty Naukowe
Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie nr 1/2004 (pp. 1119). Konin:
Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyxszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie.

206 References
Baran-ucarz, M. (2011). The relationship between language anxiety and the actual and perceived
levels of foreign language pronunciation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
1(4), 491514.
Baran-ucarz, M. (2013a). Phonetics learning anxietyResults of a preliminary study. Research
in Language, 11(1), 5779.
Baran-ucarz, M. (2013a). Foreign language pronunciation and listening anxietyA preliminary
study. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & E. Szymaska-Czaplak (Eds.), Language in cognition and
affect. Second language learning and teaching (pp. 120). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Baran-ucarz, M. (2013b). Phonetics learning anxietyResults of a preliminary study. Research
in Language, 11(1), 5779.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs
choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701725.
Berkil, G. (2008). A closer look at pronunciation learning strategies, L2 pronunciation prociency
and secondary variables influencing pronunciation ability. Unpublished M.A. dissertation.
Bilkent University, Ankara.
Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge,
pedagogical implications, and new research directions. TESL-EJ, 9(1), 121.
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception:
Commonalities and complementarities. In O.-S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language
experience in second language speech learning: In honour of James Emil Flege (pp. 1334).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28,
6983.
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in
second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 115.
Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review
of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition and
Emotion, 24, 561595.
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in
the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 447465.
Bown, J., & White, C. (2010). A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA. IRAL, 48(4),
331353.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. San Francisco State
University: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San
Francisco State University: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Longman: San Francisco
State University.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Longman: San Francisco State University.
Brya, A. (2006). European veto to the ideological assumptions of the LFC voiced by continental
learners of English (survey analysis). In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.),
Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego w Polsce (pp. 1835). Konin: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej
Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie.
Bukowski, D. (2004). On the training of metacognitive and socio-affective strategiesSome
implications for teaching and learning English phonetics. In W. Sobkowiak &
E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Zeszyty Naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w
Koninie nr 1/2004 (pp. 2027). Konin: Wydawnictwo Pastowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej
w Koninie.
Bukowski, D. (2003). Multisensory modes of teaching and learning phoneticsA few practical
suggestions. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & W. Sobkowiak (Eds.), Zeszyty Naukowe Pastwowej
Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku. Neolologia, tom V (pp. 1129). Pock: Wydawnictwo
Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
References 207
Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching
and teacher education. System, 28, 191215.
Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other languages (pp. 1420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bgels, S. M., Alden, L., Beidel, D. C., Clark, L. A., Pine, D. S., Stein, M. B., & Voncken, M.
(2010). Social anxiety disorder: Questions and answers for the DSM-V. Depression and
Anxiety, 27, 168189.
Calvo, M. G., & Castillo, M. D. (2001). Selective interpretation in anxiety: Uncertainty for
threatening events. Cognition and Emotion, 15(3), 299320.
Calvo, M. G., & Eysenck, M. W. (1998). Cognitive bias to internal sources of information in
anxiety. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 287299.
Capan, S. A., & Simsek, H. (2012). General foreign language anxiety among EFL learners: A
survey study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 116124.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty ve years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller
(Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83118).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behaviour. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2014). The experience of emotions during goal pursuit. In R.
Perkun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education
(pp. 5672). New York: Routledge.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1991). A control-process perspective on anxiety. In R. Schwarzer
& R. A. Wicklund (Eds.), Anxiety and self-focused attention (pp. 38). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Caka, A. (2011). Pronunciation learning strategiesIdentication and classication. In
M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign
language acquisition (pp. 149168). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation.
A Reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation.
A course book and reference guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and training. Electronic Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 1426. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://e-t.nus.edu.
sg/v1n12004/chamot.htm
Chang, C., Liu, S., & Lee, Y. (2007). A study of language learning strategies used by college EFL
learners in Taiwan. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from www.mdu.edu.tw/*ged/other%
20download/bulletin/20070319/11.pdf
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 25, 153161.
Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., & Malcarne, V. L. (2002). Scrutinizing the relationship between
shyness and social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorder, 16, 585598.
Cheng, F. (1998). The teaching of pronunciation to Chinese students of English. English Teaching
Forum, JanMar, 3739.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman.
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: surveying the experts.
In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 2945). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). L2 learner strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (Vol. II - Part V). Methods and instruction in second language
teaching (pp. 681698). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
208 References
Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. National
Language Resource Center: Center for Advance Research on Language Acquisition
(University of Minnesota). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393307).
Colantoni, L., Steele, J., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed an stimulus-driven attention in
the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201215.
Corr, P. J., & Fajkowska, M. (2011). Introduction to special issue on anxiety. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50(7), 885888. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0191886911000523
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1988). Achievement dynamics: The interaction of motives,
cognition, and emotions over time. Anxiety Research, 1, 165183.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Culler, R. E., & Holahan, C. J. (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance: The effects of
study related behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 1620.
Daley, C. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Bailey, P. (1997). Predicting achievement in college-level
foreign language courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415273).
Dalton, C., & Seildhofer, B. (1994). Language teaching. A scheme for teacher education:
Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daly, J. (1991). Understanding communication apprehension: An introduction for language
educators. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and
research to classroom implications (pp. 313). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Darcy, I., Park, H., & Yang, C. (2015). Individual differences in L2 acquisition of English
phonology: The relations between cognitive abilities and phonological processing. Learning
and Individual Differences, 40, 6372.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efciency, and cognitive
performance. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168176.
Derry, S. J. (1988). Putting learning strategies to work. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 414.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A
research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379397.
Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL learners perceptions of their pronunciation needs
and strategies. System, 30(2), 155166.
Dewaele, J. M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The effects of trait emotional intelligence
and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety
among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4),
911960.
Drodzia-Szelest, K. (1998). Towards strategic teaching in the foreign language classroom.
Network. A Journal for English Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1726.
Drodzia-Szelest, K. (2004). Strategie uczenia si jzyka obcego: Badania a rzeczywisto
edukacyjna. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Autonomia w nauce jzyka obcego (pp. 3143). Pozna-
Kalisz: Wydawnictwo Wydziau Pedagogiczno-Artystycznego UAM w Kaliszu.
Dziubalska-Koaczyk, K., & Przedlacka, J. (2005). English pronunciation models: A changing
scene. Bern: Peter Lang.
Drnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Individual differences in second
language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Drnyei, Z., Csizer, K., & Nemeth, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes, and globalization:
A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Limited.
References 209
Drnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning

environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive
system (pp. 230248). Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.
Eckstein, G. T. (2007). A correlation of pronunciation learning strategies with spontaneous
English pronunciation of adult ESL learners. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/
ETD/image/etd1973.pdf
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type
on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 113.
Elliott, A. (1995). Field independence/dependence, hemispheric specialization, and attitude in
relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. Modern Language
Journal, 79(3), 356371.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Erler, L., & Finkbeiner, C. (2007). A review of reading strategies: focus on the impact of rst
language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 187206).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of
Research in Personality, 13, 363385.
Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unied theory. Hove: Psychology Press.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efciency
theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409434.
Eysenck, M. W., & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives in attentional control theory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 955960.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336353.
Eysenck, M. W., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (1992). Trait anxiety, defensiveness, and the structure of
worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(12), 12851290. Retrieved October 12,
2014, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science//journal/01918869
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching. From research to practice. London-New
York: Continuum.
Feigenbaum, E. (2007). The role of language anxiety in teacher-fronted and small-group
interaction in Spanish as a foreign language: How is pronunciation accuracy affected?
Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, PA. Retreived June 28, 2013, from
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7691/
Fitzpatrick, F. (1995). A teachers guide to practical pronunciation. Hemel Hempstead:
Phoenix ELT.
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Liu, H. (1999). Age constraints on second language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78104.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control
functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101
135.
Gabry-Barker, D. (2012). Reflectivity in pre-service teacher education. A survey of theory and
practice. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu lskiego.
Gan, Z. (2008). Extroversion and group oral performance: A mixed quantitative and discourse
analysis approach. Prospect, 23(3), 2442. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.ameprc.
mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_23_no_3/23_3_Art_3.pdf
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A students contribution to second-language learning.
Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 111.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., Clement, R., & Gliksman, L. (1976). Second language learning: A
social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 198213.
210 References
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language
learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(iii), 344362.
Garrett, P., & Young, R. F. (2009). Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: an analysis of
one learners responses to a communicative Portuguese course. The Modern Language
Journal, 93(2), 209226.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition. An introductory course (3rd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Ghee, T. T., Ismail, H. N., & Kabilan, M. K. (2010). Language learning strategies used by MFL
students based on genders and achievement groups. US-China Foreign Language, 8(1), 5058.
Gkonou, C. (2011). Anxiety over EFL speaking and writing: A view from language classrooms.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 267281.
Gkonou, C. (2013). A diary study on the causes of English language classroom anxiety.
International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 5168.
Goberman, A., Hughes, S., & Haydock, T. (2011). Acoustic characteristics of public speaking:
Anxiety and practice effects. Speech Communication, 53(6), 867876.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (1993). Research methods. A process of inquiry (2nd ed.). New
York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 prociency, and gender.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261297.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and
non-anxious language learners reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(4), 562570.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners individuality. From
premise to practice. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.),
Language learner strategies (pp. 928). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grifths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367383.
Grifths, C. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grifths, C. (2008a). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grifths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Grifths, C. (2008b). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Grifths (Ed.), Lessons from
good language learners (pp. 8398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grifths, C. (2003). Language learning strategy use and prociency: The relationship between
patterns of reported language learning strategy (LLS) use by speakers of other languages
(SOL) and prociency with implications for the teaching/learning situation. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/9
Grs, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the
state-trait inventory for cognitive and somatic anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 369381.
Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL
learners. RELC Journal, 33(1), 3554.
Guiora, A., Beit-Hallahani, B., Brannon, R. C. L., Dull, C. Y., & Scovel, T. (1972). The effects of
experimentally induced changes in ego states on pronunciation ability in a second language: an
exploratory study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 13, 421428.
Guiora, A., Beit-Hallahani, B., Brannon, R. C. L., Dull, C. Y., & Scovel, T. (1972b). The effects of
experimentally induced changes in ego states on pronunciation ability in a second language: an
exploratory study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 13, 421428.
References 211
Guiora, A. Z., Brannon, R. C. L., & Dull, C. Y. (1972a). Empathy and second language learning.
Language Learning, 22(1), 111130.
Guiora, A., Buchtel, A., Herold, A., Homburg, T., & Woken, M. (1983). Right hemisphericity
and pronunciation in a foreign language. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual
Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages, Toronto, Canada. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED227705).
Gogowska, M. (2003). Lingua franca coreA syllabus for pronunciation teaching. Zeszyt
Naukowy Instytutu Neolologii (2). Zeszyty Naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej
w Koninie, 1(2), 1725.
Halbach, A. (2000). Finding about students learning strategies by looking at their diaries: A case
study. System, 28(1), 8596.
Hansen, J. G. (2008). Social factors and variation in production in L2 phonology. In J. G. Hansen
Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 251279).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hanson, J. L. (2008). Reflection: A tool in learning to teach for foreign language student teachers.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
304631701
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
Hashemi, M. (2011). The impact of gender on language learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners.
International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 1046. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from
http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/10/2011(10-46).pdf
Hassan, B. A. (2001). Extraversion/introversion and gender in relation to the English
pronunciation accuracy of Arabic speaking college students. Mansoura Faculty of Education
Journal, 43, 3365.
Hewings, M. (2004). Pronunciation practice activities. A resource book for teaching English
pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hewings, M. (2007). English pronunciation in use. Advanced. Self-study and classroom use.
Hewitt, E., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral exam performance:
A replication of Phillipss MLJ study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 170189.
Hismanoglu, M. (2013). Foreign language anxiety of English language teacher candidates:
A sample from Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 930937.
Hook, J. N., Valentiner, D. P., & Connelly, J. (2013). Performance and interaction anxiety:
Specic relationships with other- and self-evaluation concerns. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 26
(2), 203216.
Hopko, D. R., Crittendon, J. A., Grant, E., & Wilson, S. A. (2005). The impact of anxiety on
performance IQ. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 18(1), 1735.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
21, 112126.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43, 154167.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125132.
Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (Eds.). (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to
classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies:
a conrmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 368383.
Huang, S. (2001). Effects of language learning strategy training on English learning. Taiwan:
National Changhua University of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED461287).
Informator o egzaminie maturalnym od 2008 roku: Jzyk angielski. (2007). Warszawa: Centralna
Komisja Egzaminacyjna. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.
php/informatory-left/egzamin-maturalny
212 References
Ioup, G. (2008). Exploring the role of age in L2 phonology. In J. G. Hansen Edwards &
M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 4162). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Izard, C. (2011). Forms and functions of emotions: Matters of emotionCognition interactions.
Emotion Review, 3(4), 371378.
Jassem, W. (1987). The phonology of modern English. Warszawa: Pastwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically-based, empirically-researched pronunciation syllabus for
English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83103.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive
Psychology, 21, 6099.
Jones, R. H. (1997). Beyond listen and repeat: Pronunciation teaching materials and theories of
second language acquisition. System, 25(1), 103112.
Jones, R. H. (2002). Beyond listen and repeat: Pronunciation teaching materials and theories of
second language acquisition. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology
language teaching. An anthology of current practice (pp. 178187). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kelly, G. (2000). How to teach pronunciation. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. London: Longman.
Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 85, 549566.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Komorowska, H. (2005). Metodyka nauczania jzykw obcych [Foreign Language Teaching
Methodology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Fraszka Edukacyjna.
Komorowska, H. (2007). Metodyka nauczania jzykw obcych w Polsce (19572007)
[Methodology of foreign language teaching in Poland (19572007)]. Wraszawa:
Wydawnictwo CODN.
Komorowska, H. (Ed.). (2011). Issues in promoting multilingualsm. Teaching-learning-
assessment. Foundation for the Development of the Education System (FRSE): Warszawa.
Komorowska, H. (2014). Sociological and educational roots of qualitative research in applied
linguistics. In D. Gabry-Barker & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Studying second language acquisition
from a qualitative perspective (pp. 315). Cham: Springer.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). The Fundamental Pedagogical Principle in second language teaching.
Studia Linguistica, 35(1), 5070.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (2012). The comprehension hypothesis extended. In T. Piske &
M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 8194). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Language acquisition in the
classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
References 213
Lan, R. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy proles of elementary school
students in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 41(4),
339379.
Lan, Y., & Wu, M. (2013). Application of form-focused instruction in English pronunciation:
Examples from Mandarin learners. Creative Education, 4(9), 2934.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Laukka, P., Linnman, C., hs, F., Pissiota, A., Frans, ., Faria, V., Furmark, T. (2008). In a
nervous voice: Acoustic analysis and perception of anxiety in social phobics speech. Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(4), 195214.
Lavender, T., & Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account.
Cognition and Emotion, 21, 12701296.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford.
Leaver, B. L., Ehrman, M., & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving success in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lefkowitz, N., & Hedgcock, J. (2002). Sound barriers: Influences of social prestige, peer pressure
and teacher (dis)approval on FL oral performance. Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 223244.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Lesse, S. (1988). The relationship of anxiety to depression. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
36, 332349.
Levelle, K., & Levis, J. (2014). Understanding the impact of social factors on L2 pronunciation:
Insights from learners. In J. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language
accent (pp. 97118). Boston: DeGruyter Mouton.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levens, S., Devinsky, O., & Phelps, E. (2011). Role of the left amygdala and right orbital frontal
cortex in emotional interference resolution facilitation in working memory. Neuropsychologia,
49(12), 32013212.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3), 369377.
Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety:
A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975978.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learnt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lin, H., Fan, C., & Chen, C. (1995). Teaching pronunciation in the learner-centered classroom.
Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different prociency levels. System, 34,
301316.
Liu, H. (2013). Effects of foreign language anxiety and perceived competence on language strategy
use. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(3), 7687.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York and
London: Routledge.
Lu, Z., & Liu, M. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and strategy use: A study with Chinese
undergraduate EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 12981305.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language
Annals, 27, 185195.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and
Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 9099.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clment, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2003). Talking in order to learn:
Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 59, 587605.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a
theoretical clarication. Language Learning, 39, 251275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a
theoretical clarication. Language Learning, 39, 251275.
214 References
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties
and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41(4), 513534.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Methods and results in the study of anxiety in
language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of
cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16, 117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of
cognitive processing in computerized vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16, 117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994b). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283305.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The
positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 2(2), 193213.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1994). The good language learner: A retrospective review.
System, 22, 269280.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of
language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 373386.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
prociency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265287.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D.
J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to
creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 2445). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical
framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320337.
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: focus on
sources of knowledge and on success. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner
strategies (pp. 165185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E. (2004). Fourteen features of a language learner strategy. Retrieved March 23, 2011,
from http://www.crie.org.nz/research-papers/1Ernesto_Macaro_WP4.pdf
Madsen, H. S., Brown, B. L., & Jones, R. L. (1991). Evaluating student attitudes toward second
language tests. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and
research to classroom implications (pp. 6586). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Magno, C. (2008). Comparing models for generating a system of activation and inhibition of
self-regulated learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. De La Salle University, Manila.
Mahmood, A., & Iqbal, S. (2010). Difference of student anxiety level towards English as a foreign
language subject and their academic achievement. International Journal of Academic
Research, 2(6), 199203.
Majer, J. (1997). Does seek mean eel? Interlanguage phonology and pronunciation goals for
teacher training. In E. Waniek-Klimczak (Ed.), Teaching English phonetics and phonology II.
Accents 1997 (pp. 1930). d: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu dzkiego.
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System,
39, 202214.
Manchn, R. M., Roca De Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2007). A review of writing strategies: Focus
on conceptualisations and impact of rst language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.),
Language learner strategies (pp. 229250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manolopoulou-Sergi, E. (2004). Motivation within the information processing model of foreign
language learning. System, 32, 427441.
References 215
Marcos-Llinas, M., & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three prociency-level
courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 94111.
Mates, A., & Joaquin, A. (2013). Affect and the brain. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 417554). Cambridge:
Mazurkiewicz, M. (2009). Wymowa angielska gwne problemy Polakw w procesie nauki
jzyka angielskiego. Jzyki Obce w Szkole, 2, 7477. Warszawa: CODN.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly &
J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension (pp. 1338). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
McKeachie, W. J., Yi-Guang, L., & Middleton, M. J. (2004). Two types of low test-anxious
(low-worry) students. Counseling & Clinical Psychology Journal, 1(3), 141152.
Mealey, D. L., & Host, T. R. (1992). Coping with test anxiety. College Teaching, 40, 147150.
Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94305082
Mesri, F. (2012). The relationship between gender and Iranian EFL learners foreign language
classroom anxiety (FLCA). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 2(6), 147156.
Michoska-Stadnik, A. (1996). Strategie uczenia si i autonomia ucznia w warunkach szkolnych.
Wrocaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocawskiego.
Mihaljevi Djigunovi, J. (2000). Language learning strategies and affect. Centre for Language
and Communication Studies Occasional Papers 2000, 59, 128. Dublin: Trinity College.
Mihaljevi Djigunovi, J. (2000). Language learning strategies and affect. Centre for Language
and Communication Studies Occasional Papers 2000 (vol. 59, pp. 128). Dublin: Trinity
College.
Mohammadi, E. G., Biria, R., Koosha, M., & Shahsavari, A. (2013). The relationship between
foreign language anxiety and language learning strategies among university students. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 637646.
Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other
languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481520.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation
and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81108.
Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent. The phenomenon of non-native speech. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Moyer, A. (2014). Whats age got to do with it? Accounting for individual factors in second
language accent. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 443464.
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the
speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 7397.
Murphy, J. M. (1991). Oral communication in TESOL: Integrating speaking, listening, and
pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 5175.
Mller, M. (2013). Conceptualizing pronunciation as part of translingual/transcultural competence:
New impulses for SLA research and the L2 classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 213229.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H, & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. (Research
in Education Series, No. 7) Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nelson, C. L. (2008). Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27(3/4), 297308.
Nesic, M., Cicevic, S., Nesic, V., Vuckovic, V., Kostic, J., & Manic, G. (2012). Voice
fundamental frequency in the circumstances of exam stress and personality dimensions.
Healthmed, 6(7), 25432549.
Newton, N. (2010). The use of semi-structured interviews in qualitative research: Strengths and
weaknesses. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_
use_of_semi-structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses
Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. (2012). Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance: Toward an
integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes. Psychological Research, 76(6),
747759.
216 References
Nijakowska, J. (2007). Understanding developmental dyslexia. d: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu

dzkiego.
Nisbet, D., Tindall, E., & Arroyo, A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English prociency
of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 100107.
Noormohamadi, R. (2009). On the relationship between language learning strategies and foreign
language anxiety. Journal of Pan-Pacic Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 3952.
Nowacka, M. (2011). The productive and receptive acquisition of consonants and connected
speech by Polish students of English. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), The Acquisition of
L2 phonology (pp. 5973). Salisbury: Multilingual Matters.
Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. (2007). A review of vocabulary learning strategies: focus on language
prociency and learner voice. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies
(pp. 251273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ohata, K. (2005). Potential sources of anxiety for Japanese learners of English: Preliminary case
interviews with ve Japanese college students in the USA. TESL-EJ, 9(3), 121.
Ohata, K. (2005). Language anxiety from the teachers perspective: Interviews with seven
experienced ESL/EFL teachers. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), 133155.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with foreign language
anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 217239.
Osburne, A. G. (2003). Pronunciation strategies of advanced ESOL learners. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(2), 131143.
Otlowski, M. (2003). Pronunciation: What are the expectations? The Internet TESL Journal, 9(1).
Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Otlowski-Pronunciation.html
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language
learning (pp. 5867). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166172).
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults language learning strategies in an intensive
foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359386.
Oxford, R. L., & Lee, K. R. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: the second Cinderella and beyond.
In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 117139). Oxford:
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291300.
Oxford, R. (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Learning styles & strategies. Oxford, GALA 2003. Retrieved June 26, 2011,
from http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/*language/workshop/read2.pdf
OMalley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35
(1), 2146.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English prociency in Korean university
students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211221.
Park, N. (2007). The influences of language anxiety on the use of learning strategies. The
Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 15(3), 309328.
References 217
Park, H., & Lee, A. R. (2005). L2 learners anxiety, self-condence and oral performance. In
Proceedings of the 10th Conference of Pan-Pacic Association of Applied Linguistics
(pp. 107208). Edinburgh University, August 2005. Retrieved September 7, 2011, from http://
www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL10/pdfs/hyesook.pdf
Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics,
28(2), 163188.
Pavlenko, A., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Languages and emotions: A crosslinguistic perspective.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 23.
Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a
relationship. Research in Language, 7, 4360.
Pawlak, M. (2010). Designing and piloting a tool for the measurement of the use of pronunciation
learning strategies. Research in Language, 8, 189202.
Pawlak, M. (2011c). Students successes and failures in learning foreign language pronunciation:
Insights from diary data. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), The acquisition of L2 phonology
(pp. 165182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Students successes and failures in learning foreign language pronunciation:
Pawlak, M. (2011b). Students successes and failures in learning foreign language pronunciation:
Pawlak, M. (2009). Current perspectives on the role of age in second/foreign language acquisition.
In M. Kuniak & B. Rozwadowska (Eds.), PASE Papers 2008 (Vol. 1, pp. 333340)., Studies
in Language and Methodology of Teaching Foreign Languages Wrocaw: Ocyna
Wydawnicza ATUT.
Pawlak, M. (2011a). Anxiety as a factor influencing the use of language learning strategies. In M.
Pawlak (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching
(pp. 149165). Berlin: Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2011a). Anxiety as a factor influencing the use of language learning strategies. In M.
Pawlak (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching
(pp. 149165). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Pawlak, M. (2011b). Instructed acquisition of speaking: Reconciling theory and practice. In M.
Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language
acquisition (pp. 323). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Instructed acquisition of speaking: Reconciling theory and practice. In M.
Pawlak, M. (2006). On the use of pronunciation learning strategies by Polish foreign language
learners. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego w
Polsce (pp. 121135). Konin: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w
Koninie.
Pawlak, M. (2008). Another look at pronunciation learning strategies: An advanced learners
perspective. In E. Waniek-Klimczak (Ed.), Issues in Accents of English (pp. 304322).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pawlak, M. (2003). Nauczanie wymowy na lekcjach obcego w szkole redniej z perspektywy
nauczyciela. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka
obcego II. Konferencja w Wsoszach, 1012.05.2002 (pp. 6067). Konin: Wydawnictwo
Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie.
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of learner autonomy in pronunciation instruction. In W. Sobkowiak
& E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego. Neolologia, tom VIII
(pp. 131143). Pock: Zeszyty Naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
218 References
Pawlak, M. (2014). Investigating learner engagement with oral corrective feedback: Aims,
methodology, outcomes. In A. yda & K. Szczeniak (Eds.), Awareness in action. The role of
consciousness in second language acquisition (pp. 6984). Cham/London: Springer
International Publishing Switzerland.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179200.
Pennington, M. C. (1994). Recent research in L2 phonology: Implications for practice.
In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new dimensions
(pp. 92108). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Perkun, R., & Perry, R. (2014). Control-value theory of echievement emotions. In R. Perkun & L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120141).
New York: Routledge.
Peterson, S. (2000). Pronunciation learning strategies: A rst look. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED450599).
Phillips, E. M. (1991). Anxiety and oral competence: Classroom dilemma. The French Review, 65(1),
114.
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students oral test performance and
attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 1426.
Piasecka, L. (2001). Ways with words: Strategies of lexical acquisition. Opole: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Piasecka, L. (2008). Psycholinguistic and socio-cultural perspectives on native and foreign
language reading. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2008). Language anxiety in secondary grammar school students. Opole:
Opole University Press.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011a). Perceived teacher support and language anxiety in Polish
secondary school EFL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1),
8198.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2012). Gender-dependent language anxiety in Polish communication
apprehensives. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 227248.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011b). Relationship between language anxiety and development. In M.
Piske, T., Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R. A., & Meador, D. (2002). The production of English vowels
by fluent early and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica, 59(1), 4971.
Porzuczek, A. (1997). The role of RP and other accents in teaching English today. In
E. Waniek-Klimczak (Ed.), Teaching English phonetics and phonology II. Accents 1997
(pp. 4251). d: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu dzkiego.
Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly
anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and
research to classroom implications (pp. 101108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Purcell, E., & Suter, R. (1980). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: A re-examination. Language
Learning, 30, 271287.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics
(3rd ed.). London: Longman.
Rink, J. (2002). Musical performance: A guide to understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rivers, W. (1979). Learning a sixth language: An adult learners daily diary. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 36(1), 6782.
Roach, P. (2000). English phonetics and phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roach, P. (2009). English phonetics and phonology. Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
References 219
Robson, G., & Midorikawa, H. (2001). How reliable and valid is the Japanese version of the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)? JALT Journal, 23, 202226.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English phonology and pronunciation teaching. London: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Rokoszewska, K. (2012). The influence of pronunciation learning strategies on mastering English
vowels. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 391413.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the good learner can tell us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 4151.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 117131.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies.
In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 141164). Oxford:
Saito, Y., & Samimy, K. K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language performance: A study
of learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate, and advanced-level college students of Japanese.
Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 239249.
Samalieva, M. (2000). Strategies in foreign language pronunciation: A qualitative investigation.
BETA-IATEFL. 01/01/2000. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://www.beta-iate.org/697/
blog-publications/strategies-in-foreign-language-pronunciation-qualitative-investigation/
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929938.
Sardegna, V. G. (2012). Learner differences in strategy use, self-efcacy beliefs, and pronunciation
improvement. In. J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd pronunciation in second
language learning and teaching conference (pp. 3953). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Scarpino, S. E., Lawrence, F. R., Davison, M. D., & Hammer, C. S. (2011). Predicting bilingual
Spanish-English childrens phonological awareness abilities from their preschool English and
Spanish oral language. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 7793.
Scheuer, S. (2007). Why certain errors seem to matter more than others, or: What is wrong with
native speakers being right? IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group. Speak Out!, 38,
1721.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 129158.
Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379392.
Schumann, J. H. (1999). A neurobiological perspective on affect and methodology in second
language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 2842). Cambridge:
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of
inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of American Academy in Child Adolescent
Psychiatry, 38, 10081015.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety
research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129142.
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic enquiry into the critical period for human
speech. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Setter, J., & Jenkins, J. (2005). Teaching pronunciation: A state of the art review. Language
Teaching, 38, 117.
Shams, A. N. (2006). The use of computerized pronunciation practice in the reduction of foreign
language classroom anxiety (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University College of Arts
and Sciences, Tallahassee). Retrieved from http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-
11092006-171538/unrestricted/Shams_diss_Dec12.pdf
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431449.
220 References
Sheppard, C., Hayashi, C., & Ohmori, A. (2007). Factors accounting for attainment in foreign
language phonological competence. ICPhS XVI, 15971600. ID 1499. Saarbricken: Universitat
des Saarlandes. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://www.icphs2007.de/
Shuman, V., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Concepts and structures of emotions. In R. Perkun & L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 1335). New
York: Routledge.
Sifakis, N., & Sougari, A. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A
survey of Greek state school teachers beliefs. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 467488.
Singleton, D. (2014). Is there a best age for learning a second language? In V. Cook &
D. Singleton (Eds.), Key topics in second language acquisition (pp. 1735). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Smit, U. (2002). The interaction of motivation and achievement in advanced EFL pronunciation
learners. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(2),
89116. doi:10.1515/iral.2002.009
Sobkowiak, W. (1996). English phonetics for Poles. Pozna: Bene Nati.
Sobkowiak, W. (2003). Dlaczego nie LFC? Zeszyt Naukowy Instytutu Neolologii (2). Zeszyty
Naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie, 1(2), 114124.
Sobkowiak, W. (2005). Why not LFC? In K. Dziubalska-Koaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English
pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 131146). Bern: Peter Lang.
Sobkowiak, W., & Piasecka, L. (2014). Phonolapsology of graded readers in EFL: theory,
analysis, application. Pozna: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native
language aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 316.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1993). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language
learning difculties: Linking rst and second language learning. The Modern Language
Journal, 77, 289302.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of
skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203243.
Spencer, A. (1996). Phonology. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.
Spielberger, C. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (form Y). Palo Alto, Calif:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research of anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and
behaviour (pp. 325). New York: Academic Press.
Stephenson Wilson, J. T. (2006). Anxiety in learning English as a foreign language: Its
associations with student variables, with overall prociency, and with performance on an oral
test (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Granada). Retrieved August 12, 2010, from http://
hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/16235290.pdf
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31, 304318.
Strange, W. (2006). Second-language speech perception: The modication of automatic selective
perceptual routines. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 3137.
Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners.
In J. G. Hansen Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language
acquisition (pp. 153191). Amstrdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2006). Anxiety and identity in the language classroom. Regional Language
Centre Journal, 37(3), 299307.
Suba, G. (2010). What are the main sources of turkish efl students anxiety in oral practice?
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 1(2), 2949. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from
www.tojqi.net/articles//TOJQI_1_2_Article_3.pdf
Suter, R. W. (1976). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy in second language learning. Language
Learning, 26, 233253.
Swan, M. (2008). Talking sense about learning strategies. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi and Singapore, 39(2), 262273.
References 221
Szpyra-Kozowska, J. (2002). Wprowadzenie do wspczesnej fonologii. Lublin: Wydawnictwo

Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skodowskiej.
Szpyra-Kozowska, J., Frankiewicz, J., & Gonet, W. (2002). Aspekty fonetyki angielskiej
nauczane w polskich szkoach rednich. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.),
Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego na poziomie licencjackim (pp. 927). Pock: Wydawnictwo
Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
Szpyra-Kozowska, J. (2003). The lingua franca core and the Polish learner. In E.
Waniek-Klimczak & W. Sobkowiak (Eds.), Zeszyty naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy
Zawodowej w Pocku. Neolologia, tom V. (pp. 193210). Pock: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej
Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
Szpyra-Kozowska, J. (2004). Jaki model wymowy angielskiej? dyskusji cig dalszy. In W.
Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Zeszyt naukowy Instytutu Neolologii (3).
Materiay z konferencji Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego w Polsce Mikorzyn k. Konina
1012 maja 2004r (pp. 116123). Konin: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy
Zawodowej w Koninie.
Szyszka, M. (2011). Foreign language anxiety and self-perceived English pronunciation
competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 283300.
Takeuchi, O., Grifths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to context: The role of
individual, situational, and group differences. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language
learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 6992). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Takeuchi, O., C. Grifths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to context: The role of
individual, situational, and group differences. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language
learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 6992). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tanveer, M. (2007). Investigation of the factors that cause language anxiety for ESL/EFL learners
in learning speaking skills and the influence it casts on communication in the target language.
Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Exploring gender effect on adult foreign language learning strategies.
Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 181193. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://www.
iier.org.au/iier14/tercanlioglu.html
Thu, T. (2009). Learning strategies used by successful language learners. Retrieved June 26, 2011,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=
ED507398
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT
Journal, 56(3), 240249.
Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 573582.
Tobias, S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self
related cognition in anxiety and motivation (pp. 3554). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tominaga, Y. (2009). An analysis of successful pronunciation learners: in search of effective
factors in pronunciation teaching. Pan-Pacic Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 127
140.
Tovilovi, S., Novovi, Z., Mihi, L., & Jovanovi, V. (2009). The role of trait anxiety in
induction of state anxiety. Psihologija, 42(4), 491504.
Tran, T. V. (1988). Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies
among Vietnamese adults aged 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles, 19, 747758.
Tromovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing L2 Spanish
words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4),
519535.
Tseng, W., Drnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The
case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78102.
222 References
Tth, Z. (2010). Foreign language anxiety: A study of Hungarian students of English as a foreign
language. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Tth, Z. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral performance: Differences between high-vs.
low-anxious EFL students. US-China Foreign. Language, 10(5), 11661178.
Tth, Z. (2008). A foreign language anxiety scale for Hungarian learners of English. Working
Papers in Language Pedagogy, 2, 5578. Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://langped.elte.
hu/WoPaLParticles/W2TothZs.pdf
Van Daele, S. (2005). The effect of extraversion on oral L2 prociency. English, 6(24), 91114.
Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no24/vandaele.htm
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive
awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56,
431462.
Varasarin, P. (2007). An action research study of pronunciation training, language learning
strategies and speaking condence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria University,
Melbourne. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://wallaby.vu.edu.au/adt-VVUT/uploads/
approved/adtVVUT20070911.162030/public/01front.pdf
Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An
exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 263277.
Vitanova, G., & Miller, A. (2002). Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. The
Internet TESL Journal, 8(1). Retrieved March 23, 2011, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/
Vitanova-Pronunciation.html
Von Wrde, R. (2003). Students perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1).
Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-
worde.html
Wach, A. (2011). Native-speaker and English as a lingua franca pronunciation norms: English
majors views. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 247265.
Walker, R. (2001). International intelligibility. English Teaching Professional, 21, 1013.
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Waniek-Klimczak, E., & Klimczak, K. (2005). Target in speech development: Learners views.
In K. Dziubalska-Koaczyk & J. Przedlacka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing
scene (pp. 229249). Bern: Peter Lang.
Waniek-Klimczak, E. (2011). I am good at speaking, but I failed my phonetics class
pronunciation and speaking in advanced learners of English. In M. Pawlak,
E. Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition
Waniek-Klimczak, E. (1997). Context for teaching English phonetics and phonology at Polish
universities and colleges: a survey. In E. Waniek-Klimczak (Ed.), Teaching English phonetics
and phonology II. Accents 1997 (pp. 517). d: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu dzkiego.
Warren, M. (2004). Cognitive psychology and anxiety. Psychiatry, 3(4), 610.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315327). 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; London:
Prentice Hall.
White, C., Schramm, K., & Chamot, A. U. (2007). Research methods in strategy research:
re-examining the toolbox. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies
(pp. 93116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whiting, S. E., Jenkins, W. S., May, A. C., Rudy, B. M., Davis, T. E., & Reuther, E. T. (2014).
The role of intolerance of uncertainty in social anxiety subtypes. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 70(3), 260272.
References 223
Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students.
Educational Psychologist, 24, 159183.
Wingeld, A., & Titone, D. (2005). Procesy przedtwarzania zda. In J. B. Gleason & N. B. Ratner
(Eds.), Psycholingwistyka (pp. 249297). Gdask: Gdaskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Woodrow, L. J. (2006). A model of adaptive language learning. The Modern Language Journal,
90, 297319.
Wrembel, M. (2008). In search of effective strategies for L2 pronunciation teaching and learning.
In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching (pp. 179194).
Pozna-Kalisz: Wydawnictwo UAM.
Wrembel, M. (2011). Metaphonetic awareness in the production of speech. In M. Pawlak, E.
Waniek-Klimczak, & J. Majer (Eds.), Speaking and instructed foreign language acquisition
Wrembel, M. (2002). Miejsce fonetyki jzyka angielskiego w szkoleimplikacje dla ksztacenia
nauczycieli. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka
obcego na poziomie licencjackim (pp. 2940). Pock: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej
Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
Wrembel, M. (2002). Miejsce fonetyki jzyka angielskiego w szkole implikacje dla ksztacenia
nauczycieli. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka
obcego na poziomie licencjackim (pp. 2940). Pock: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej
Szkoy Zawodowej w Pocku.
Wrembel, M. (2006). Pronunciation teaching methods and techniques; the past, the present and the
future. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.), Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka obcego w
Polsce (pp. 251261). Konin: Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w
Koninie.
Wrembel, M. (2003). Rola metakompetencji w akwizycji fonologii jzyka obcego w wietle bada
dotyczcych efektywnoci procesu nauczania wymowy. Zeszyt Naukowy Instytutu Neolologii
(2). Zeszyty Naukowe Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie, 1(2), 150158.
Wrembel, M. (2004). Phonological know that or know how?in pursuit of determinants of
second language pronunciation attainments. In W. Sobkowiak & E. Waniek-Klimczak (Eds.),
Zeszyt naukowy Instytutu Neolologii (3). Materiay z konferencji Dydaktyka fonetyki jzyka
obcego w Polsce Mikorzyn k. Konina 1012 maja 2004r (pp. 163170). Konin:
Wydawnictwo Pastwowej Wyszej Szkoy Zawodowej w Koninie.
Yan, J. X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal
and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative Analysis of
EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1), 151183.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459482. Retrieved
July 7, 2013, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Yerkes/Law/
Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign
Language Annals, 23(6), 539553.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety
research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426439.
Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language specialists perspective:
Interview with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25,
157172.
Young, D. J. (1994). New directions in language anxiety research. In C. A. Klee (Ed.), Faces in
the crowd: The individual learner in multisection courses (pp. 346). Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Zeidner, M. (1991). Test anxiety and aptitude test performance in an actual college admission testing
situation: Temporal considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 101109.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum.
Zeidner, M. (2014). Anxiety in education. In R. Perkun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.),
International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 265288). New York: Routledge.
224 References
Zhang, Q. M. (2009). Affecting factors of native-like pronunciation: A literature review. Korea

Education & Research Institute, 27(2), 3352. Retrieved September 7, 2011, from http://cau.
ac.kr/*edusol/see/list/Vol27-2/CAKE027-002-4.pdf
Zheng, Y. (2008). Anxiety and second/foreign language learning revisited. Canadian Journal for
New Scholars in Education, 1(1), 112. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED506736).
Zsiga, E. C. (2013). The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology.
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
nem, E. (2012). A model of instruction for anxiety and success in ELT. The Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 8(2), 6478.
yliska, M. (2013). Neurodydaktyka. Nauczanie i uczenie si przyjazne mzgowi. Toru:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikoaja Kopernika.

Magdalena Szyszka (Auth.) Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety in Search of An Interplay-Springer International Publishing (2017)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Magdalena Szyszka (Auth.) Pronunciation Learning Strategies and Language Anxiety in Search of An Interplay-Springer International Publishing (2017)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Second Language Learning and Teaching

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

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic)

Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

complexity of general anxiety are presented before the construct of language

Opole, Poland Magdalena Szyszka

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

EFL English as a foreign language

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

Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

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

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

2.1 Pronunciation and Language Learning

Springer International Publishing AG 2017 5

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

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

2.1.1 Different Approaches to Pronunciation TeachingA

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

2.1.2 Goals in Current EFL Pronunciation Teaching

2.1.2.1 English Pronunciation Models for Teaching/Learning

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

2.1.2.2 Pronunciation Teaching from the Perspective of English

One researcher endeavouring to implement the intelligibility principle in paradigms

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

2.1.3 Foreign Language Pronunciation and Cognitive

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

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

2.1.4 Selected Factors Affecting Pronunciation Attainment

External variables and individual learner characteristics may contribute signicantly

More attention to the environment is given by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), who

2.1.4.1 Selected Internal Factors: Biological, Cognitive

One of the biological factors apparently affecting L2 pronunciation acquisition is

p. 128). Although the study conducted by Waniek-Klimczak (2011) does not

2.1.4.2 Selected External Factors: Native Language, Exposure

Sociocultural and pedagogical factors affecting L2 pronunciation learning are

help or impede the L2 pronunciation acquisition. It is therefore necessary to realise

2.2 Language Learning Strategies (LLS)

2.2.1 Dening Language Learning Strategies

Fig. 2.1 The process of LLS use

2.2.2 Selected Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies

as a broad and comprehensive plan a learner carefully prepared by a learner in order

2.2.3 Factors Affecting the Choice of Language Learning

Additionally, the social-psychological model of Language Learning Strategies

2.3 Pronunciation Learning Strategies (PLS)

2.3.1 The Typology of Pronunciation Learning Strategies

Pronunciation learning strategies are conscious actions and thoughts, frequently

improve the process of learning (Drodzia-Szelest, 1998, p. 18) and language

strategies of practicing naturalistically, formally practicing with sounds and ana-

teaching pronunciation. The main objective of this proposal is to raise awareness

Table 2.6 Pawlaks (2010) pronunciation learning strategies taxonomy

Table 2.7 A summary of selected taxonomies for pronunciation learning strategies

direct memory, cognitive and compensation strategies, as well as indirect

differences in assigning to PLS. Peterson (2000) matches it with metacognitive

enunciation, noticing and identifying English accents, recording ones voice in

2.3.2 The Role of Pronunciation Learning Strategies

There is no doubt that strategies can increase learners language prociency,

Although the statement above is an overgeneralisation not supported by research

discussed. This was followed by a presentation of selected individual learner fac-

3.1 The Concept of Anxiety as a Psychological Construct

3.1.1 Anxiety Types: Trait, State, Situation-Specic

In approaching the construct of anxiety, psychologists distinguish a range of