AN ANALYSI S OF THE AUDI O- LI NGUAL APPROACH

AS AP P LI ED TO METHODS OF TEACHI NG RUSSI AN

by
John Alan Wo o d s w o r t h
B. A. , The Uni ver s i t y of Br i t i s h Columbia, 1945
A T HE S I S SUBMI TTED I N PARTI AL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
i n t he D e p a r t m e n t
of
Mo d e r n Languages
@ J OHN ALAN WOODSWORTH 1967
SI MON FRASER UNI VERSI TY
N o v e mb e r , 1967
EXAMINING COMMITTEE APPROVAL
- b L . * . * . . L , Y , -
--
Senior supervisor
,- . a,, - c ,-- - . - w -- -
V
Examining Committee
PARTTAL COPYRIGIIT LI CENSE
I her eby g r a n t t o Simon Fr a s e r Uni ve r s i t y t h e r i g h t t o l end
my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n ( t h e t i t l e of which i s shown bel ow) t o u s e r s
of t h e Simon Fr a s e r Uni ve r s i t y Li b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r s i n g l e
c opi e s onl y f o r s uch u s e r s o r i n r es pons e t o a r e que s t from t h e l i b r a r y
of any o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y , o r ot he r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own
be ha l f o r f o r one of i t s u s e r s . I f u r t h e r a gr e e t h a t per mi ssi on f o r
mu l t i p l e copyi ng of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pur poses may be gr a nt e d
by me or t he Dean of Graduat e St t l di es. It is under st ood t h a t copyi ng
o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be al l owed
wi t hout my wr i t t e n per mi ssi on.
T i t l e of T h e s i s / ~ i s s e r t a t i o n :
Au t h o r :
( s i g n a t u r e )
(name )
( d a t e )
ABSTRACT
Prob lem:
i
The term audio-lingual approach &used to denote a specific peda-
. _ . - - - _
-- --- I
__ __ - -- - -------- -- _ _ __
--
---
gogical orientstion which grew out2f.-lamage-teaching programmes for
-
. ---
- - --
---- _.
- -
United St c i t e s military personnel during the Second World War. Its basic
distinction f ~ o m the traditional approaches is that language is to be
taught as speech rather than as writing and grammar, as a living vehicle
of comrnunlcation rather than as a fossilized set of printed rules and
paradigms. Language-learning, as defined audio-lingually, involves the
acquisition of skills in speaking and understanding speech, while read-
ing and writing are secondary skills based on the spoken language.
Despite the acknowledged superiority over traditional methods, how-
ever, the new approach has not met with widespread acceptance. Its rad-
ical requirements have brought opposition from grammar-oriented language-
-teachers. Linguists themselves have challenged its effectiveness in
actual classroom experience. Not all textbooks or teaching-methods pur-
ported to be based on the audio-lingual approach apply its principles to
the same degree.
In considering the success of the audio-lingual approach itself we
first examine its basic tenet regarding the primacy of speech and its
claimed significance in the teaching of foreign languages. The specific
challenges to this claim (especially those based on the principles of
gradation and rate of learning) are then discussed as to their validity
and conclusions drawn accordingly. In the next chapter the parallel de-
velopment of buxh hearing and speaking skills is considered, together
with the problem of interference from the learner's native tongue; con-
-
textual factors such as dialect, style, tempo, and vehicle of presenta-
tion are also taken into account here. Finally we turn our attention to
r he actual assimilation sf language-material by the learner i n the class-
room situation. The aim in each case is to de~ermine what factors are
essential to or desirable in a successful audio-lingual teaching-method,
\
The second part of the thesis is devoted to an analysis of four
audio-lingual textbooks for beginning Russian students (Cornyn's Begin-
?ling Russian, Modem Russian by Dawson, Bidwell, and Humesky, Basic Con-
versat i onal Russian by Fairbanks and Leed, and the A-LM Russian: Level
One) on the basis of the criteria already established in the f i r s t part.
The analysis covers not only the presentation and assimilation of audio-
-lingual skills in general, but also some of the individual difficulties
involved in the mastery of those skills as far as teaching Russian t o
English-speaking students is concerned.
Conclusions:
A comprehensive summary in diagram form compares the treatment of
different items in the audio-lingual approach by the four teaching-mekh-
ods discussed. General conclusions are then divided into two parts:
a) $he recommendation that in audio-lingual methods sufficient attention
be given to the learner's age and degree of literacy, his ability to un-
derstand as well as produce fluent speech, and his awareness of the finer
points of contrast between the new language and his own; b) conclusions
\
as ta how well each of these considerations is treated in the different
textbooks. A further final comment is made as to the success with which
each of the teaching-methods, from an over-all viewpoint, applies the
principles of the audio-lingual approach.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Acknowledgment
1. INTRODUCTION
I . 1 OBJECTIVES.
P .2 HYPOTHESES.
1.21 F i r s t hypothesis.
1.22 Second hypothesis.
1 - 3 TEACHING-METHODS.
1.4 HISTORICAL ORIENTATION.
2. AUDIAL AND GRAPHIC SKILLS
2.1 AUDIO-LINGUAL ASSUMPTIONS.
2.11 Primacy of the spoken language.
2.12 The place of the written language.
2.13 Significance for teaching.
2.14 Summary,
2.2 CHALLENGES TO AUDIO-LINGUAL ASSUMPTIONS.
2.21 What is being challenged?
2.22 Challenge to the primacy of speech in teaching.
iii
X
vii
2.23 Challenge in gradation of skills.
2.24 Challenge in rate of learning.
2.25 Answer to challenges.
2.26 Summary.
3. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SKI LLS
3.1 AUDING AND SPEAKING.
3.11 Differences between native and target language.
3.12 The importance of auditory comprehension.
3.13 Method and order of presentation.
3.14 Treatment of speech production.
3.2 CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS.
3.21 Dialect, style, and tempo: significance for auding.
3.22 Dialect, style, and tempo: significance for speaking.
3.23 Choice of vehicle.
3.24 Summary.
4. ASSI MI LATI ON PROCEDURES
4.1 SUB-CONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION.
4.11 Practice in imitation.
4.12 Practice in discrimination,
4.2 CONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION.
4.21 Explanation versus imitation.
4.22 The use of contrastive analysis.
4.23 The use of phonetic transcription.
4 -24 Summary.
viii
5. TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS: PRESENTATION
5. 1 PRESI:NTA?'30hl 01. flUDIAI, AND GRAPHIC SKILJS.
5.11 Pedagogical orientation.
5.12 Linguistrc orientation.
5.13 Order of presentation.
5.14 The use of transcription in presentation.
5.2 PRESENTATION OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SKILLS.
5.21 Context of presentation: choice of vehicle.
5 . 2 2 Context sf presentation: dialect, style, and tempo.
5-23 Presentation of auding.
5-24 Presentation of speaking.
5.25 Summary"
6. TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS: ASSIMILATION
6. 1 METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION.
6.2 ASSIMILATION OF THE RUSSIAN SOUND-SYSTEM.
6. 21 Phonological difficulties for English-speakers,
6. 22 Palatalization of consonants.
6. 23 Changes in vowel quality.
5.24 Consonant clusters.
6 . 2 5 Stress- and intonation-patterns.
6. 26 Summary.
7 . CONC LUS I ON!) .
i . 1 ~: O~v 1 I ' I ~I : l I ~NSI VE SUMMARY OF TEACHING-METHODS .
7 . 11 Pr e s e nt a t l on.
7.12 Assimilation.
7.2 FIRST HYPOTHESIS.
7.21 Age and literacy of learner.
7.22 Development of active and passive skills.
7.23 Interference with similar phonemes.
7.3 SECOND HYPOTHESIS.
7.31 Provision of visual representation.
7.32 Mastery of fluent conversational utterances.
7.33 Contrast and conscious assimilation.
7.4 FURTHER COMMENTS.
Bibliography
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge his
indebtedness to the members of his Ex-
amining Committee, Prof. G.F. Holliday
of the Department of Modern Languages
and Prof. D.H. Sullivan of the English
Department. He is especially grateful
to his supervisor, Prof. E.R. Colhoun
of the Department of Modern Languages,
for his invaluable assistance and con-
structive criticism in the preparation
of this thesis.
1 . INTRODUCTION
1. 1 OBJECTIVES. The t h e s i s i s di vi ded i n t o two p a r t s :
a) an ext ens i ve examination of t he audi o- l i ngual 1 approach t o t he
t eachi ng of t h e a c t i v e and pas s i ve audi al s k i l l s 2 of a second language
wi t h regard t o es t abl i s hi ng obj ect i ve c r i t e r i a f o r t he eval uat i on of
audi o- l i ngual methods ;
b) an example of such eval uat i on embodied i n a c r i t i c a l anal ys i s of
t he pr es ent at i on and as s i mi l at i on of audi al ski l l s-i ncl udi ng i ndi vi d-
ual d i f f i c u l t i e s i nvol ved i n t he mast ery of t hes e ski l l s- - as t r e a t e d
i n f our methods of t eachi ng Russian which a r e zcknowledged t o be based
on t h e audi o- l i ngual approach.
''The t erms audio-lingual and aural-oral r e f e r t o any approach based
pr i mar i l y on t h e audial as pect s of language ( i . e . a s it i s heard
and spoken), wi t h onl y secondary emphasis on t h e graphic as pect s ,
or wr i t t e n r epr es ent at i on of l anguage. An e s s e n t i a l component of
t h e audi o- l i ngual approach i s t h e i mi t at i on of t h e spont aneous,
everyday speech of nat i ve speaker s, r a t he r t han memorization of
wr i t t e n r u l e s and paradigms c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l ap-
proach, which concent r at es on t h e gr aphi c as pect s al one.
*'The a udi a l and graphi c as pect s of a language each i nvol ve an "act i ve"
and a "passi ve" s k i l l . Graphic s k i l l s a r e wr i t i ng and r eadi ng r es -
pect i vel y. Speaking i s t h e a c t i v e audi al s k i l l ; f o r i t s pas s i ve
count er par t I s h a l l use t h e r ecent t erm auding ( c f . Muel l er 185),
t o i ndi c a t e not j u s t l i s t e n i n g , but audi t or y di s cr i mi nat i on and
comprehension.
3 ~ h e t erm method i s used i n t h i s t h e s i s t o denot e t h e or gani zat i on of
t eachi ng mat er i al s i n t o a uni f i e d programme of pr es ent at i on, i . e . ,
an audi o- l i ngual method c ons i s t s of t h e embodiment of t he pr i nc i pl e s
of t h e audi o- l i ngual approach i n t o t eachi ng materiaZs ( t ext book,
t ape- r ecor di ngs, t eachi ng manual, e t c . ) .
1,2 HYPOTHESES.
1.21 First hypothesis. The audial skills of a language are most ef-
fectively and efficiently taught by audio-lingual methods which give
sufficient consideration to the following important points:
1.211 The age and literacy of the learner and the visual orientation
of his educational experience as an asset or a hindrance to audio-lin-
gual learning;
1,212 Parallel development of both active and passive skills with em-
phasis on the comprehension and production of fluent utterances in nos-
mal conversational context;
1,213 The learner's ability to discriminate between closely related
sounds of the new language, as well as the interference from similar
sounds in his native language.
1.22 Second hypothesis. With regard to their procedures for presen-
tation and assimilation of audial skills, including individual diffi-
culties involved in the mastery of these skills, not all audio-lingual
methods publicized as such are equally successful in satisfying the
criteria outlined in the first hypothesis.
1 . 3 TEACHING METHODS. Four audi o- l i ngual methods f o r t eachi ng Russian
a r e anal ysed i n t he second p a r t of t h i s t h e s i s . They a r e s e t f o r t h i n
t he fol l owi ng t ext books and manuals:
Cornyn, William S., Beginning Russian (1961).
Dawson, Clayton L./Bidwell, Charles E./Humesky, Assya,
Modern Russian ( 2 volumes 1964165); also Instructor's
Manual (1964).
Fairbanks, Gordon H./Leed, Richard L., Basic Conversationaz
Russian (1964); also Teacher's ManuaZ (1966).
Modern Language Materials Development Center Staff, A-LM
Russian: Level One (1961); also Teacher's ManucZ (1961).
1. 4 HISTORICAL ORIENTATION. Although i t i s mainly duri ng t he pas t
two decades t h a t audi o- l i ngual methods, s o- cal l ed, have become popu-
l a r i n North American school s, t he r oot s of an aur al - or al b a s i s f o r
l anguage- i nst r uct i on reach f a r back i n t o European h i s t o r y . As ear l y
as 1632 t h e Czech educat or Jan KomenskT (Comenius) publ i shed h i s Di-
dactica magna, a work which at t acked t he t r a d i t i o n a l seadi ng- t r ans-
l a t i o n methods based on grammatical s t udi es of c l a s s i c a l Lat i n and
Greek ( c f . Mackey 142, Brooks 138). "I nst ead of r ul e s , Comenius used
i mi t at i on, r e p e t i t i o n and pl ent y of pr a c t i c e i n bot h readi ng and
speaking" (Mackey 142).
Somewhat more r ecent l y (1899), t he Br i t i s h l i ngui s t Henry Sweet
decreed t h a t " a l l st udy of language, whether t h e o r e t i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l ,
ought t o be based on t h e spoken language" (Sweet 49) . Twenty year s
l a t e r h i s col l eague Harold Palmer adopted a s t he f i r s t of h i s ni ne
l anguage-t eachi ng pr i nc i pl e s : "The i n i t i a l pr epar at i on of t he s t u -
dent by t h e t r a i ni ng of h i s spontaneous c a pa c i t i e s f o r as s i mi l at i ng
t h e spoken language" (Palmer 1922,131) .
The f i r s t l anguage-t eachers i n t h e United St a t e s t o adopt an aur al -
- or a l approach were Got t l i eb Heness, a German emi grant , and D r . Lambert
Sauveur, a col l eague from France. The use of t h e spoken language was
popul ar i zed a f t e r 1911 when D r . Max Walter i nt roduced t he methods of
t h e German phi l ol ogi s t Vi Et or ( c f . Meras 35-44). The Coleman r epor t 4
of 1929 marked a gr adual s h i f t of emphasis back t o t h e readi ng approach,
which was checked t o some degree duri ng t he Second World War when
t r a i ne d speakers of f or ei gn languages were i n gr eat demand. From t h i s
s i t u a t i o n grew t he audi o- l i ngual approach a s i t i s known today i n one
form o r anot her i n t h e United St a t e s and ot her count r i es : an approach
t h a t i ncl udes t h e t eachi ng of readi ng and wr i t i ng, but gi ves pri mary
emphasis t o t he language a s i t i s heard and spoken. I t i s t h i s ap-
proach, a s d i s t i n c t from t he t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis on t he gr aphi c s k i l l s
al one, t h a t i s s ubj ect t o our examination i n t h i s t h e s i s .
' pr of . Algernon Coleman, The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages i n
t he United St at es--see M6ras 46-47.
2. AUDI AL AND GRAPHI C SKILLS
2.1 AUDIO-LINGUAL ASSUMPTIONS.
2.11 Primacy of t he spoken language. Dr. Herman Rapper of the Univer-
sity of Halle once summarized ViEtor's principles in part as follows:
" ~ a n ~ u a ~ e consists not of letters but of sounds.. . .
Not through the
eye but through the ear the foreign language must come" (M6ras 43).
As stated in 1.1, the audio-lingual approach to language-teaching
concentrates primarily on the audial skills: it works from the funda-
mental principle that "a language is first of all a system of sounds
for social communication; writing is a secondary derivative system for
--
the recording of spoken language" (Carroll 1063). I
Oge of the facts commonly cited in support of this principle is
the manner in which children learn their mother tongue-by hearing and
speaking it: it is not until they have achieved a considerable audial
command that reading and writing are learned. Several others are men-
tioned by Nelson Brooks in his Language and Language Learning (24-25)
-the comparatively short history of the written word and its limited
scope until the invention of the printing-press, the large number of
unwritten languages even today, and the social and psychological pre-
dominance of speech.
In addition to these, Robert A. Hall Jr. (28) points out a physio-
logical factor which is frequently overlooked, namely, silent articula-
lcf. a l s o Huebener 1965, 27+8.
2 ~ f . a l s o H a l l 26.
tion or sub-vocalization in reading and writing:
It i s commonly t hought t h a t we can r ead and wr i t e i n comple-,e
s i l e nc e , wi t hout any speech t aki ng pl ace. ... but never t hel es s ,
i ns i de t h e br a i n, t h e impulses f o r speech a r e s t i l l bei ng s ent
f o r t h t hrough t h e ner ves, and onl y t h e a c t ua l i z a t i on of t hes e
impulses i s bei ng i nhi bi t e d on t h e muscular l e v e l , a s has been
shown by numerous experiments .
2.12 The place of t he wri t t en language. In spite of its insistence
on the primacy of the spoken language, the audio-lingual approach does
not exclude graphic skills from the teaching programme, nor does it
fail to recognize the important role of reading and writing in the use
of language; it merely assigns them to a secondary position for teach-
ing purposes. This is probably best summarized by Brooks, who distin-
guishes three "bands" of languagqestural-visual, audio-lingual, and
graphic-material:
The development of t h i s t h i r d [ gr aphi c- mat er i al ] band has , a s
everyone knows, compl et el y t ransformed t h e l i f e of c i v i l i z e d
man, but i t s complete dependence upon t h e c e n t r a l audi o-l i ngual
band must never be di sr egar ded.
The proponents of the audio-lingual approach maintain that such a rela-
tionship extends even to the literary and cultural levels of language,
for "it is the spoken which is the real source of the literary language.
. . . . Every literary language must indeed in its first beginnings be
purely colloquial" (Sweet 49-50) .
3 ~ f . a l s o Palmer 1921,21-22.
4 ~ r o o k s 18. A Russi an t eacher i n one of t h e et hni c r epubl i cs of t h e So-
v i e t Union of f er s proof of t h i s dependence ( z avi s i mos t ' ) a s f ol l ows:
"ECJM CpaBHMTb 0m6m, ICOTOPbIe YyaUMeCR AOl7yCIcaroT B IIHCbMe, TO 3 T a
3aBMCMMOCTb [ I D I c ~ ~ E H H o ~ ~ pew OT YCTHO);'?] CT a He T O ~ I ~ S MA H O ~ ~ "
( ~ i k o l a e v a
25) . Cf. a l s o Fi s her 42.
2. 13 Si gni f i cance for teaching. The primacy of t he spoken word has
long been recogni zed a s s i gni f i c a nt i n t he t eachi ng of f or ei gn langua-
ges . In 1942 Leonard Bloomfield wrot e:
... t h e acqui s i t i on of a ' r eadi ng knowledge' i s g r e a t l y del ayed
and ... t h e r e a de r ' s underst andi ng remains ver y i mperfect unl es s
he has some command of a c t ua l speech.
I n cont r as t wi t h t h i s , it i s always pos s i bl e t o speak a l an-
guage wi t hout r eadi ng convent i onal pr i nt e d mat t er .
Thi s l a s t st at ement i s borne out by t he l ar ge number of languages t h a t
have no "convent i onal pr i nt ed mat t er", a s mentioned i n 2. 11. But why
shoul d speech f a c i l i t a t e t he l ear ni ng of readi ng more t han t he opposi t e
case?
There a r e a t l e a s t two reasons f o r t h i s r e l a t i ons hi p. The f i r s t i s
t h e phys i ol ogi cal i nf l uence of speech i n t he form of sub- vocal i zat i on
whi l e readi ng o r wr i t i ng ( s ee Ha l l ' s quot at i on i n 2. 11) . The second is
t o be found i n t he psychol ogi cal i nf l uence of t he wri t i ng-syst em i t s e l f :
Le pr e s t i ge qu' a acqui s l a page &r i t e e t l e f a i t que not r e en-
seignement s ' appui e s ur des t e x t e s , nous masqiue l a r 6a l i t 6,
. . . . La l angue, s ur t out c e l l e que nous voulons ensei gner aux
dgbut ant s, s e pr gsent e d' abord comme un moyen de communication
o r a l e . O r , on ne peut pas dgc r i r e ce systsme o r a l en s e r6f6-
r a n t B des normes qui ne concernent que 1 1 6 c r i t .
Brooks poi nt s out s t i l l anot her danger i n wri t i ng-syst ems:
Thi s sound-to-writing di r e c t i on shoul d be i mpl i c i t t hroughout
t h e i n i t i a l s t ages of l ear ni ng t o r ead and wr i t e . .... I f
t h i s procedure i s not fol l owed, and t h e l e a r ne r i s sudd.enly pre-
sent ed wi t h a t e x t he has not al r eady l ear ned, he w i l l obvi ousl y
t end t o pronounce t h e wr i t t e n symbols a s he would pronounce them
i n h i s mother t ongue.
5 ~l o o mf i e l d 8. C f . a l s o Eggert ' s quot at i on i n Palmer 1921, 16.
7 ~ r o o k s 165. Thi s would pose a r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g problem i n t h e cas e of
I n view of t hes e f a c t o r s , then--) t h a t audi al s k i l l s a r e not depen-
dent on gr aphi c s k r l l s , but vi ce- ver sa, and b) t h a t wri t i ng-syst ems, bot h
wi t hi n themselves and i n cont r as t wi t h each ot her , may gi ve t he l ear ner
a d i s t o r t e d p i c t u r e of language as heard and spoken-it has been adopted
as an axiom by t he s t r i c t e s t adherent s of t he audi o- l i ngual approach t h a t
"wri t t en work should if possible be excluded from t he ear l i er stages of
language-study" (Palmer l921,3O) .
2. 14 Swnmary. The bas i c t e ne t s of t he audi o- l i ngual approach t r e a t e d
t hus f a r a r e as fol l ows
2. 141 Language cons i s t s pr i mar i l y of communication by sound; words a r e
but a gr aphi c r epr es ent at i on of sound. Thi s concl usi on is based on t h e
fol l owi ng f a c t or s : a) chi l dr en l ear n t h e i r mother tongue by hear i ng and
speaki ng; b) wr i t i ng i s a comparat i vel y r ecent phenomenon wi t h very l i m -
i t e d scope u n t i l t he i nvent i on of t he pr i nt i ng- pr es s ; c) t he r e a r e many
languages today wi t hout a wr i t t en form; d) speech remains t he dominant
f a c t o r I n t he i ndi vi dual independent of h i s gr aphi c a b i l i t i e s ; e) no
readi ng o r wr i t i ng occurs wi t hout s ub- vocal i zat i on.
2.142 Although it pl ays an i mport ant r o l e i n s oci et y, t he wr i t t e n l an-
guage, even t h a t of l i t e r a t u r e , i s e n t i r e l y dependent on t he spoken
language.
2. 143 Wri t i ng systems do not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r epr es ent speech.
Russi en, a s some l e t t e r s of t h e Cy r i l l i c al phabet shared by t h e Lat i n
r epr es ent t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t sounds from t hos e r epr esent ed by t h e sane
graphs i n Engl i sh. For example, Cy r i l l i c rope /g6re/-1' sorrow11-might
be r ead a s Engl i sh rope, whi l e t h e c l a s s i c wr i t t e n example i s t h e Rus-
s i a n verb noexam6 / paj &xaf/-"to dr i ve".
2.144 I t fol l ows from t he above premi ses t h a t onl y t h e audi al s k i l l s
of a language shoul d be t aught a t f i r s t .
2 . 2 CHALLENGES TO AUDIO-LINGUAL ASSUMPTIONS.
2 . 2 1 What i s being challenged? I n a r ecent a r t i c l e on t he audi o- l i n-
gual approach e n t i t l e d "The Danger of Assumption wi t hout Proof" Beverly
Bazan (337) warns us t h a t "many of t h e cur r ent a s s e r t i ons cannot cl ai m
any s t a t u s ot her t han t h a t of assumptions". (We have s o been c a l l i ng
them i n t h i s t h e s l s . ) Theodore Huebener (1963,376) r epor t s t h a t "a
more sober examination of i t s [ t he audi o- l i ngual approach' s] ba s i c t en-
e t s and day-to-day appl i cat i on of i t s procedures have r eveal ed t h a t
c e r t a i n ba s i c assumptions were not cor r ect 1' . Most of t h e maxims di s -
cussed t hus f a r i n t h i s t he s i s 8 however--the primacy of speech over
wr i t i ng, t h e d i s t o r t i o n s of wr i t i ng systems-, seem t o be support ed by
provabl e f a c t s . What assumpt i ons, t hen, a r e not cor r ect ? What, i n
f a c t , i s bei ng chal l enged?
I t may be wel l t o poi nt out her e t h a t t he audi o- l i ngual approach
developed, t o a l a r ge ext ent , under t he wat chful gui dance of l i n g u i s t i c
s c i e n t i s t s . Applied l i n g u i s t i c s i ncl udes t h e application t o language-
- t eachi ng methods of t h e di s cover i es and axioms of t he des cr i pt i ve l i n -
g u i s t s , who, al t hough t hey have gener al l y l i t t l e i n t e r e s t f o r language-
- t eachi ng, were i n f a c t among t he e a r l i e s t t o make f u l l appl i cat i on of
t h e p r i n c i p l e of audi al supremacy. And Robert L . Po l i t z e r (66) reminds
US :
8 ~ m a r l z e d ~n 2.14.
... t h e r e i s , of cour se, not hi ng i n l i n g u i s t i c sci ence a s such
t h a t t e l l s us t h a t t h e o r a l appraoch i s t h e onl y v a l i d one
[ f o r language-t caching ] . It j u s t happens t h a t most l i ngui s -
t i c s c i e n t i s t s a r e pr i mar i l y concerned wi t h language i n i t s
spoken form, or def i ne language a s a spoken r a t he r t han a
wr i t t e n means of communication. ... t h e language t eacher who
i s bei ng advl sed by t h e l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n t i s t i s merel y s t a t i n g
pr ef er ences di c t a t e d by h i s pr of es s i onal background.
I n ot her words, t he de s c r i pt i ve branch of l i n g u i s t i c s must not be
confused wi t h t he appl i cat i on of l i n g u i s t i c t heor y t o l anguage-t eachi ng
methods. The former s uppl i es i nformat i on i n t he nat ur e of provabl e
f a c t s about language i t s e l f ; t he l a t t e r i n f e r s from t hes e f a c t s c e r t a i n
assumptions about t eachi ng s t udent s how t o use a language. Many t each-
e r s , however, es peci al l y t hose accustomed t o t he t r a d i t i o n a l readi ng ap-
proach t o l anguage-t eachi ng, f a i l t o r ecogni se t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n and mis-
t akenl y t r y t o di s put e proven f a c t s of language (such a s t he primacy of
speech over wr i t i ng, o r t he inadequacy of wr i t i ng t o gi ve a t r u e pi c-
t u r e of speech) . Thi s e r r o r i s one of t he chi ef causes of misunder-
st andi ng between t he appl i ed l i n g u i s t and t he l anguage-t eacher.
The r e a l i s s ue under di s put e by Bazan, Huebener, and ot her s , i s
whether t h e pr i nc i pl e of audi al primacy shoul d be followed i n teaching
a language, i . e . , t h a t audi al s k i l l s shoul d be t aught bef or e graphi c
ones-ot whether speech i s primary t o language i t s e l f . I t i s wi t h
t h i s i n mind, t hen, t ha t we s h a l l examine t he i ndi vi dual poi nt s of d i s -
agreement i n t he f i r s t pa r t of t h e t h e s i s .
2.22 Challenge t o t he primacy of speech i n t eachi ng. A s mentioned i n
2. 11, a f a c t of t en r ef er r ed t o a s evi dence of t he primacy of speech i s
t h a t chi l dr en l ear n t h e i r mother tongue e s s e n t i a l l y through t he audi al
s k i l l s . Thi s i s undoubtedly t r u e i n t he c h i l d ' s e a r l y year s , but t he
hi gh-school o r uni ver s i t y s t udent who begi ns t o l ear n a second language
i s i n q u i t e a di f f e r e nt pos i t i on.
F i r s t of a l l , he i s no l onger a c hi l d, and he has al r eady mast ered
h i s mother t ongue. But more i mport ant , a s a r e s u l t of vi s ua l l y or i en-
t e d educat i onal pr ocesses he has come t o r egar d readi ng and wr i t i ng a s
h i s pri mary means of l ear ni ng anyt hi ng he does not know ( c f . Bazan 342):
John Car r ol l s t a t e s t h e problem a s f ol l ows:
Fear has been expressed t h a t t h e pr es ent at i on of f or ei gn l an-
guage mat er i al s i n audi t or y form may c r e a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r
"eye-minded" students-"eye-mindedness" bei ng concei ved of a s
e i t h e r a r e l a t i v e l y permanent c ons t i t ut i ona l t r a i t o r a r e s u l t
of a predominantly vi s ua l emphasis i n t h e i ndi vi dual ' s school
exper i ences,
I n ot her words, we f i nd t ha t i n t h e audi o- l i ngual approach t h e pr i n-
c i p l e of audi al primacy i n language i s brought i n t o shar p c o n f l i c t wi t h
t he gr aphi c o r vi s ua l predominance of our educat i onal system. We have
al r eady consi dered t h e ba s i s f or t he former. Let us now b r i e f l y examine
what i s i nvol ved i n t he l a t t e r .
Two consi der at i ons a r e evi dent : ease and speed. I t t akes much
l e s s t i me t o read a t e x t t han t o l i s t e n t o t h e same t e x t i n spoken form.
And i n t he l ear ni ng s i t u a t i o n , i t i s more p r a c t i c a l t o gi ve readi ng as -
signments r a t h e r t han l i s t e ni ng ones. Es peci al l y i n t he post -el ement ary
s t a ge l ack of t i me and mechanical equipment has f or ced educat i on t o r e l y
heavi l y on gr aphi c s k i l l s f o r t eachi ng t h e s t udent new mat er i al of any
ki nd, and even t he classroom l e c t ur e i s r a t h e r overshadowed by bl ack-
boards, wal l - char t s , and t he t ext book.
9 ~ a r r o l l 1078. C f . a l s o Bazan 344-345.
These a r e two of t h e reasons behi nd Rebecca Domar1s powerful at t ack
on audi o- l i ngual methods and he r st ubborn defence of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
readi ng approach t o t eachi ng Russi an.
Her ba s i c argument i n r egar d t o
ease i s a s f ol l ows:
Reading i s e a s i e r t han underst andi ng t h e spoken word of equal
d i f f i c u l t y , because i n readi ng one can proceed a t t h e speed
which s u i t s him b e s t , one can re-read t h a t which he di d not
underst and a t f i r s t r eadi ng, one can l ook up unf ami l i ar words.
A l l t h i s i s i mpossi bl e when l i s t e n i n g t o someone t a l k . For
s i mi l ar reasons wr i t i ng i s e a s i e r t han speaki ng. l o
2. 23 Chal l enge i n gr adat i on of s k i l l s . One of t h e f a c t or s t h a t must be
t aken i n t o account i n t he t eachi ng of any s ubj ect or s k i l l i s t h a t of
g r a d a t i o n , l l which Palmer def i nes as "passi ng f ~ o m t he known t o t he un-
known by easy s t ages , each of which s er ves as a p e p a r a t i o n f or t he next "
(Palmer 1922,67) .12 In support of he r cont ent i on f o r a readi ng ba s i s ,
Domar c i t e s a s a ba s i c pedagogi cal pr i nc i pl e t h a t "i n st udyi ng anyt hi ng
one shoul d begi n wi t h t he e a s i e s t aspect of t he s ubj ect and gr adual l y
proceed t o t he more d i f f i c u l t ones1' (Domar 11) . Palmer as a l i ngui s t ,
however, evi dent l y had q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t i dea 0.f "easy s t ages 1' i n mind,
' O~omar 11. ( ~ f . a l s o Sweet 51-52) . An a r t i c l e s i mi l a r i n t one t o Do-
mar t s i s Nathan Rosen' s " Al l ' s Well That Ends Badly" which appeared
i n a 1966 i s s ue of t h e Sl a vi c and Eas t European J our nal . John Kem-
p e r s ' "response" i n a l a t e r i s s ue of t h e same pe r i odi c a l i s s t i l l
wi t hi n t h e conf i nes of t h e "reading-approach" poi nt of view.
111 pr e f e r t h e t erm gr adat i on t o gr adi ng (which i s sometimes used i n t h i s
s ens e) because "it avoi ds confusi on wi t h t h e gradi ng of language t e s t s
. . . and wi t h gr adi ng a s a grammatical term1' ( ~ a c k e ~ 204) .
12cf . a l s o Hockett ( 1950, 266) ~ who des cr i bes pr ogr essi ve pr a c t i c e a s be-
gi nni ng wi t h t hos e i t ems "which a r e e i t h e r most uni ver s al l y necessar y,
o r a r e e a s i e s t , and goi ng on t o more d i f f i c u l t mat t er s".
f o r a few pages l a t e r (1922,70) he wr i t e s : "To l ear n how t o read and t o
wr i t e a language may pos s i bl y be e a s i e r t han t o l ear n how t o speak it and
t o underst and it when spoken, but t h i s has no bear i ng on t he s ubj ect of
gradat i on".
Even i n t h e audi o- l i ngual approach i t s e l f t he r e i s no evi dence t o
i ndi c a t e how long t h e t eachi ng of readi ng shoul d be del ayed ( s ee Car r ol l
1078). Most agr ee t he r e shoul d be some audi al - onl y period-for f e a r t h a t
"t he wr i t t e n word, due t o t he l i t e r a t e condi t i on of t he l ear ner , might
l ead i r r evocabl y t o t h e i ncor r ect phonol ogi cal i nt er pr et at i on" (Bazan 343).
However, William Fr anci s Mackey poi nt s out :
I n t h e secondary school . . . t he l e a r ne r i s s o l et t er - bound t h a t a
l ong del ay between speech and readi ng may r e s u l t i n t h e l e a r ne r ' s
forming h i s own i dea of how t h e language must l ook i n wr i t i ng and
i n devi si ng h i s own system of s pe l l i ng. . . .
Some even advocat e t h e t eachi ng of a l l f our s k i l l s si mul t aneousl y from t h e
begi nni ng. l 4 Vincenzo Ci of f a r i (313) speaks of t h e wr i t t en symbol as
" f i r s t of a l l a dependable reminder of sound" which "serves t o r e c r e a t e
t he condi t i ons which produced t he cor r ect sound i n t he f i r s t pl ace". "The
wr i t t en symbol i s permanent, and t he spoken sound i s t ransi t ory!' , he adds.
Sweet (10) recommended phonet i c t r a ns c r i pt i on a s t he most s u i t a b l e
"reminder", by which one coul d avoi d t he dangers of t r a d i t i o n a l ort hogra-
phi es ( c f . 2. 13) and gai n t he addi t i onal advant age of cor r ect i ng audi t or y
i mpressi ons ( c f . 4. 23 on phonet i c t r a ns c r i pt i on) . Bazan (342) goes s o f a r
3 ~ a c k e y 234.
C f . a l s o Huebener 1963, 377.
1 4 ~ . g . Polovnikova ( 132) : "06yseme TOJIbKO YCTHOB pew, 6e3 OAHOBP~M~HHO!?
p a 6 0 ~ b 1 Ha A ACb MOM M Ha A TeICCTOM, MOXeT WMBeCTM K TOMY, YTO ITpM06pe-
TeHHbI e y % l m C R H a B b W H e 6 y ~ y ~ AOCTaTOYHO ITpOYHbI, TillC E C K HMX H e
6 y ~ e ~ 3PMTeJIbHOfi 0i70pb1".
as t o poi nt out evi dence why t h e vi s ual shoul d precede t he audi al :
I n r egar d t o i n t e r f e r i n g sense s t i mul i , empi r i cal evi dence
does suggest t h a t ... r e t r oa c t i ve secondary cues ( e . g. , hear-
i ng word, t hen seei ng it wr i t t e n) seem t o have a gr e a t e r r e-
t a r da t i on e f f e c t t han pr oact i ve cues ( e . g. seei ng it wr i t t e n,
t hen hear i ng it s poken. . . ) .
We f i nd, t hen, t h a t i n s p i t e of t he l ogi cal reasons f o r excl udi ng
t he gr aphi c as pect s i n t he i n i t i a l s t ages of l anguage-t eachi ng, t her e
seem t o be d e f i n i t e arguments f o r some s o r t of vi s ua l i ns t r uc t i on a s
wel l . Thi s becomes even more not i ceabl e when we t ake account of t h e
t
t i me a l l o t t e d f o r a language t o be t aught , and t he r e s ul t a nt speed o r
r a t e a t which it i s expect ed t o be l ear ned.
2 . 2 4 Challenge i n rat e of learning. Once agai n a c onf l i c t a r i s e s be-
tween t he t r a d i t i o n s of educat i on and t he pr i nc i pl e s of appl i ed l i ngui s -
t i c s . School and uni ver s i t y c ur r i c ul a a r e us ual l y di vi ded i n t o a number
of "subj ect s", each s ubj ect bei ng a l l o t t e d one o r more hours a t i nt e r va l s
duri ng t h e week. The cl ass- t i me per s ubj ect bei ng very s hor t , readi ng
and wr i t i ng assi gnment s a r e used t o gi ve t he s t udent t he needed ext r a
cont act wi t h each s ubj ect .
The audi o- l i ngual approach aims t o t each language f i r s t of a l l as a
s k i l l r a t h e r t han as a s ubj ect ; it t eaches one how t o use an i nst rument ,
not j u s t f a c t s about i t . l 5 Fact s may be gl eaned through readi ng al one,
but s k i l l i n usi ng any i nst rument i s gai ned mainly through long and con-
s t a n t pr a c t i c e . Not onl y does t h i s mean an even gr e a t e r number of con-
t act - hour s t han i n ot her s t udi e s , but , because of t he nat ur e of t h e st udy,
15cf . St r evens 1963,12 and Palmer 1922,140. The analogy of a musi cal i n-
st rument i s wel l developed i n Hockett 1950, 266-267.
near l y a l l t h e cont act must be wi t h t h e t eacher hi msel f . l
But most school s and uni ve r s i t i e s , even t hos e equipped wi t h language-
- l abor at or i es , a r e r e l uc t a nt t o make t h e r a di c a l t i me- t abl e changes neces-
s ar y t o pr ovi de t he numbers of t eacher s and hours which would be r equi r ed
t o achi eve any audi al mast ery of a second language by t he l ear ner . l 7
Compensation i s recommended i n t he grade-school s by ext endi ng t he
number of year s of l anguage-st udy. Huebener recommends a t l e a s t a s i x-
-year sequence i n j uni or - and seni or-hi gh-school . There i s even a move-
ment wel l underway i n t h e United St a t e s (known a s FLES) t o promote t he
t eachi ng of f or ei gn languages i n t he el ement ary school ( s ee Brooks 114-119).
I t was r epor t ed t h a t t he long per i od of st udy, however, caused a
marked decl i ne i n i nt e r e s t among t h e s t udent s of one school-system and
s o l ed t h e admi ni s t r at or s t o cancel t he FLES programme al t oget her ( see
Page, 139-141). Thi s might pos s i bl y have been due t o ot her f a c t or s , how-
ever , al t hough t he s i t u a t i o n was i nves t i gat ed wi t h some t horoughness. In
anot her FLES experiment t her e was evi dence t h a t "t he i nt r oduct i on of read-
i ng i n t he upper grades [ t h i r d t o s i x t h ] , a f t e r a foundat i on of or al - aur al
work, i ncr eas es t h e ef f i ci ency of l ear ni ngr 1 (McRill 367-368).
16cf . Hockett (1950, 267) : "The begi nner a t a new language does not know
i n advance what t h e language sounds l i k e , and s o t h e bul k of h i s prac-
t i c e , f o r a very l ong t i me, must be c a r r i e d on i n t h e presence of a
nat i ve speaker who can check on h i s product i on". O'Connor and Twadell
( 5 ) make t h e obser vat i on t h a t "a model ut t er ance can be i mi t at ed and
r epeat ed o r a l l y f a r of t ener t han i n wr i t i ng" .
17cf . Gi l ber t ( 65) : "We a r e a l l agreed i n t heor y t h a t t h e aims of l an-
guage t eachi ng i n t h i s count ry [u. K. ] a r e t o t r a i n t h e c h i l d t o hear ,
speak, r ead and wr i t e t he l anguage. I n pr a c t i c e , however, t h e fi rst
two of t he s e aims a r e of t en abandoned a f t e r t h e f i r s t year , or even
e a r l i e r " .
In a uni ver s i t y s i t u a t i o n , where t h e whole educat i onal programme i s
l i mi t ed t o t h r e e o r f our year s , na t ur a l l y it i s i mpossi bl e t o compensate
f o r t i me- t abl e d i f f i c u l t i e s by ext endi ng t he per i od of s t udy.
Here t oo
--at l e a s t i n t h e humani t i es, under which l anguage- i nst r uct i on i s usual -
l y cl assi fi ed-t he emphasis i s even more predomi nant l y on t he acqui s i t i on
of s chol ar l y knowledge r a t h e r t han p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s , and many s t udent s
spend onl y enough t i me st udyi ng a language i n or der t o meet admi ni st ra-
t i v e requi rement s. Domar (12) s t a t e s t he case bl unt l y from t h e pedagog-
i c a l poi nt of view:
... t h e gr e a t maj or i t y of s t udent s a r e unabl e and/ or unwi l l i ng
t o devot e more t han two year s t o t h e st udy of Russi an, and two
year s of col l ege [ uni ver s i t y] Russi an a r e not enough t o l e a r n
t o speak t h e l anguage. During t he s e two ye a r s , Russi an i s one
of f our , f i v e , or even s i x courses which t h e s t udent i s carry-
i ng, of t e n al ong wi t h a part -t i me j ob, and t her ef or e he cannot
devot e much t i me and e f f o r t t o it.
From t h i s and ot her reasons she concludes (13) t h a t "readi ng shoul d be
t he main obj ect i ve of t h e f i r s t two year s of t h e st udy of Russian" and
t hus a readi ng approach shoul d be adopt ed.
A readi ng-course i n a language i ndeed f i t s more e a s i l y i n t o t he lit-
er ar y atmosphere of a humani t i es- f acul t y t han i ns t r uc t i on i n t he "mere"
s k i l l s of hear i ng and speaki ng (which has no doubt cont r i but ed t o t he
f or mer ' s popul ar i t y t hrough t he ye a r s ) . With t h i s f i r m vi s ua l base, a
l i t t l e audi al a c t i v i t y i s e a s i l y added wi t hout bei ng conspi cuous. Domar
a l s o i n s i s t s (13) t h a t s t udent s "should be t aught cor r ect pronunci at i on
from t h e very f i r s t meeting of t he c l a s s , and t he r e shoul d be some con-
ver s at i on i n Russi an t o enl i ven t he c l a s s procedure". Such an achi eve-
ment appl i ed l i n g u i s t s regard as gener al l y i mpossi bl e wi t hout s t r ong em-
phas i s on t h e development of audi al s k i l l s t o t h e v i r t u a l excl usi on of
r eadi ng, es peci al l y i f "cor r ect pronunci at i on" i s t o i ncl ude t he more com-
pl ex f e a t ur e s of s t r e s s - and i nt onat i on- pat t er ns such as one would u s e ' i n
normal conversat i on ( c f . 3. 13, 3. 14) . I t i s a well-known f a c t t h a t r e a l
l l conversat i on" cannot be produced merely on t he ba s i s of r eadi ng, o r l e a r -
ni ng how t o pronounce words, and "cor r ect pronunci at i on" i s f a r from a t -
t a i na bl e wi t hout much r epeat ed pr a c t i c e i n bot h auding and speaki ng, usu-
a l l y a t t h e temporary expense of gr aphi c f a c i l i t y . I n i nformal conversa-
t i o n groups conducted f o r s t udent s st udyi ng Russi an by a "reading" approach,
t he aut hor not i ced t h a t s i gni f i c a nt sound f e a t ur e s not found i n Engl i sh,
es peci al l y p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of consonants ( c f . 4. 12, 6. 22), were r a r e l y di s -
t i ngui shed wi t h accuracy, a s t he r e had been l i t t l e a t t e nt i on gi ven t o
audi al exer ci s e i n t he cl assroom.
2.25 Answer t o chaZZenges. The be s t answer t o readi ng ent hus i as t s l i k e
Domar and Rosen i s probabl y gi ven i n Charl es F. Hocket t l s a r t i c l e "Lear-
ning Pronunci at i on" (1950). The reason we r ead our own language wi t h
eas e, it i s brought out , i s t h a t readi ng simply i nvol ves as s oci at i ng t he
wr i t t e n symbols wi t h f a mi l i a r speech sounds, which i n t ur n gi ve us t he
meaning i nt ended. Nat ur al l y t h i s cannot appl y i f we do not know what
sounds t h e symbols r epr es ent :
Now i f we approach a f or ei gn language i n i t s wr i t t e n form,
wi t h no advance knowledge and cont r ol of i t s spoken form,
and t r y t o t r a i n our sel ves t o i n t e r p r e t t h e s t r i n g s of
gr aphi c shapes d i r e c t l y i n t o meanings, we a r e t r yi ng some-
t hi ng which i s compl et el y a l i e n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e and ca-
p a c i t i e s of t h e human nervous system. .... The onl y ef -
f i c i e n t way, i n t h e l ong r un, t o put onesel f i n t h e pos i t i on
t o r ead wi t h maximum underst andi ng ... ma t e r i a l wr i t t e n i n
some f or ei gn l anguage, i s t o g e t a t l e a s t an el ement ary con-
t r o l of t h e spoken form of t h a t language f i r s t . l 8
The onl y except i on, accordi ng t o Hocket t , i s mat er i al of a s c i e n t i f i c
o r t echni cal nat ur e, which l ends i t s e l f t o ready t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o one' s
nat i ve t ongue. Li t e r a t ur e i s not s o e a s i l y t r a ns l a t a bl e , however, and
" l i t e r a r y mat er i al must be r ecei ved by t he s t udent i n t he acous t i c shape
i n which i t was or i gi na l l y c a s t , o r some l i t e r a r y val ues w i l l be l os t "
(Hockett 1950,264) .I9 Thi s corresponds wi t h t h e fol l owi ng obser vat i on by
Pet er St r evens:
A r eadi ng knowledge can be t aught i n t h i s way [wi t hout audi al
s k i l l s ] but t h e r e i s no evi dence t h a t t eachi ng it t hus i s more
r a pi d or e f f e c t i v e , and a s t r ong body of opi ni on e x i s t s which
says t h a t even i f t h e spoken language i s qui ckl y abandoned, it i s
hi ghl y de s i r a bl e t o have passed t hrough an ' or al - onl y' s t age, and
t hen subsequent l y made t h e conversi on from spoken t o wr i t t en.
2.26 Swmnary. Chal l enges t o t h e audi o- l i ngual assumptions h i t h e r t o di s -
cussed may be summarized a s fol l ows:
2. 261 The c o n f l i c t l i e s , not i n t he i nformat i on suppl i ed by t he descr i p-
t i v e l i n g u i s t a s t o t h e primacy of speech over wr i t i ng, e t c . , but i n t he
appl i cat i on of t h i s i nformat i on t o l anguage-t eachi ng methods.
2.262 The audi al emphasis of t h e audi o- l i ngual approach c onf l i c t s wi t h
- I
t he gr aphi c o r vi s ua l or i e nt a t i on of t h e school -syst em.
2.263 Although t h e appl i ed l i n g u i s t advocat es temporary excl usi on of
gr aphi c s k i l l s , t h e pedagogi cal r u l e of gr adat i on recommends t h e i r use
a t l e a s t as a suppor t .
' * ~ o c k e t t 1950, 263.
19cf . a l s o Sweet ' s quot at i on i n 2. 12.
2. 264 Grade-school language-programmes can suppl y t h e e xt r a t i me needed
f o r audi o- l i ngual t eachi ng by i ncr eas i ng t h e number of year s of language-
- st udy, but t h i s has not proved s a t i s f a c t o r y i n every case. Reading meth-
ods advocated f o r u n i v e r s i t i e s where a long per i od of st udy i s i mpossi bl e
cannot e f f e c t i ve l y t each audi al s k i l l s from a vi s ua l ba s i s , nor can t hey
succeed i n t eachi ng readi ng i t s e l f wi t h t h e f u l l e s t pos s i bl e be ne f i t t o
t he l ear ner .
3. ACTI VE AND PASSI VE SKI LLS
3. 1 AUDING APLID SPEAKING.
3. 11 Differences between nat i ve and t arget Zanguage.' "Every year m i l -
l i ons of peopl e s t a r t l ear nl ng a second language", wr i t es Mackey (107),
"but very few succeed i n mast eri ng it". "Why i s t h i s so?" he as ks .
I n 2 . 2 2 it wds shown t h a t t he pos l t l on of t h e second-language l ear -
ner cannot be equat ed wi t h t h a t of t h e c hi l d l ear nl ng hf s mother tongue.
The hi gh-school o r uni ver s i t y st udent has al r eady l earned h i s f i r s t l an-
guage, we observed, and through h i s educat i onal experi ence has been r at h-
e r s t r ongl y i nf l uenced by i t s vi s ual r epr es ent at i on; hence he f i nds d i f -
f i c u l t y i n l ear nmg a ur a l l y.
Fami l i ar i t y wi t h t he gr aphi c r epr es ent at i on of one' s nat i ve tongue
i s not t h e onl y obs t acl e t o one' s mast ery of a second, however. A s Hoc-
k e t t (1950,265) expl ai ns , "t he f i r s t source of d i f f i c u l t y i s t he habi t s
we al r eady have f o r pronouncing our own l a n g ~ a g e " . ~
From t h e di s cover i es of l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n t i s t s we have l earned t h a t
underl yi ng each spoken language i s a unique s e t of pa t t e r ns o r habits
( see Brooks 4 9 ) - I n f a c t , t he di scovery of t h i s v i t a l problem, and pro-
posed s ol ut i ons t o i t , probabl y c ons t i t ut e s t h e gr e a t e s t cont r i but i on of
t he appl i ed l i n g u i s t s t o t h e improvement of l anguage-t eachi ng methods. 3
I ~ a r g e t Zanguage IS a term f r equent l y used by appl i ed l i n g u i s t s t o i ndi -
c a t e t h e language bei ng l ear ned, a s opposed t o t he l e a r n e r ' s nat i ve
t ongue .
*c f . a l s o Mackey 107-108.
3 ~ o n t r a s t i v e anal ys l s ( s ee 4.22) 1s heral ded by Guy Capel l e ( 59) a s "une
des i d6es l e s pl us product i ves de l a l i ngui s t i que moderne".
Si nce no two languages have i de nt i c a l s e t s of h a b i t s , it i s evi dent t h a t
t h e l e a r n e r ' s "thoroughly i ngr ai ned ha bi t s f o r h i s own language . . . may
p a r t l y hel p, but w l l l a l s o p a r t l y I n t e r f e r e wi t h, t h e habi t s t o be ac-
qui r ed f o r t h e new language" (Hockett 1950,266) .
"The sounds, cons t r uct i ons , and meanings of d i f f e r e n t languages a r e
not t h e same: t o ge t an easy command of a f or ei gn language one must
l ear n t o i gnor e t h e f eat ur es of any and a l l ot her l anguages, es peci al l y
of one' s own", we r ead on t he f i r s t page of Bl oomfi el d' s Out l i ne Guide
f or t he Pr act i caZ St ud9 of Forei gn Languages ( c f . a l s o Palmer 1922, 43).
I n pr a c t i c e , however, i t has been found more d i f f i c u l t t o el i mi nat e bad
ha bi t s t han t o l ear n good ones ( c f . Benson 78) , a s t h e Sovi et educat or
A. A. Reformatski] expl ai ns :
The problem of nat i ve-l anguage i nt er f er ence i s f i r s t encount ered i n
t he t r a i ni ng of t h e l e a r n e r ' s "auding" h a b i t s . A s Palmer (1922,130) no-
t ed, " i f h i s e a r - t r a i ni ng i s negl ect ed duri ng t he el ement ary s t age, he
w i l l r epl ace f or el gn sounds by nat i ve ones and i n s e r t i nt r us i ve sounds
mt o t he words of t he language he i s l earni ng". Car r ol l (1069-1070) l i s t s
as t h e f i r s t of f our phonol ogi cal problems t h a t of di scri mi nat i on-I1i . e. ,
hear i ng t h e di f f er ence between phonemes which a r e not di s t i ngui s hed o r
"f. a l s o Maekey 109.
5 ~e f o r ma t s k i j 6. C f . a l s o Brooks (56-57) : "What [ t he l e a r ne r ] does not
know i s t h a t t h e sound-system and t h e s t r u c t u r a l system of t h e new l an-
guage a r e di f f e r e nt I n near l y every d e t a i l from t hos e I n h i s mother
tongue" .
used i n one' s na t i ve language".
The r e a l importance of audi t or y di scri m-
i nat i on w i l l be di scussed i n 3. 12.
The event ual consequence of negl ect of handl i ng nat i ve-l anguage i n-
terference--assuming t h a t t he l ear ner cont i nues wi t h t h e language f o r a
number of years---will be what i s known a s compound biZinguaZism, i n which
" cer t ai n f eat ur es of a second language . . . a r e added t o a l e a r ne r ' s mother
tongue but a r e not separ at ed from it" (Brooks 267) and "t he mother tongue
. . . cont i nues t o accompany--and of course t o d o mi n a t e t h e whole complex
f a b r i c of language behavi or" (Brooks 49; c f . a l s o Fishman 128 and Car r ol l
1085-1086). This i s d i s t i n c t from co-ordi nat e bi l i ngual i s m, where t he
speaker can make bot h languages f unct i on i ndependent l y of each ot her .
The
l a t t e r i s t he onl y r e a l ba s i s f o r speaki ng t he language and i s t he goal of
t he audi o- l i ngual approach. Compound bi l i ngual i s m, i n which "two languages
c ons t i t ut e simply two d i f f e r e n t ways of encoding t h e same s e t of r ef er en-
t i a l meanings" ( Car r ol l 1085), i nvol ves const ant t r a n s l a t i o n from and i n t o
t he l e a r n e r ' s nat i ve tongue and i s gener al l y adopted as t he aim of t he
readi ng approach.
3.12 The i mport ance of audi t or y comprehension. The gr e a t e s t problem f o r
a t r a v e l l e r i n a f or ei gn count ry, accordi ng t o Wilga M. Ri vers, i s not h i s
d i f f i c u l t y i n speaki ng t he language, but r a t he r "t hat he cannot underst and
what i s bel ng s a f d t o him and around him". "As a r e s ul t " , she adds, "t her e
i s no communication and t he t r a v e l l e r ' s speaki ng s k i l l s cannot be exer ci sed
t o gr e a t advantage" (Ri vers 196).
This i s probabl y a l l t oo t r u e . The aut hor r e c a l l s s i mi l a r complaints
from t r a v e l l e r s who had been gi ven ample i ns t r uc t i on i n "cor r ect pronunci-
at i on", but wi t h l i t t l e o r no t r a i n i n g i n comprehension of f l u e n t u t t e r -
ances; he hi msel f a t one t i me found gr e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y i n underst andi ng
nat i ve speakers t han i n bei ng underst ood by them.
Basi c t o audi t or y comprehension i s t he capaci t y f o r audi t or y di s -
cr i mi nat i on, which, a s we not i ced i n 3. 11, pl ays an i mport ant l i n g u i s t i c
r o l e i n l anguage-l earni ng. I t i s an accept ed f a c t of language-use t h a t
speaki ng i s depe'ndent on hear i ng, j u s t a s gr aphi c s k i l l s depend on audi al
ones. Thi s i s support ed by Hocket t l s obser vat i on (1958,118) on "audi t ory
feedback", o r t he hear i ng of one' s own speech, namely t h a t any impairment
of it has an adverse e f f e c t on one' s a b i l i t y t o a r t i c u l a t e sounds cor r ect -
l y.
"Do not at t empt t o obt ai n a pe r f e c t pronunci at i on a t t he f i r s t l e s -
son", was Franqoi s Goui n' s advi ce i n t eachi ng t he pri mary s k i l l s of a l an-
guage. "Address t he e a r t hen, f i r s t of a l l , and pr i nc i pa l l y. . . . . The
e a r i s t he prime mi ni s t er of t he i nt e l l i ge nc e w . 7 Brooks (110) s t a t e s :
Although language sounds or i gi na t e i n t h e voice-box of t h e
t hr oa t and a r e modulated i n t o r ecogni zabl e speech by move-
ments i n t h e mouth, it i s t h e ear t h a t dominates t h e l ear -
ni ng and use of speech sounds. 8
Like many prime mi ni s t er s , however, t he organ of t he e a r has t he
k f . a l s o Lemieux, who s t a t e s t h a t "t he pri mary obj ect of t eachi ng pronun-
c i z t i o n i s t h e development of comprehension of t h e normal speech of t h e
f or ei gn nat i ve. I n communicating wi t h f or ei gn peopl es our own pronun-
c i a t i o n i s a secondary mat t er " ( ~e mi e ux 135) .
7 ~ u o t e d i n M6ras 42. Brooks ( 144) j u s t i f i e s t h i s assignment of rank as
f ol l ows: "Bnphasis upon heari ng shoul d come f i r s t [ of t he audi al
s k i l l s ] , s i nce t h e e a r i s t h e key organ i n a l l speech; it not onl y
per mi t s t h e i ndi vi dual t o hear what i s s a i d but a l s o cont r ol s what he
says when he a c t s a s speaker".
8 ~ f . a l s o Mueller 185.
l e a s t p r o c l i v i t y toward accur at e discernment of d e t a i l and i s probabl y
t he most s us cept i bl e t o f a l s e i ~ n ~ r e s s i o n . ~ Palmer brought out what many
psychol ogi st s a r e recogni zi ng t oday, t h a t we hear what we expect t o hear
r a t h e r t han what i s a c t ua l l y s a i d . "There i s a gr eat di f f er ence", he
s ays , "between r e a l l y hear i ng and merely imagining t h a t one has heard a
sound o r a successi on of sounds" (Palmer 1922, 71).
Yet even methods based on an audi al approach t o l anguage-st udy, a s
Pi e r r e Leon poi nt s out , f r equent l y pr es ent t he s t udent wi t h a mass of a r -
t i c u l a t o r y d e t a i l f o r "cor r ect pronunci at i on" wi t hout f i r s t t r a i ni ng h i s
e a r i n accur at e d i s t i n c t i o n of s i gni f i c a nt sounds, which, we have seen,
d i r e c t l y cont r ol s t he a c t of speech product i on ( see Leon 57-62). In such
cases, accordi ng t o Huebener (1965, 37), mast ery of audi t or y comprehension
i s consi der abl y r et ar ded. Hence Brooks s pe c i f i e s t h a t t he audi o- l i ngual
l ear ner "is
t o hear much more t han he speaks, [and] i s t o speak onl y on
t he ba s i s of what he has heard". l o
Ri vers (204) reminds us of t he need f o r cont i nued emphasis on auding
t hroughout t he l ear ni ng programme:
... l i s t e n i n g comprehension i s not a s k i l l which can be mast ered
once and f o r a l l and t hen i gnor edwhi l e ot her s k i l l s a r e devel-
oped. There must be r egul ar pr a c t i c e wi t h i ncr eas i ng d i f f i c u l t
mat er i al .
3. 13 Method and order of presentation. I t was brought out i n 3. 12 t h a t a
9 ~ f . Leon ( 76) : "When pr es ent i ng new mat er i al , one must remember t h a t . . .
t h e most d i f f i c u l t s k i l l t o acqui r e i s probabl y a na t i ve l i ke audio-
comprehension".
1 ~ r o o k s 52. C f . a l s o Mackey (263) : "As Epi ct et us put it l ong ago, na-
t u r e has gi ven man one tongue and two e a r s t h a t he may hear t wi ce a s
much a s he speaks".
number of t eachi ng methods, even t hose audi al l y or i ent ed, overemphasize
t he mechanics of speech-product i on a t t he expense of needed ear - t r ai ni ng.
The concern f o r "cor r ect pronunci at i on" has l ong been procl ai med by lit-
er ar y ent hus i as t s a s a f e a t ur e of t he readi ng approach ( e. g. Domar 13) ,
al t hough probabl y more of t en t han not t he new sounds were merely approx-
imated i n terms of t hose of t he mother tongue ( c f . not e on t r a n s l i t e r a -
t i o n i n 4 . 2 3 ) . More r ecent methods have exhi bi t ed a gr e a t e r degree of
accuracy i n pr onunci at i on- t eachi ng, t hanks t o phonol ogi cal des cr i pt i ons
provi ded by l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n t i s t s , but few have t aken t he e xt r a s t eps
necessary t o deal s a t i s f a c t o r i l y wi t h t h e problem of audi t or y di scri m-
i na t i on and comprehension.
A number of l i n g u i s t s , i ncl udi ng Leon (76), Green (86), and Belasco
( l a ) , recommend t h a t , f o r t he sake of adequat e t r a i n i n g i n di scr i mi na-
t i o n , t he teaching-programme shoul d concent r at e f i r s t of a l l on phonemes,
"proceeding t o t he phonet i c l evel onl y when a l l obs t acl es t o audi o- l i ngual
comprehension have been overcomef' (Leon 76) . l 1
Ot hers, however, poi nt out t h a t t he st udy of phonemes---or even of
words---alone i s not enough t o achi eve a s a t f s f a c t or y auding a b i l i t y .
Palmer (1921,18) r e f e r s t o "the fatal attraction of the false facility
offered by the written word" and shows how unr e l i a bl e t he word i s a s a
speech s i gna l . l2 Mackey (235) f ur t he r expl ai ns :
I l ~ f . a l s o Bel asco 18.
I 2cf . a l s o Ri vers ( 196) : "Even i f t he nat i ve speaker enunci at es h i s words
sl owl y and d i s t i n c t l y , el ement s of s t r e s s , i nt onat i on and word-group-
i ng, of t en exaggerat ed i n an ear nes t at t empt a t c l a r i t y , add t o t h e
confusi on of t h e i nexperi enced f or ei gner ".
. . . t h e l e a r ne r must go beyond t h e phoneme i n or der t o be abl e
t o underst and a l anguage. So l ong a s he hear s onl y t h e i ndi v-
i dua l sounds, or even i ndi vi dual words and phr as es , he w i l l
not underst and t h e l a r g e r s t r uc t ur e s .
For t h e r e l a t i o n s among
t h e components of a pa t t e r n must be known bef cr e i t s i ndi vi dual
members can be underst ood. .... Does t h e method t he r e f or e
pr es ent sounds, words, or sent ences f i r s t ? 1 3
I t would appear t hen t h a t , i f t h e advantages of t he audi o- l i ngual
approach a r e t o be f u l l y expl oi t ed, adequat e t r a i ni ng i n t he l l passi ve"
s k i l l of auding14 must be gi ven precedence over speaki ng a b i l i t y .
Time
and e f f o r t a r e r equi r ed f o r t r a i n i n g t he e a r not onl y t o as s i mi l at e t he
supraphonemic pa t t e r ns of f l ue nt speech such a s s t r e s s , i nt onat i on, e t c . ,
/
but a l s o t o per cei ve s i gni f i c a nt sound-feat ures which i n t ur n w i l l i nf l u- ,/
ence t he i ndi vi dua l ' s own product i on of speech sounds. Thi s cannot be
accomplished si mpl y by t eachi ng how i ndi vi dual phonemes o r words a r e
pronounced, but by r epeat ed pr es ent at i on of whole sent ences and phr ases
f o r l i s t e n i n g and underst andi ng.
The i nf l uence appar ent l y works i n bot h di r e c t i ons , however, accor-
di ng t o Hocket t , who s t a t e s a s an "undeniable f act " t h a t "one cannot even
hear a new language c or r e c t l y u n t i l one has l ear ned t o pronounce it r eas -
onably wel l onesel f "; hence, he proposes, "t he na t ur a l and most e f f i c i e n t
3 ~ 6 ~ n evi dent l y r e a l i z e d t h e importance of supraphonemic cons i der at i ons ,
f o r l a t e r on t h e same page ( 76) he recommends: "Audiocomprehension
shoul d be t aught by f i r s t t r a i n i n g s t udent s t o underst and complete
s ent ences , or at l e a s t groups of words, and t hen by usi ng minimal
p a i r s i n or der t o t r a i n t h e i r e a r s t o per cei ve i mport ant acous t i cal
cues1' .
1 4 s t r i c t l y speaki ng, a s Mackey br i ngs out , "percept i on of speech i s not
pas s i ve. The s k i l l of l i s t e n i n g t o a f or ei gn language and underst an-
di ng what i s s a i d i nvol ves (1) t h e immediate and unconscious recogni -
t i o n of i t s s i gni f i c a nt el ement s, and ( 2 ) t h e comprehension of t h e
meaning which t h e combination of t he s e el ement s conveys" ( ~ a c k e ~ 261) .
way is t o devel op a t one and t he same t i me a b i l i t y t o pronounce cor r ect l y
and t o hear cor r ect l y" (Hockett 1950,264/265). Thi s pr i nc i pl e , i f adop-
t ed, would pr ecl ude t he use of an "auding-only" per i od s i mi l a r t o t he i n-
i t i a l use of audi al s k i l l s bef or e t he i nt r oduct i on of gr aphi c ones. 15
3. 14 Treatment of speech product i on. The second s t age of l anguage-l ear-
ni ng i s r e f e r r e d t o i n one a r t i c l e (Banathy e t a l . , 37) a s "l ear ni ng t he
product i on of t he sound sequences of t he t a r ge t language s o t h a t i t s na-
t i v e speaker s can comprehend them immediately and i d e n t i f y them as accep-
t abl e". l6 I n or der t o do t h i s , however, one has t o do more t han merely
recogni ze s i g n i f i c a n t sound d i s t i n c t i o n s , as Mackey (236) expl ai ns :
I n di s t i ngui s hi ng t h e sounds of t h e spoken l anguage, it i s suf-
f i c i e n t t o be abl e t o t e l l one phoneme from anot her ; i n speaki ng
t h e l anguage, however, t h i s i s not enough. For we cannot speak
i n phonemes; we have t o u t t e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r combinations of a l -
lophones which comprise them. Some methods compl et el y i gnor e
t h i s ; ot her s gi ve s o much a t t e n t i o n t o t h e d e t a i l s of pronunci-
a t i on t h a t no t i me i s l e f t f o r t h e ot her el ement s of speech.
These "ot her element^'^, accordi ng t o a number of audi o- l i ngual spe-
c i a l i s t s , a r e j u s t a s s i gni f i c a nt t o speech product i on, i f not more s o,
t han t he a r t i c u l a t i o n of t he sounds t hemsel ves. Most al l ophones a r e a l -
most never pronounced i n i s o l a t i o n , but by t h e i r very nat ur e a s al l ophones
depend on cont i guous sounds ( i . e . t h e i r di s t r i but i on) f o r t h e i r exi s t ence.
15cf . Huebener 1965, 37. Separ at i on of a c t i ve and pas s i ve s k i l l s i s one of
t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of what i s known a s pr ogr amed l anguage-i nst ruc-
t i o n ( c f . F. Rand Morton' s ALLP Spani sh experiment a s descr i bed i n
Valdman 146) and i s recommended even i n t h e audi o-l i ngual approach
( c f . Brooks 1 4 4 ) .
16cf . a l s o Hockett (1950, 262) , who s pe c i f i e s a "good pronunci at i on" a s
"one which w i l l not draw t h e a t t e n t i o n of a nat i ve speaker of t h a t
language away from what we a r e sayi ng t o t h e way i n which we a r e say-
i ng it".
This means that allophones should be learned in their respective environ-
ments, as part of sound sequences (for example, consonants should be
learned not only individually but in clusters as well).
But training in speech production cannot stop with sound-sequences.
Suprasegmental features such as stress, juncture, and intonation, must ..
also be taken into consideration. Stress is an important phonemic fea-
ture in Russian. Robert Lado (48) gives a pointed illustration of the
significance of juncture: "wedonotrealizethatinspeakingwemaynothaveas
clearlydefinedwordjuncturesasthespacesbetweenwordsinwritingwouldhaveus
believe". And E.P. Sedun (13) points out the significance of intonation
in the learning programme:
These other elements, then---sound-sequences, stress, juncture, and
intonation---are important in the learner's own production of speech as
well as his comprehension of utterances, and cannot afford to be neglec-
ted in a successful audio-lingual approach. l
17~he numerous factors involved in both auding and speaking are briefly
hinted at in the following statement of Brooks' (57):
"It must be
explained to [the learner] that in his new circumstance grammar
means the stream of speech issuing from a speaker's lips, the rec-
ognition of the similarities and differences in these sounds, their
complicated forms and arrangements, their intricate relations to
each other and to the things they represent, and his eventual pro-
duction of these sounds in a controlled and meaningful way". Cf.
also Mackey 236.
3. 2 CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS.
3. 21 Dialect, s t yl e, and tempo: si gni f i cance for auding. "From t he be-
gi nni ng, sounds can be l ear ned through hear i ng na t ur a l ut t er ances gi ven
a t t he speed of normal na t i ve speech" (MBras 146). We concluded i n 3. 13
t h a t one of t he requi rement s of t h e audi o- l i ngual approach was t r a i ni ng
i n t he comprehension of t he f l ue nt speech of na t i ve speaker s.
What exact -
l y c ons t i t ut e s "normal nat i ve speech", however, needs t o be more s peci f -
i c a l l y defi ned f o r t eachi ng purposes.
Var i at i ons i n speech i nvol ve t hr ee major f a c t or s : d i a l e c t , s t y l e ,
and tempo. St y l e may be i nf l uenced by d i a l e c t and tempo by bot h; a l l
t hr ee, however, a r e s ubj ect t o ext er nal i nf l uences , such a s t he s peaker ' s
s o c i a l background, occupat i on, and di s pos i t i on r es pect i vel y. Note t he
r e l a t i v e degrees of permanence of each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .
Huebener (1965,4) def i nes a s t h e f i r s t " l i ngui s t i c" ( non- cul t ur al )
obj ect i ve of l anguage-t eachi ng "t he a b i l i t y t o comprehend t he f or ei gn
language when spoken a t normal speed and when concerned wi t h or di nar y,
nont echni cal s ubj ect mat t er". And Ri vers (202) advi ses t h a t "even i n
t he very e a r l y s t ages f a mi l i a r mat er i al can be underst ood when spoken
a t normal speed". She expl ai ns t h i s l a s t phr ase a s fol l ows:
Normal speed does not mean r api d nat i ve speech, but a speed of
del i ver y which would not appear t o a nat i ve speaker t o be un-
dul y labored--a speed which r e t a i n s normal word groupi ngs, e l i -
s i o n s , l i a s ons , consonant as s i mi l at i ons , n a t u r a l rhythm and i n-
t onat i on. Ut t erances which a r e del i ver ed at an unnat ur al l y slow
pace a r e i nevi t abl y d i s t o r t e d and t he acous t i c images s t or ed by
t h e s t udent w i l l not be immediately us ef ul when he hear s a nat u-
r a l form of speech. l 8
The Russian educat or V. I . Polovnikova, however, whose main concern
i s pr epar i ng f or ei gn s t udent s t o underst and l ect ur es i n Russi an, bel i eves
t h a t t he tempo shoul d be graded, "c~avaxa no 35, a a ~ e ~ AO 50--60 CJIOB B
MMHYTY" (Polovnikova 135) . 1 9
Not unr el at ed t o tempo i s what one might c a l l t he information-den-
sity of an ut t er ance and i t s correspondi ng redundancy, which, accordi ng
t o Ri vers (197), i s what "hel ps us t o pi ece t oget her t he i nformat i on we
hear". Thi s i s a r a t he r i mport ant poi nt , s i nce it has been an acknowl-
edged pr a c t i c e of t r a d i t i o n a l l anguage-t ext books t o "overload" t h e i r ex-
ample- and dr i l l - s ent ences wi t h an abundance of semantic o r grammatical
i nformat i on, and it is pos s i bl e t h a t t h i s f l a i r has been c a r r i e d on i n
t he di al ogues provi ded i n t he more r ecent t e x t s . Nat ural ness of speech,
however, i s an accept ed audi o- l i ngual pr opos i t i on.
I t i s s t i l l t he na t ur a l speech of educat ed speakers t h a t i s des i r ed,
and gener al l y of a st andar d d i a l e c t i n f a i r l y common us e. 20 I t i s t he
s t y l e of speech t hey would use i n deal i ng wi t h "ordi nary, nont echni cal
s ubj ect mat t er", a s Huebener put i t ( see above quot at i on) . Extremes of
l i t e r a r y and col l oqui al s t y l e a r e not consi dered s ui t a bl e f o r t eachi ng
purposes, a s Capel l e i l l u s t r a t e s wi t h French:
Pr 6s ent er a des 612ves br i t anni ques qui ne poss2dent pas du
f r a ns a i s ... une des cr i pt i on de Balzac ou un di al ogue p r i s s ur
2 0 ~ h e r e may, of cour se, be s pe c i a l reasons f o r choosi ng a p a r t i c u l a r di a-
l e c t or s t y l e of speech, depending upon t h e known needs of t h e l e a r -
ner ( s e e Mackey 163-164).
l e v i f dans l e s coul oi r s du metro pa r i s i e n, ne peut que semer
l a confusi on dans l e u r e s p r i t ou p l u t e t , ce qui e s t encore
pl us gr ave, l e s pousser admet t re t ous ces modsles cornrne va-
l a b l e s en m8me temps e t s e c ons t i t ue r une "vari Et E nouvel l e"
et i naccept abl e de f r a ns a i s . 21
Brooks s t r e s s e s t h e importance of mai nt ai ni ng " c l a r i t y of ... speech
s i gnal s " (52) and avoi di ng s l u r r i n g and col l oqui al d i s t o r t i o n s . "The
l ear ner , and es peci al l y t h e classroom l ear ner , i s e n t i t l e d t o hear l an-
guage c l e a r l y i n focus a s he l ear ns" (Brooks 53).
3 . 2 2 Dialect, s t y l e , and tempo: si gni f i cance for speaking. The s el ec-
t i o n of a speech- var i et y f o r t he l e a r ne r ' s own use appears t o be q u i t e
anot her ques t i on, however. I s t he l ear ner t o make f a i t h f u l i mi t at i on of
a l l t h a t he hear s i n t he way of f l ue nt nat i ve speech a t normal speed,
which might pos s i bl y i ncl ude occasi onal depar t ur es from t he es t abl i s hed
norm of pr onunci at i on f o r t he d i a l e c t , es peci al l y when a number of pos-
s i b l e va r i a t i ons e x i s t f o r t he same sound?
A number of t hose concerned favour some s t andar di zat i on. " Faci l i t y
i n t he use of t he spoken language wi t h accept abl e st andar ds of pronunci -
a t i on and grammatical cor r ect ness1' i s formul at ed a s Huebenerl s second l i n -
g u i s t i c obj e c t i ve . 22 Faced wi t h t he choi ce between "t he uni nhi bi t ed pro-
nunci at i on of t he man i n t h e s t r e e t " and t h a t of t he "overcareful di c t i on
t eacher", Leon (61) s ees t he f i n a l obj ect i ve a s "t he former f o r audiocom-
prehensi on and t h e l a t t e r f o r sound product i on".
Although few appl i ed l i n g u i s t s would agree wi t h t he s pe c i f i c a t i on of
2 1 ~ a p e l l e 58. C f . a l s o Sweet (40) :
"Vulgarisms shoul d be avoi ded. . . sim-
pl y because t hey bel ong t o a di f f e r e nt di a l e c t " .
2 2 ~u e b e n e r 1965, b. C f . a l s o Wei nst ei n 29, ugakov 379, Bogorodi cki j 332.
3 2
an "over car ef ul di c t i on t eacher " a s a norm f o r everyday conver sat i onal
s t y l e , t he r e does seem t o be a gener al concern t h a t t he l e a r ne r avoid
va r i a t i ons i n h i s own pr onunci at i on, a t l e a s t u n t i l he knows enough o f
t he language t o use them i n s t i n c t i v e l y .
A s Sweet put it (42), "hi s
t ext -books shoul d, a s f a r a s pos s i bl e, gi ve a uniform pr onunci at i on, no
mat t er how a r b i t r a r y t he s e l e c t i on may be".
In f a c t , Sweet ' s des cr i pt i on (40) of t he "medium col l oqui al s t y l e
of pronunci at i on" a t which t h e l e a r ne r should aim i s probabl y t he bes t
adapt ed t o t he obj ect i ves of t he audi o- l i ngual approach:
It i s pa i nf ul and incongruous t o hear t h e r api d pr onunci at i on
of cl i pped speech reproduced i n a sl ow, solemn, o r a t o r i c a l tem-
po. On t h e ot her hand, it i s much more i r r a t i o n a l t o t each a
f or ei gner pr onunci at i ons which never occur i n t he col l oqui al
speech of na t i ve s . The b e s t gener al advi ce i s t her ef or e: never L
be o r a t o r i c a l ; be c ol l oqui a l , but not t oo col l oqui al .
We may concl ude, t hen, t h a t i n t he audi o- l i ngual approach mat er i al
f o r auding shoul d be pr esent ed a t a moderate, conver sat i onal tempo, un-
d i s t o r t e d e i t h e r by excessi ve speed o r a r t i f i c i a l sl owness, and pos s i bl y
graded i n t he i n i t i a l s t a ge s . There shoul d be a na t ur a l amount of redun-
dancy t o f a c i l i t a t e comprehension. St yl e shoul d be t h a t normal l y used i n
conver sat i on between educat ed speakers of a st andar d d i a l e c t , avoi di ng
unnecessary d i s t o r t i o n s and extremes of e i t h e r l i t e r a r y o r vul gar speech.
Mat er i al pr esent ed f o r speaki ng shoul d not depar t from conver sat i onal
s t y l e o r tempo, but need not i ncl ude t h e va r i a t i ons i n pronunci at i on t h a t
t he l e a r ne r might not i c e i n audi ng.
3. 23 Choice of vehi cl e. In 3. 1 we saw t he d e s i r a b i l i t y of t eachi ng audi al
s k i l l s pr i mar i l y t hrough t he use of phr ases and sent ences r a t h e r t han i s o-
l a t e d sounds o r words.
We have a l s o concluded t h a t mat er i al shoul d be pr e-
sented in the normal conversational style and tempo of educated speakers
of a standard dialect without distortions or extremes.
Even within these limits, however, there is still a variety of ve-
hicles in which material may be presented to the learner. By vehicles
we mean forms such as "the give-and-take of simple conversational situa-
tions, short sketches or short stories containing a considerable amount
of conversation, and brief reports from fellow-students" (which Rivers
[ 203] lists as suitable for training in auditory comprehension, although
most of them involve active learner-participation as well).
The keynote here is conversation, generally presented in the audio-
-lingual approach by what is known as dialogue. " C n o Mo q m ma.noro~",
writes Polovnikova (134), " Y A ~ ~ T C R C TIepBbIX AHeR 3aCTaBMTb CTyAeHTa r0-
BOPMTb IIO-PYCCICM, WMTOM rOBOPMTb T T ~ ~ BMJ I ~ HO" . TWO of Brooks' "many rea-
sons" for the success of the dialogue are its "natural and exclusive use
of the audio-lingual skills" and the fact that "all the elements of the
sound-system appear repeatedly, including the suprasegmental phonemes,
which are often the most difficult for the learner". 2 3
Yet there are a number of those concerned who question the value of
the dialogue in training the learner's audial habits. In fact, it is pre-
cisely because dialogues do "suppose the use of nearly all the complex
abilities of speech", as Mackey (267) observes, that "some methods do not
use them
clusions
until these have been mastered". (This would contradict the con-
reached in 3.1 as to the order of presentation of units.) On the
145. Cf. also Huebener 1965 ,l3.
other hand, there are those who think that dialogues are not realistically
complex enough:
In the elaboration of audio-lingual methods we have come to re-
member belatedly that parroting dialogues and performing mechan-
ical pattern drills do not constitute use of language and that
only if a student can comprehend and produce sentences he has
never heard before and transfer his skills and knowledge to a
normal communication situation can language learning be said to
have taken place.
This statement nevertheless does not dispute the use of dialogues in the
initial stages, but it does draw our attention to the need for some tran-
sitional link between classroom dialogues and real-life situations. Brooks
proposes to meet this need by introducing an "important intermediate step
..called dialogue adaptation, in which the expressions learned in the dia-
logue are, with the aid of the teacher, at once made personal by the stu-
dent" (Brooks 145) .
The alternative of course is to exclude dialogues altogether and rely
on "the give-and-take of simple conversational situations" between the
teacher and students, or among the students themselves. This is the solu-
tion recommended by Palmer, who sets forth in the second half of The Oral
Method of Teaching Languages (1921,39-134) a systematized programme of
"forms of work". The main part of the programme, following drills in aud-
4~aldman 156-157. Cf . also Anisfeld 113.
25~otivation of the learner is another significant factor here. "What
class members seem to resent is that the classroom procedure has be-
come essentially impersonal", writes Horace Dewey (12) in an article
advocating exercises" in addition to dialogues. Cf.
also Rivers (200), who recommends that dialogues be exploited more
fully by "recombinations of the material in the current and earlier
dialogues, particularly in the context of actual situations".
i ng and f mf t at f ng, i nvol ves t h e use of quest i ons and answers ( or commands
and answers) on t he p a r t of bot h t eacher and l e a r ne r . Probably t he main
di sadvant age i n t h i s vehi cl e i s t he e xt r a demands i t makes upon t he i nge-
nui t y of t h e t eacher , and t he gr e a t e r danger of l aps i ng i n t o a r t i f i c i a l
speech pa t t e r ns i n at t empt s t o c r e a t e var i ous communication s i t u a t i o n s .
Si ngi ng is anot her vehi cl e t h a t has been sometimes suggest ed f o r use
i n t he audi o- l i ngual programme, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t eachi ng pr onunci at i on.
I t i s uns ui t abl e i n t h e case of Russi an, however, not onl y because of i t s
l ack of i nt onat i on pa t t e r ns , but because of t h e va r i a t i ons i n t he phono-
l ogf cal system which ~t i nvol ves.
The di al ogue, t hen, i s appar ent l y t he most us ef ul vehi cl e f o r pr es -
ent at i on of audi al mat er i al i n t he audi o- l i ngual approach, provi ded t h a t
it i s not allowed t o remain a t t he l evel of a f i xed passage f o r memoriza-
t i o n , but i s f u l l y expl oi t ed i n terms of recombi nat i on and adapt at i on t o
t he per sonal experi ence of t he l e a r ne r .
3.24 S m a r y . The audi o- l i ngual approach t o auding and speaki ng and t he
f a c t or s i nvol ved t her ei n may be summarized a s f ol l ows:
3. 241 Di f f er ences between t he s e t s of ha bi t s of t he nat i ve and t a r ge t
languages c ons t i t ut e a major hi ndrance t o t he l ear ni ng of a second l an-
guage, and a r e f i r s t encount ered i n t he problem of audi t or y di s cr i mi nat i on.
3.242 Si nce audi ng has a d i r e c t i nf l uence on t he ot her pri mary s k i l l s , it
shoul d be t aught f i r s t , usi ng l a r ge r u n i t s of speech such a s sent ences and
phr as es .
3. 243 Speech product i on l i kewi se shoul d not be t aught excl us i vel y by i s o-
l a t e d sounds, but i n sequences and sent ences, i ncl udi ng suprasegmental
f eat ur es of s t r e s s , j unct ur e, and i nt onat i on.
3. 244 Mat er l al f o r auding and speaki ng should be pr esent ed i n t he normal
conver sat i onal s t y l e and tempo of educat ed speakers of a st andar d d i a l e c t
wi t hout d i s t o r t i o n s o r ext remes; pronunci at i on i n speaki ng shoul d be s t an-
dar di zed. The di al ogue, i f pr oper l y used, i s probabl y t he most us ef ul ve-
h i c l e f o r pr es ent at i on of audi al mat er i al , but shoul d be supplemented by
per sonal adapt at i on t o t he l e a r n e r ' s experi ence.
4. ASSI MI L ATI ON PROCEDURES
4. 1 SUB-CONSCIOUS ASSI MI LATI ON.
4. 11 Pr a c t i c e i n i mi t at i on. "In t he t eachi ng s i t uat i on1' , wr i t es Simon
Belasco ( 18) , " d r i l l s must be drawn up t o provi de t he st udent wi t h enough
pr a c t i c e s o t h a t he can acqui r e t he cor r ect ha bi t s necessary f o r speaki ng
and underst andmg t he t a r ge t language". Thi s audi o- l i ngual goal i s f ur -
t h e r c l a r i f i e d by Car r ol l (1070) a s aut omat i ci t y-I1i . e. , making cor r ect
product i on so habi t ual t h a t it does not need t o be at t ended t o i n t he
process of speaking".
In 2. 24 it was es t abl i s hed t h a t i n t he audi o- l i ngual approach l an-
guage i s t aught as a s k i l l , and a s such r equi r es a consi der abl e per i od of
t i me devoted t o pr a c t i c e i n usi ng it. Thi s a t t i t u d e was f ur t he r endorsed
__*-
t eachi ng p r o c e ~ ~ r ~ s , a t l e a s t a s f a r a s t he spoken language is concerned,
and i t s pr a i s e s have long been sung by ent hus i as t s of t he or al - aur al ap-
proach. " Lf i mi t at i on, c l e s t 18, en e f f e t , l e s e c r e t ouvert de l a bonne
.-
i n 3. 11, where we saw t h a t l a n g u v e , from t he audi o- l i ngual vi ewpoi nt ,
cons i s t s pre-emi nent l y of a s eq of ha bi t s d i f f e r e n t from t he l e a r ne r ' s
'!
1 l ~ f . a l s o Brooks ' de f i ni t i on of p a t t e r n pr a c t i c e (146).
1
2 ~ f . Palmer (1922,47): "The t erm i mi t at i on i s not adequate t o express t h e
pr ocess by which [ t h e l e a r ne r ] shoul d work; what we r equi r e i s absol ut e
mimicry".
nat i ve s e t . Thus Brooks def i nes l anguage-l earni ng (46) as "a change i n
performance t h a t occur s under t he condi t i ons of pr act i ce" ( c f . a l s o Ban-
at hy e t a l . 37) .
~ e n c e i mi t at i on, o r mimicry,
has become a key word i n audi o- l i ngual
acqui s i t i on d' une langue1' , wrote Paul Passy hal f - a- cent ur y ago i n h i s
Me'thode Directe (quoted i n Palmer 1921, 3). More r ecent l y a Russian spe-
c i a l i s t has concluded:
Experience has demonstrated t h e val ue of t horough d r i l l i n g i n
pr onunci at i on a t t he very s t a r t of a language cour se. Si nce it
i s more d i f f i c u l t t o el i mi nat e bad habi t s t han t o l e a r n good
ones, it appears worthwhile t o begi n a course by spending some
t l me on concent rat ed pronunci at i on pr a c t i c e .
One o r two of t hose concerned have expressed t he importance of con-
s t a n t l y revi ewi ng mat er i al t h a t has al r eady been pr a c t i s e d.
" I t i s not
onl y t he number of times an i t em i s r epeat ed t h a t count s", wr i t es Mackey
(311), "it i s a l s o how t hes e r e pe t i t i ons a r e di s t r i but e d t hroughout t he
course". And he adds: "An i t em r epeat ed many t i mes i n t h e f i r s t l esson
may be e n t i r e l y f or got t en i f it i s never r epeat ed agai n" (311-312) .4
4. 12 Practice in discrimination. We saw i n 3. 12, however, t h a t speak-
i ng i s d i r e c t l y dependent on one' s auding capaci t y, and t h a t t he l ear ner
must hear t he sounds cor r ect l y f i r s t i n or der t o be abl e t o reproduce them
with accuracy. Thus, even i f pronunci at i on exer ci s es a r e i nt roduced "at
t he very s t a r t of a language course" and gi ven cont i nued emphasis through-
out , t hey w i l l not f u l f i l t h e i r purpose unl es s t hey a r e accompanied o r
preceded by correspondi ng d r i l l s i n audi ng.
A f avour i t e exer ci s e f or bot h auding and speaki ng i s t he contrastive
drill, i n which cl os el y related---but never t hel es s di st i nct --phonemes and
phoneme-sequences of t he t a r ge t language a r e j uxt aposed s o t h a t t he con-
3 ~ e n s o n 78. C f . a l s o Bloomf i e l d 12.
4 ~ f . a l s o Mackey 259 ( 0. 2. 4, 1 s t par agr aph) .
trast between them becomes more perceptible to the learner. Thus Polov-
nikova (139) recommends " y r r p a x ~ e ~ ~ g H a P ~ ~ J I M Y ~ H M ~ CJIOB, I coTopbI e C T y A e H m
MOrYT W T a T b W M BOCIpMRTMM CO CJIYXa ( B CMJry 0 C 0 6 e ~ ~ O C ~ e f i @l He ~Ms e CI Cof i
CMCTeMbI POAHOr O R 3 b m I/LTIM lTO ITOXOXeMy ~ B ~ Y ~ H J * W ) " .
In the opening paragraph of his article, "An Introduction to Russian
Pronunciation", Morton Benson acknowledges his emphasis on "the systematic
utilization of the basic linguistic notion of contrast" (Benson 78) , and
proposes a series of contrast-drills to help the learner master what is
probably the most difficult sound-distinction for non-Slavonic speakers in
learning Russian, that of palatalization.6 After drilling syllables con-
trasting palatalized and non-palatalized consonants in various positions,
he then turns to the use of "minimal pairs", i.e., actual words of the lan-
guage which are identical except for one ph~neme.~
Reformatskij (9) goes so far as to say that a palatalized consonant
should never be presented without the contrast of its non-palatalized coun-
terpart, since " O I I I I O ~ ~ MM T s e p m x PI M R ~ M X C o r J I a c m x C B O ~ ; ~ C T B ~ H ~ oqem He-
M H O M R3blfCaM; AJIR pyCCIC0Fl X e @H~TMICM+TO 0 6 ~ 3 a ~ e J I b ~ b ~ . . . M 0 M e H T 3ByKOBOr O
CTPOR" .
5 ~ f . also L6on1s "second type of contrast" (~6on 70).
6~alatalization, described by Reformatski j (9) as " c a ~ b ~ f i c y l u e c ~ s e ~ H b n 2 10-
MeHT 3ByICOBOrO CTPOR, ... OCHOBa PYCCICOR @~ H O J I O ~ MY ~ C K O ~ CMCT ~ M~ I " , Con-
sists of arching the front of the tongue against the hard palate while
uttering a consonant. It is to be distinguished from the term paZntcxZ,
which is used in reference to the point of articulation of certain con-
sonacts (e.g. /&/2/6/), involving the tip of the tongue rather than the
front.
7Minimal pairs are a recognized linguistic means of contrasting phonemes
of a language (cf. Mackey 2 6 5 ) . Mueller (185) proposes to use them in
testing the learner's mastery of the sound-system in respect to dis-
criminatory ability.
Di ct at i on has a l s o been suggest ed a s a us ef ul exer ci s e f o r audi t or y
di s cr i mi nat l on. Huebener (1965,77) gi ves " l i s t e n mg purposeful l y" and
"di s t i ngui s hi ng sounds, words, and thought groups" as i t s f i r s t two as-
s e t s . And Polovnikova (142) acknowledges t h a t " A ~ T ~ H T ~ I ~IOJI~~H~~...AJIR
Although no gener al concensus i s evi dent a s t o t he gr adat i on of i m -
i t a t i o n - and di s cr i mi nat i on- exer ci s es , some i n f e r from t he s i gni f i c a nt
r o l e of audi t or y comprehension ( see 3. 12) t h a t d r i l l s i n sound-recogni-
t i o n and ear - t r ai ni ng would come f i r s t ; ot her s propose t h e opposi t e or -
de r . While Brooks (53) put s "mimicry" bef or e r ecogni t i on and di scri m-
i nat i on, Palmer (1922,45) has t he l a t t e r two preceded onl y by a form of
sub-consci ous vocal i zat i on i n t he e a r - t r a i ni ng pr ocess:
... t h e t eacher a r t i c u l a t e s var i ous sounds, e i t h e r s i ngl y or
i n combination wi t h ot her s ; we l i s t e n t o t hes e sounds and
make unconscious e f f o r t s t o reproduce them by sayi ng them t o
our sel ves. Thi s i s t h e most pas s i ve and most na t ur a l form
of ear - t r ai ni ng ....
We must t hen seek t o recogni ze or i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n sounds
and t o di s t i ngui s h them from ot her s .
Thi s s t age i s t hen followed by a r t i c u l a t i o n and mimicry.
Hockett (1950,265) mai nt ai ns t h a t "t he na t ur a l and most e f f i c i e n t
way i s t o devel op a t one and t he same t i me a b i l i t y t o pronounce cor r ect -
l y and t o hear cor r ect l y" (see a l s o 3. 13) , but t h i s i s a gener al r u l e and
i n terms of i t s act ual appl i cat i on one s k i l l would probabl y be t aught a s
dependent upon t he ot he r .
4. 2 CONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION.
4. 21 ExpZanation versus imitation. "That pronunci at i on can be l e a r nt by
mere i mi t at i on" Sweet r egar ds a s a popul ar f a l l a c y , inasmuch a s "t he move-
ments of t he tongue i n speaki ng a r e even qui cker and more complicated
t han t hose of t he f o i l i n f enci ng, and a r e , bes i des , most l y conceal ed
from s i ght " (Sweet 5; c f . a l s o Jesper sen 7-8). Leon (75) agr ees, and
a l s o not es t h a t "most a dul t s t udent s want t o underst and what t hey a r e
asked t o i mi t at e1' , recommending "sever al t ypes of expl anat i on".
Not a l l audi o- l i ngual s p e c i a l i s t s approve of ot her t han sub-con-
sci ous means of as s i mi l at i on, a s might be gat hered from 4. 11. Mackey
s t a t e s t he problem a s f ol l ows:
Theories of learning may be divided into two main categories:
cognitive theories and associative theories. .... A cogni-
tive theory sees learning within a central mental organiza-
tion; an associative theory considers it as a chain of re-
sponses.
8
Bazan (338) mai nt ai ns t h a t " t h i s st i mul us-response view of language
stems from a formerl y t r a d i t i o n a l view" and t h a t "it i s a f a l l a c i ous
i nt e r pr e t a t i on of language l ear ni ng t oday1' .
Palmer has suggest ed t h a t duri ng t he pr e- r eadi ng s t age of an
audi al l y based programme t h e pupi l s 1 homework might cons i s t of "exer-
c i s e s desi gned t o gi ve t he pupi l s ' r i g h t not i ons about t he nat ur e of
language"' (Palmer 1921, 32). Elsewhere (1922,78) he s t a t e s t h a t pho-
n e t i c s ( or phonemics) "t eaches us t he di f f er ence between two or more
sounds which resemble each ot her , and between a gi ven f or ei gn sound and
i t s near es t nat i ve equi val ent 1' .
In 4.12 we saw t he need f o r s xer ci s es i n per cept i on of phonemic con-
t r a s t between cl os el y r e l a t e d sounds i n t he t a r g e t language. But s ur el y
8~ackey 125. Cf . also Carroll ( 1070 ) : "Speculation among linguists seems
to run to an almost schizoid indecision as to which of two diametrical-
ly opposed theories to accept . . . . "
t h i s cannot be done wi t hout i nvol vi ng some underst andi ng of t he phonolog-
i c a l system of t h a t l anguage. Merle L . Perki ns (115) makes t he fol l owi ng
i mport ant obser vat i on:
Ear l y i n most [l anguage] cour ses t h e s t udent i s expect ed t o
l e a r n t h e sow-ds of t h e new l anguage, but if he has no i nf or -
mat i on about how t hey a r e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e fi rst pl ace, he
i s t o a gr e a t ext ent car r yi ng out t h e assignment bl i ndl y.
Benson' s c o n t r a s t - d r i l l s on Russian phonemes a r e t o be preceded by "a b r i e f ,
c l e a r survey of t he main p e c u l i a r i t i e s of Russian sounds" (Benson 78) . Wayne
Fi s her (43) recommends usi ng t he f i r s t c l a s s s es s i on a s an or i e nt a t i on
per i od where "t he i n s t r u c t o r can poi nt out t he ar eas i n which Engl i sh pho-
nat i on i s l i k e l y t o i n t e r f e r e wi t h Russian phonat i on11. Thi s , accordi ng
t o Claude P . Lemieux (135), w i l l hel p t h e l ear ner r e t a i n t he auding and
speaki ng a b i l i t i e s which he has l ear ned. l o
On t h e ot her hand, one who appar ent l y suppor t s t h e "associ at i ve"
t heor y of l anguage-l earni ng expresses t he opi ni on t h a t "t he pl ace of l i n -
g u i s t i c s i s behi nd t he classroom t eacher . . . . . The classroom t eacher
shoul d know of t he exi s t ence of s c i e n t i f i c l i n g u i s t i c s but wi t hout neces-
s a r i l y having t o underst and it", al t hough t h e same wr i t e r bel i eves t h a t
"t hose who t r a i n t eacher s . . . must know t h e i r s t u f f i n l i n g u i s t i c s and
9 ~ f . a l s o Per ki ns ( 1 1 4 ) , who recommends "a di s cus s i on of speech event s a t
t h e very begi nni ng" and "i nformat i on about phonet i cs and phonemics be-
f or e t h e fi rst l es s on about t he sounds of t h e p a r t i c u l a r language".
1 cf . a l s o Comenius' maxim: " A l l l anguages a r e e a s i e r t o l e a r n by prac-
t i c e t han from r u l e s . But r u l e s a s s i s t and st r engt hen t h e knowledge
der i ved from pr act i ce" ( J . Comenius , The Great Di dact i c [ ~ i d a c t i c a
~ a ~ n a ] , t r . M. W. Keat i nge, c i t e d i n Brooks 138) .
above a l l i n phonet i cs" (St revens 1962a,73) . l l There does seem t o be a
gr e a t e r volume of wr i t i ng i n support of not onl y t he t eacher ' s l i ngui s t i c
awareness, but t h a t of t he learners a s wel l , a t l e a s t a s f a r as sound-dis-
t i n c t i o n s and t he phonol ogi cal system of a language a r e concerned.
4. 22 The use of contrastive analysis. In 3. 11 it was brought out t h a t
nat i ve-l anguage i nt er f er ence i n audi t or y di s cr i mi nat i on of t arget -l anguage
phonemes c ons t i t ut e s a major d i f f i c u l t y f o r t he second-language l ear ner .
Moshe Ani sf el d (118) comments on t he problem a s f ol l ows:
Oft en a begi nni ng st udent does not hear a p a r t i c u l a r phoneme i n
t h e new language a s d i f f e r e n t from a cl os e phoneme i n h i s nat i ve
t ongue; i . e . he c l a s s i f i e s t h e st i mul us i nput i n t o t h e wrong cat -
egory. .... It i s t her ef or e i mport ant f o r t h e f or ei gn language
l e a r ne r t o bui l d up phonemic cat egor i es appr opr i at e t o t h e new
l anguage.
In ot her words, t he l e a r ne r needs t o be aware t h a t t he phonemic system of
t he t a r ge t language i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of h i s own. The l ogi cal way t o
achi eve such awareness, accordi ng t o t he appl i ed l i n g u i s t s , i s by means of
a contrastive analysis of t he two systems i nvol ved ( c f . Banathy e t a l . 55) .
Thi s pr ocess, a l s o known a s "bi l i ngual comparison" ( c f . St revens 1962b,48)
i s ext ens i vel y t r e a t e d i n Lado' s Linguistics Across Cultures, where he
speaks of such comparison a s "a means of pr edi ct i ng and des cr i bi ng t he pro-
nunci at i on problems of t he speakers of a gi ven language l ear ni ng anot her"
(Lado 11) .12
'Iv .A. Bogorodicki j ( 331) not es t h a t " ~H~KOMCTBO C @ I ~ M o J I o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~OM3HOI I I eHMR
H e AOJDKHO CWI TaTbCR JIMIIIHMM M AJIR HaqI aJi bHOr O ~ ~ ~ M T ~ J I R " wi t hout r ef er ence
t o any i mpar t at i on of such knowledge t o t h e l e a r n e r ; Polovnikova ( 137) ,
however, speaks about " ~ ~ H H O C T ~ Ci7eIJMaJlbHbIX YPOICOB IIO @ ~ H ~ T M I C ~ [AJIR
YY~I I J MXCR] " .
12cf . a l s o Reformatski j 6, Polovnikova 133, Po l i t zer 66-67.
Capel l e (59) not es t h a t " l a pl upar t des t heor i es l i ngui s t i ques sou-
l i gnent l ' l n d i v i d u a l i t e e t l e s car act 2r es propres de chaque langue". Un-
der l yi ng t he pr i nc i pl e of cont r as t i ve anal ys i s i s t he r ecogni t i on t h a t
t he comparison of any two languages w i l l r eveal a s e t of di f f er ences un-
l i k e t h a t between any two ot her l anguages, and t her ef or e t h a t "t he t ypi -
c a l and p e r s i s t e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s of one group [of l ear ner s ] may wel l be
e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t from t hose of anot her group, depending on t he mother
tongue of t he pupi l s" (St revens l962b ,48) .
Thi s c ons t i t ut e s something of a problem In t he t eachi ng of Russian
i n North American universities, where a gr eat number of s t udent s who
t ake up t h e language come from Sl avoni c, but not neces s ar i l y Russi an,
f ami l i es . Di f f er ences between cl os el y r e l a t e d languages a r e no l e s s
d i f f i c u l t t han t hose between t o t a l l y unr el at ed ones, sometimes even more
s o, s i nce i t i s t he very s i mi l a r i t i e s i n sound t h a t of t en cause t he most
confusi on ( c f . Ani s f el d' s quot at i on a t t he begi nni ng of 4. 22) . l 4 For
t h i s reason t h e use of cognat es i n t eachi ng sounds 1s gener al l y frowned
upon ( e. g. Lemieux 135), al t hough a t l e a s t one person (Benson 80) s ees
cognat es a s a us ef ul means of cont r as t i ng sound-systems.
3~ . K. KrupskaJa (410--411) des cr i bes a Fren& -language-programme i n Geneva,
Swi t zer l and, which she at t ended i n 1908: " O C O ~ ~ H H O C T ~ K , KypCOB 6bUI AM@-
t f E p e ~ M p 0 ~ a H H b ~ I'IOLtXOA K KaXl i Ofi HauMOHaJI bHOCTM. . . . KpOMe TOr O, Ica3KAOfi
HaIJMOHaJTbHO? T'pyIlI'Ie ~ 3 b I B a J I O C b , B q e M MMeHHO HeAOCTaTICM I'lpOM3HOLUeHMR
y A ~ H H O ~ ~ HamOHaJI bHOCTM. .... a J I R ICZWlTOR HaIJ4OHaJIbHOCTM 6 b m CBOM
~ Y ~ ~ H L / I I C I / I , BbIRCHRIOuMe, B YeM p a 3 HMy a B CTPJ XTYp e CJIOB, MX C O Y ~ T ~ H MM" .
1 4 ~ v e n st udent s from Russian-speaking f ami l i es a r e us ual l y f ami l i ar wi t h
onl y a r egi onal d i a l e c t ( ot her t han t h e Moscow norm); t h i s gr e a t e r sim-
i l a r i t y can add f ur t he r t o t he i nt er f er ence i n mast eri ng cor r ect speech
pa t t e r ns . Cf. a l s o Reformat ski j (12): " ~ J I ~ M ~ H T ~ I CXOACTBa-Ie TOX-
AeCTBa---COAepXaT TascMe 3JIeMeHTbI HeTOXAeCTBa, KOTOpbIe 3 a q a CTy l o Tp y AHe e
l 7peOAOJI eTb, q e M RBHdIe He T Ome CT Ba B3a PMH3 Yy Wb I X R~ ~ I I COB" .
I n f a c t , some l i n g u i s t s recommend consi der abl e audi al pr a c t i c e i n
contrasting s i mi l a r phonemes I n t he nat i ve and t a r g e t l anguages, much
l i k e t he cont r as t i ve d r i l l s f o r r e l a t e d phonemes whi t hi n t he t a r ge t
language i t s e l f ( s ee 4. 12) . Sigmund S. Birkenmayer, i n an a r t i c l e on
Russi an pa t t e r n d r i l l s , def i nes "cont r as t i ve d r i l l " a s "percei vi ng and
i mi t at i ng t he di f f er ence between t he el ement s of a f or ei gn language and
t hos e of our own language" (Birkenmayer 43) . Thi s t ype of d r i l l , a t
l e a s t as f a r a s usi ng words t o i l l u s t r a t e t he cont r as t r a t he r t han s i m -
pl y j uxt aposi ng t he phonemes i n quest i on, i s descr i bed by Leon (71) as
"an excel l ent t eachi ng devi ce but . . . a poor t e s t i n g t echni que1' s i nce
"t he s t udent not onl y has one vowel t o compare wi t h anot her but a l s o
many ot her acous t i c cues which w i l l enabl e him qui ckl y t o recogni ze
t he Engl i sh word, even i f he i s unabl e t o anal yze t he di f f er ences be-
tween t he two vowels". I f t h i s be t he case, however, such bi l i ngua l
c o n t r a s t - d r i l l s would be more us ef ul i n t h e l e a r n e r ' s as s i mi l at i on of
phonemic sequences and suprasegmental f e a t ur e s ( c f . 3. 13, 3.14) r a t he r
t han i n h i s l ear ni ng of i ndi vi dual phonemes.
We may concl ude, t hen, t ha t cont r as t i ve anal ys i s i s a val uabl e
element i n t he cogni t i ve aspect of t he audi o- l i ngual approach, i . e . ,
i n making t he l ear ner aware of t he di f f er ences between t he phonol ogi cal
system of t he t a r g e t language and t h a t of h i s own, and hel pi ng t o pr e-
vent h i s nat i ve ha bi t s from i nt e r f e r i ng wi t h t he as s i mi l at i on of t hose
of t h e new l anguage.
4. 23 The use of phonetic t ranscri pt i on.
I n 2. 23 we consi dered a nwn-
ber of arguments--stemming chi ef l y from t he predominantly vi s ual empha-
sis of the learner's educational experiencein favour of some sort of
graphic aid to "ease the strain" of audial assimilation. Let us see
the problem restated in the following quotation from Hockett:
I n our s oci et y t h e wr i t t e n word i s emphasized a t every t u r n .
St udent s consequent l y a r e apt t o work more efficiently---even
a t l ear ni ng pronunciation-if t hey have something t o look at
a s t hey work, i ns t ead of working e n t i r e l y t hrough i mi t at i on.
Unfort unat el y, most t r a d i t i o n a l wr i t i ng systems a r e not
suf -
f i c i e n t l y r egul ar t o be used f o r t h i s purpose wi t hout confus-
i ng t h e i s s ue . . . . I 5
Hockett then suggests (Zoc. cit.) that "materials for the students to
follow as they practice pronunciation therefore need a transcription-
an invented writing system which represents with absolute regularity
the speech sounds they are to learn to make and recognizetf. l 6
It may be well to remind ourselves here of the sharp difference be-
tween transcription and transliteration. The former is based on the
sound-system of the language, and involves the use of a symbol for each
phoneme or allophone of the spoken language. Transliteration, on the
other hand, is based on the graphic system of the language, and gener-
ally consists of using the native-language writing-system to give ap-
proximate sound-values to the letters of the target-language alphabet. l 7
I6sweet and J es per s en were bot h ar dent advocat es of t r a ns c r i pt i on ( c f .
Sweet ' s quot at i on i n 2. 23) . Cf. a l s o Mackey ( 265) : "If ...I t h e l e a r -
ne r ] has had s o much experi ence wi t h t h e wr i t t e n language a s t o have
t o s ee a word i n wr i t i ng bef or e bei ng abl e t o pronounce it, phonet i c
not at i on may become a neces s i t y".
1 7 ~ h i s i s a most f a mi l i a r s i ght i n t r a d i t i o n a l Russi an t ext books, i ncl ud-
i ng some of t h e more r ecent ones. Cf. f o r example Fayer 2-lb, Gronicka
& Bates-Yakobson 2--6, Doherty & Markus 6-7 ( a l l of which were publ i shed
between 1958 and 1960). Lunt ( 4 ) uses transcription a s wel l a s t r ans -
l i t e r a t i o n .
Thus Otto Jespersen advised the use of transcription alone without
concomitant reference to traditional orthography,18 so that the learner
might not confuse the sound-system representation with the irregular or-
thographic system (see Jespersen 168-173).
It is generally recommended today that transcriptions be used on
the phonemic rather than on the purely phonetic level (e.g. see M6ras
54, Brooks 276); Sweet proposed that only "significant1' sound-distinc-
tions be recorded. l9 Possibly related to this is the feeling (e.g.
Huebener 1965,30) that the learner need have only a passive acquaintance
with transcription-symbols. Edmond M6ras would impose even further
limits: "Except in advanced work in phonetics, the students should not
be expected to write phonetic symbols or to read aloud a text written in
them" (MQras 140).
About the only real challenge found to the use of transcription it-
self came from Benson (78), who notes that "many teachers feel that be-
ginning with the Russian alphabet offers fewer difficulties in the long
run". It is true that the Cyrillic alphabet, while not regular, at least
manifests some degree of consistency in its irregularity in representing
1 8 ~ s to the length of time transcription should be continued, however,
very little indication could be found. Jespersen himself admitted
this to be "one of the most difficult questions" and could recommend
only "as long as possi bl e" (~espersen 172/173).
''sweet 18. This corresponds to Jespersen's use of transcription, "not
... to replace, but ... to support, the teacher's oral instruction in
pronunciation. Even if it misses some of the very finest shades,
it may still be of benefit, Just as a tabie of logarithms can be
very useful even if the numbers are not carried out farther than
to the fourth decimal place" (~espersen 166).
the Russian sound-system. The danger is, of course, that the students-
and teachers too---will fail to perceive the nature of the irregularity
and try to deal with non-existent items such as "hard and soft vowels1'
(or worse still, with "palatalized vowels") . 2 0 The phonological facts
of the language must be made extremely clear to both teacher and learner
right at the beginning of the course and constantly recalled throughout
the teaching-programme if phonemic transcription is to be excluded in
favour of Cyrillic orthography alone.
The transcription itself, however, must not be too heavily empha-
sized. Hockett (1950,269) compares it to a scaffolding, erected to help
the learner gain audial control of the language; as such "it must be re-
spected; but as only a scaffolding, it will eventually be torn down (or
be allowed to 'wither away') ".
4.24 S m a r y . Audio-lingual recommendations regarding both conscious
and unconscious assimilation procedures may be summarized as follows:
4.241 Since language is a set of habits, the use of these habits should
be made as automatic as possible through imitative drills, with constant
review throughout the programme.
4.242 Auditory discrimination is best taught by drills contrasting relat-
ed but distinct phonemes within the target language; another useful means
may be that of dictation.
20~nder the heading "Hard and Soft Vowels", Fayer (15) gives the follow-
ing (mis)information: "If the tongue is raised against the pal at e
when a, a, 0 , or y is pronounced, the sound becomes softened or pal -
a t a l i z e d . sf is thus a palatalized a; e, a paltalized 3; &, a pala-
talized 0; and 10, a palatalized Y".
4. 243 Tr ai ni ng i n pronunci at i on and di s cr i mi nat i on may be f a c i l i t a t e d by
an expl anat i on of t he new phonol ogi cal system i n cont r as t t o t h a t of t he
nat i ve language.
4.244 The l ear ner must be made aware---by means of cont r as t i ve anal ysi s-
of t he phonol ogi cal di f f er ences between t he t a r g e t language and h i s nat i ve
t ongue, so t h a t he may prevent h i s nat i ve h a b i t s from i nt e r f e r i ng wi t h h i s
as s i mi l at i on of t he ha bi t s of t he new l anguage.
4.245 The need f o r gr aphi c support ( see 2. 23) i s probabl y bes t met by a
phonemic t r a ns c r i pt i on wi t hout r ef er ence t o t r a d i t i o n a l ort hography ( a t
l e a s t i n i t i a l l y ) , al t hough, a s a temporary a i d, t he t r a ns c r i pt i on must not
be overemphasized. In t he case of Russi an, extreme car e must be t aken i f
t he Cy r i l l i c ort hography i s used al one.
5. TEXTBOOK ANALYSI S: PRESENTATION
5. 1 PRESENTATION OF AUDIAL AND GRAPHIC SKILLS.
5. 11 PedagogicaZ or i e nt a t i on. The age-group a t which i ns t r uc t i ona l ma-
t e r i a l i s di r ect ed and t he l engt h of t i me expect ed t o be devoted t o i t
vary somewhat from method t o method. Si nce t hes e a r e f a c t or s which have
some i nf l uence on t he pr epar at i on of t he t ext books and ot her mat er i al s ,
it might be wel l t o compare them before eval uat i ng t he methods t hemsel ves.
William Cornyn s Beginning Russi an (COR) cont ai ni ng t h i r t y - f i v e
"l essons", was s p e c i f i c a l l y wr i t t en f o r an i nt ens i ve f i r s t - y e a r Russian
programme a t Yale Uni ver si t y (see COR I nt r oduct i on ix-x, a l s o Benson 78) .
Modem Russi an, by Clayton Dawson, Charl es Bidwell, and Assya Humesky ( DBH) ~
i s a two-volume course of t h i r t y - s i x u n i t s i nt ended f o r a uni ver s i t y pro-
gramme l a s t i n g two year s (see DBH/T 1 ) . Basic ConversationaZ Russi an by
Gordon Fai rbanks and Richard Leed (FBL) i s di vi ded i n t o t wel ve "grammar-"
and t went y-four "conversat i on-uni t s". I t i s aimed a t s t udent s i n e i t h e r
hi gh-school o r uni ver s i t y, and "may be covered i n anywhere from one semes-
t e r of a f a i r l y i nt ens i ve col l ege course t o two year s of a l e s s i nt ens i ve
hi gh school course" (FBL v i i ) , depending upon t he number of hours avai l abl e
per week.
The Audio-Lingual Mat er i al s (ALM) course wi t h f our t een uni t s , prepared
l ~ h r e e - l e t t e r abbr evi at i ons a r e used i n r ef er ence t o t he methods under di s -
cussi on. The l e t t e r "T" fol l owi ng an abbr evi at i on (except COR) r e f e r s
t o t h e teaching-manual provi ded wi t h t h e r es pect i ve t ext book.
2 ~ i d we l l i s gi ven a s an aut hor f o r t h e f i r s t volume, and a s a consul t ant
f o r t h e second volume.
by t he s t a f f of t he Modern Language Mat er i al s Development Cent er, "may be
used by any begi nni ng c l a s s i n t he j uni or o r s eni or hl gh school", al t hough
"it must be poi nt ed out t h a t t he f i r s t - l e v e l course has been prepared f o r
c l a s s e s begi nni ng f or ei gn language st udy i n grades seven, e i ght , o r ni ne"
(ALM/T 5 ) . I t i s t o be completed i n e i t h e r one o r two year s , accordi ng t o
t he number of c l a s s s es s i ons per week.
ALM, DBH, and FBL a r e provi ded wi t h supplementary manuals f o r t he
t eacher o r i n s t r ~ c t o r ; ~ COR 1s not . Publ i sher s suppl y t apes and/ or di s c s
f o r l abor at or y use wi t h a l l books except COR.
5. 12 Linguistic orientation. The primary aim of t he methods present ed i n
a l l f our t ext books, a s s t a t e d o r i mpl i ed i n t h e i r r es pect i ve i nt r oduct i ons ,
i s a degree of mast ery of Russian a s a spoken l anguage. Hence a l l f our
recogni ze e i t h e r openl y o r i mpl i c i t l y t he primacy of t he spoken language
over t he wr i t t e n. For example, t he second paragraph of COR' s i nt r oduct i on
begi ns a s f ol l ows:
The method of t eachi ng i mpl l ed i n t h e mat er i al of t h i s book r e s t s
on t h e pr opos i t i on t h a t t he qui ckest and most accur at e means of
a t t a i n i n g fl uency i n a language i s t o begfn by speaki ng i t . 4
And i n t he f i r s t paragraph of t he ALM i nt r oduct i on we f i nd:
The program i s based on t h e convi ct i on t h a t language i s f i r s t of
a l l speech, and t h a t t h e a b i l i t y t o communicate by means of spo-
ken words i s of pri mary i mport ance.
3 ~ h e FBL Teacher's Manual was not publ i shed u n t i l 1966, two year s a f t e r t h e
t ext book was i s s ued. Hence it shoul d be borne i n mind t h a t enl i ght eni ng
i nformat i on i n t h i s manual a s t o t he appl i cat i on of audi o-l i ngual con-
cept s t o t h e course was not available a t f i r s t t o t h e l anguage-t eacher.
The t apes were i ssued i n t h e same year a s t h e t ext book, however.
'COR i x .
FBL i s t he onl y method which makes a s pe c i a l appeal i n i t s i nt r oduc-
t l on t o t hose s t udent s whose i n t e r e s t l i e s more I n readi ng Russl an:
t hey
a r e advi sed t o " t r e a t t h i s course exact l y a s do t hose who wish t o develop
a c t i ve cont r ol of t he spoken language" f o r t he fol l owi ng r easons:
... f i r s t , t h e most efficient method of developing thorough and
f l uent r eadi ng a b i l l t y i s t o begm t h e st udy of a language by
l e a r n mg t o speak i t ; second, t he l i t e r a t u r e i n a p a r t i c u l a r
language cannot be appreciated unl ess one has t h e bui l t - i n ca-
paci t y of cont r as t i ng l ~ t e r a r y s t y l e wl t h t h e s t y l e of every-
day run of t h e m i l l speech . . . . 6
Thi s corresponds wi t h t he arguments put forward by Hockett and St r evens
i n 2 . 2 5 f o r l ear ni ng l i t e r a t u r e through language ( c f . a l s o Sweet ' s quo-
t a t i o n i n 2. 12) .
5. 13 Order of presentation. The fol l owi ng st at ement by Nelson Brooks
appears i n t he i nt r oduct i on t o t he ALM manual:
I n t he audi o- l mgual phase language f unct i ons pur el y on i t s own.
The vl sual -graphi c phase i s a nc i l l a r y t o language and i mport ant
t o it, but it can e a s i l y be foregone, as it i s cons t ant l y i n t h e
da i l y l i f e of everyone. All f our s k i l l s shoul d be t aught i n a
c a r e f ul l y pr es cr i bed sequence and proportion of a l i o t t e d t i me.
Although t he introductions t o FBL and COR do imply an "audi o-l i ngual
phase" bef or e any gr aphi c act i vi t y- - ei t her readi ng or writing-is under-
t aken by t he l ear ner , ALM and DBH make s p e c i f i c recommendation of i t , t he
former more s t r ongl y t han t he l a t t e r . A s DBH ( v i i ) expl ai ns :
Language l ear ni ng . . . p r oper i y begi ns wi t h l i s t e n i n g and r epeat i ng
and onl y l a t e r proceeds t o peading and wr i t i ng.
These f i r s t two
6~~~ v. C f . a l s o FBL/T ( I ) , where t h e purpose of t h e t ext book i s acknowi-
edged a s bei ng " t o l a y a foundat i on upon wnlch nay be developed r e a l
f l uency i n a l l of t h e language s k i l l s : a u r a l comprehension, speaki ng,
r eadi ng and wr i t i ng".
s t ages a r e of primary importance i f t h e st udent i s t o gai n even
a minimum cont r ol of spoken Russi an;
f o r t h i s reason we recommend
s t r ongl y t h a t most mat er i al be pr esent ed and pr act i ced wi t h books
cl os ed, -both i n c l a s s and i n t he l abor at or y.
ALM, on t he ot her hand, goes s o f a r a s t o propose t h a t t ext book d i s t r i b u -
t i o n be postponed f o r a per i od of t hr ee months s o t h a t "t he f i r s t t hr ee
o r f our u n i t s can be mast ered audi ol i ngual l y" (ALM v i i ) . Three reasons
f o r temporary excl usi on of a l l gr aphi c work a r e c i t e d :
a) audi al s k i l l s
i nvol ve ha bi t s , and a l l a va i l a bl e t i me shoul d be devoted t o pr a c t i s i ng
t hes e ha bi t s ; b) wr i t t en symbols i n t e r f e r e wi t h t h e l ear ni ng of audi al
s k i l l s ; c) audi al foundat i on s i mpl i f i e s t he l ear ni ng of gr aphi c s k i l l s
Assi mi l at i on of ha bi t s w i l l be di scussed i n Chapt er 6 . Let us s ee
how i nt er f er ence from wr i t i ng i s t r e a t e d i n t he ot her t ext books under
cons i der at i on.
5. 14 The use of t ranscri pt i on i n presentation. In 2 . 2 3 we saw t he de-
s i r a b i l i t y , from t he pedagogi cal poi nt of view, of having some s o r t of
vi s ua l support f o r t he l et t er - bound second-language l e a r ne r i n hi gh-school
o r uni ve r s i t y. In 4 . 2 3 we concluded t h a t t h i s i s bes t provi ded by a pho-
nemic t r a ns c r i pt i on, a s t he di s t or t i ons of t r a d i t i o n a l or t hogr aphi es i n-
t e r f e r e wi t h l ear ni ng cor r ect audi al ha bi t s . A s not ed i n 5. 11, l ear ner s
a r e expect ed t o begi n t he ALM book before reachi ng hi gh-school , when t hey
a r e not ye t s o "l et t er-bound" a s t o r equi r e e xt r a vi s ua l suppor t . Hence
ALM can more s ucces s f ul l y promote an "audi o-l i ngual phase" wi t h t he com-
p l e t e excl usi on of graphi c a c t i v i t y a t t he begi nni ng of t he course; t h i s
na t ur a l l y obvi at es t he need f o r t r a ns c r i pt i on, a s once t he l ear ner has a
r e l a t i v e mast ery of t he Russian sound-system, he i s not so e a s i l y di s -
t r a c t e d by or t hogr aphi c i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .
The ot her t hr ee methods, desi gned f o r use a t t he hi gh-school and/ or
uni ver s i t y l e ve l s , do employ t r a ns c r i pt i on i n varyi ng degr ees. Presum-
abl y DBH's r ul i ng of "most mat er i al . . . p r a c t i c e d wi t h books cl osed" would
s t i l l permi t t he st udent l i mi t ed use of h i s eyes i n t he i n i t i a l s t ages .
COR and FBL bot h use a phonemic t r a ns c r i pt i on (al t hough t he two a r e
not i d e n t i ~ a l ) ; ~ t h a t found i n DBH i s p a r t i a l l y al l ophoni c a s f a r a s t he
vowels a r e concerned, gi vi ng [a] as t he non-pre-t oni c var i ant of t he pho-
neme /a/.
A l l t hr e e methods i nt r oduce t he Cy r i l l i c ort hography al ong wi t h t he
t r a ns c r i pt i on from t he very s t a r t . Although t h i s vi ol a t e s J es per s enl s
pr i nc i pl e of a t r ans cr i pt i on- onl y per i od ( J e s p e r s e ~ 168-173; c f . 4. 23) ,
t her e i s l e s s danger of confusi on i n t he case of Russian because of t he
consi der abl e di f f er ence between Lat i n and Cy r i l l i c symbols, and a l s o be-
8 ~ e v e r t h e l e s s , ALM warns agai ns t i nt er f er ence dur i ng t he "i nt er medi at e per-
i od" when graphi c symbols a r e i nt r oduced: "In d i f f e r e n t ways, bot h t h e
unf ami l i ar Cy r i l l i c l e t t e r shapes and t hos e t h a t resemble t h e f ami l i ar
Roman ones w i l l cause i nt er f er ence. Te l l t h e s t udent s it w i l l t ake
t i me t o l e a r n t o r e a c t pr oper l y t o unf ami l i ar I . et t er s . Expl ai n t h a t
t hey a r e l i k e l y t o respond i n a t ypi c a l l y Engl i sh f ashi on t o t hos e l e t -
t e r s which l ook f a mi l i a r , and caut i on them t o be on guard agai ns t this.
i n s l s t t h a t t h e pr esent main obj ect i ve i s s t i l l t o underst and and speak,
and t h a t t hey must cont i nue t o t r u s t t h e i r e a r s r a t he r t han t h e i r eyes"
(ALM v i i ) .
9 ~ h e main di f f er ence between t he two t r a n s c r i p t ~ o n s i s t he manner i n which
pai r ed pa l a t a l i z e d consonants a r e r epr es ent ed. FBL ( l i k e DBH) uses a
hook below t h e l e t t e r t o i ndi c a t e p a l a t a l i z a t i o n ( e . g. / q/ i / q/ ) ; COB
pr ef er s a fol l owi ng j i ns t ead ( e . g. l dj /lj /mj / ) . The l a t t e r , al t hough
l endi ng i t s e l f ni cel y t o a morphol ogi cal anal ys l s of Russian ver bal con-
j ugat l ons ( s e e COR 83), 1s a source of confusi on t o t h e l e a r ne r ( and,
sometimes, t h e t eacher ) because it might mi sl ead one t o suppose t h a t
it r epr es ent s two sounds (consonant pl us j od, f o r example) r a t he r t han
a s i ngl e pa l a t a l i z e d consonant . Cf. t h e cont r as t of /?el/ "[ he] s a t
down1' and /sjel/ "[ he] at e" . Hence FBL1s and DBH1 s use of t h e hook i s
pr ef er abl e.
cause, a s mentioned i n 4. 23, t he Cy r i l l i c al phabet i s a t l e a s t somewhat
cons i s t ent i n ~ t s irregularities, which t he l e a r ne r would presumably be
abl e t o de t e c t by comparison wi t h t he t r a ns c r i pt i on. I t shoul d not be
f or got t en, however, t h a t t he use of Russian ort hography from t he begi nni ng
of t he course i s merely a concessi on t o t he gr adual development of gr aphi c
s k i l l s ; audi al s k i l l s themselves would probabl y be more e f f e c t i ve l y t aught
wi t hout t he si mul t aneous burden of an i r r e g u l a r wri t i ng-syst em, however
cons i s t ent it may be.
The t hr e e methods d i f f e r a s t o t he l engt h of t i me and t he purpose
f o r which t he t r a ns c r i pt i on i s used. DBH i nt r oduces a l l new mat er i al i n
t r a ns c r i pt i on f o r t he f i r s t t en u n i t s , and r e t a i n s ~t t hroughout f o r pro-
nunci at i on- dr i l l s . FBL, on t he ot her hand, pr ovi des onl y t he f i r s t f our
conversat i on u n i t s i n transcription, and t he pr onunci at i on- dr i l l s i n t he
appendix f o r which it i s a l s o used a r e expect ed t o be covered by t he end
of t he s i x t h conver s at i on- uni t . COR employs t r a ns c r i pt i on f o r new sent en-
ces up t o t he t e nt h l esson ( a t which t i me pr onunci at i on exer ci s es a r e di s -
cont i nued) , and cont i nues t o use i t f o r wor d- l i s t s r i g h t t o t he end of t he
book.
None of t he t hr ee methods r equi r es t he l ear ner t o wr i t e t he t r ans cr i p-
t i on-symbol s, o r t o use them f o r more t han a sent ence a t a time i n readi ng;
t h i s would fol l ow Meras' advi ce i n 4. 23. In each case t he t r a ns c r i pt i on
i s used merely a s a support i ng devi ce t o f a c i l i t a t e mastery of t he sound-
-system. I t does not r epl ace Cy r i l l i c ort hography f o r t he development of
graphi c s k i l l s ( c f . DBH/T 16) .
5. 2 PRESENTATION OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SKILLS.
5. 21 Context of present at i on: choice of vehi cl e. Two a l t e r n a t i v e ve-
h i c l e s of pr es ent at i on were di scussed i n 3. 23: a) unconnected sent ences,
and b) t h e di al ogue. The former is f eat ur ed i n COR; t h e l a t t e r i s adop-
t e d i n t h e ot he r s . l o
None of t he methods advocat es song a s a vehi cl e.
ALM and FBL provi de one di al ogue per u n i t , cont ai ni ng about f i f t e e n
t o t went y ut t er ances each; a f t e r Lesson 4, DBH has two di al ogues per uni t ,
wi t h about t en ut t er ances per di al ogue. l l I n each method t he di al ogues
s er ve t o i l l u s t r a t e s peci f i c grammatical poi nt s t o be pr a c t i s e d t hrough
fol l owi ng d r i l l s , and a r e thus advi sed t o be t aken bef or e ot her i t ems i n
t he u n i t . l 2 DBH precedes a l l di al ogues wi t h a "Pr epar at i on f o r Conversa-
1 cf . DBH/T ( 5 ) which of f er s t h e fol l owi ng i n suppor t of t h e use of di a-
l ogue: " ( 1 ) it of f er s t he bes t p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r i nt r oduci ng and
t eachi ng spoken language pat t er ns i n a l l per s ons ; ( 2 ) it i s t h e eas-
i e s t t ype of mat er i al t o memorize and pr ovi des t h e gr e a t e s t opportu-
n i t i e s f o r immediate appl i cat i on i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s ; ( 3) it i s
a dramat i c way of bri ngi ng out c u l t u r a l s i mi l a r i t i e s and di f f er ences
between Sovi et s oci et y and our own; and ( 4 ) it pr ovi des f o r t he i nt r o-
duct i on of var i ous s t yl e s of speech t h a t coul d not be s o e a s i l y re-
f l e c t e d i n pr ose passages or bas i c sent ences" ( c f . 3. 23) .
l l l t i s not ed, however, t h a t i n t h e ALM method "each di al og i s di vi ded i n-
t o two r e l a t e d s ect i ons of ha l f di al ogs u (ALM/T 11). Thi s i s a move
toward t h e more s t r i ngent condi t i ons imposed by Brooks (244), who spe-
c i f i e d t h a t "if a di al ogue goes on f o r more t han ha l f a dozen ut t er an-
ces it i s broken up i n t o p a r t s , each uni f i e d and cont ai ni ng not more
t han f our or f i ve ut t er ances ; t he s e p a r t s a r e l ear ned s epar at el yu.
While t h i s may be unnecessar i l y r e s t r i c t i v e , t h e aut hor , al ong wi t h
ot her s who have worked wi t h t he FBL ma t e r i a l s , has concluded t h a t un-
i nt er r upt ed s t r i n g s of f i f t e e n o r more s ent ences a r e t oo l ong f o r
p r a c t i c a l us e, e i t h e r i n t h e cl assroom or i n t h e l anguage-l aborat ory.
I 2 c f , f o r example DBH/T ( 2 5 ) : "It i s i mport ant f o r t h e t eacher t o r e a l i z e
t he neces s i t y of pr es ent i ng t h e ... Conversat i ons duri ng t he f i r s t two
s es s i ons . With t h e except i on of t h e Pronunci at i on p r a c t i c e , which i s
not d i r e c t l y t i e d t o t h e l es s on vocabul ary, a l l ot her mat er i al depends
on t h e i nt r oduct i on of t h e Conversat i ons, s i nce t hey cont ai n t h e bas i c
l e x i c a l and s t r u c t u r a l i t ems t o be pr act i ced i n t h e l esson".
t i on" t o i nt r oduce new vocabul ary and s t r u c t u r e s , and fol l ows them wi t h
"Basic Sent ence Pat t er ns " which "serve a s a br i dge between t he Conversa-
t i ons and t he s t r u c t u r a l d r i l l s " and "provi de c a r e f ul l y organi zed s e t s
of sent ences t h a t i l l u s t r a t e t he grammatical mat er i al of t he l esson and
t h e l e xi c a l mat er i al of cur r ent and pas t l essons" (DBH/T 6 ) . Thi s i n
e f f e c t hel ps t o f r e e t he di al ogue i t s e l f from havi ng t o i ncor por at e a l l
t he grammatical poi nt s t o be d r i l l e d , and t hus al l ows a gr e a t e r nat ur al -
ness of s t y l e .
In addi t i on t o t he di al ogues, ALM s uppl i es s ever al of i t s u n i t s wi t h
"recombination nar r at i ves " (mainly f o r l i s t e n i n g p u r p o s e s - c f . 5. 23) ,
i n which mat er i al pr evi ousl y pr esent ed i s recombined t o form new u t t e r -
ances. I n Uni t s 7 and 14 a na r r a t i ve r epl aces t h e di al ogue ( c f . ALM/T
26). ALM i s a l s o t he onl y method t h a t devot es s p e c i f i c e f f o r t t o t he
s ubj ect of di al ogue adapt at i on, t he obj ect i ve of which i s "t o r e l a t e
t he di al og sent ences and s i t u a t i o n t o t h e per sonal experi ence of t he
s t udent s and t o a i d memorizationtt (ALM/T 14) . Thi s c ons i s t s ( i n t he ALM
method) of quest i ons aimed a t t he s t udent , usi ng t he vocabul ary and s t r uc -
t u r e of t h e precedi ng di al ogue. Model answers a r e gi ven i n t he book, but
t he l e a r ne r i s encouraged t o formul at e h i s own, wi t hi n t he l i m i t s of vo-
cabul ary and s t r u c t u r e al r eady acqui r ed.
In COR t h e di al ogue i s repl aced by a s e r i e s of t went y-fi ve t o t h i r t y
sent ences i l l u s t r a t i n g a s pe c i f i c grammatical poi nt , and followed l a t e r i n
t he l esson by a review s e r i e s of f o r t y t o f i f t y sent ences. (These l i st s
I
13cf . Brooks' second quot at i on i n 3.23.
of individual utterances with little or no semantic connection between
them are very similar to those found in Lunt's Fundamentals of Russian. )
As was brought out in 3.23, this calls for greater resourcefulness on the
part of the teacher to put the utterances into the context of an actual
communication situation, without which, according to Albert Valdman,
lan-
guage-learning cannot take place (see 3.23).
5.22 Context of presentation: di al ect , s t y l e , and tempo. Considera-
tions of dialect, style, and tempo (cf. 3.21, 3.22) are taken into ac-
count by all textbooks except COR. Typical is the statement concerning
the FBL recordings, that "the language of the dialogues is typical of
normal, connected speech, not of artificial grammar book examples1' (FBL
vi). "Natural speed" is a proclaimed feature of the DBH conversation-
-recordings for the listening and comprehension stages (DBH viii--cf.
5.23), and in the I nst ruct or' s Manual it is advised that "model utter-
ances spoken by the instructor, like those on the tapes, should be de-
livered at a normal conversational speed . . . . No concessions should be
made to 'spelling pronunciation"' (DBH/T 15) . I 4 Normal speed in both
teacher's and learner's utterances is recommended in the ALM manual (ALM/T
9/11), as well as in laboratory work:
... the silent repeat spaces provided [on the tape] have been
carefully calculated and measured. If the student is "on his
14cf. the following quotation from D.N. ~gakov ( 379) : " < I I p a ~ m b m > RB-
JIReTCR R3bM O ~ P ~ ~ O B ~ H H ~ M MO C K B MY ~ ~ ~ , OAHafCO 6e3 MCKJ'CCTBeHHbM, 6 ~ -
BeHHbIX rIPOM3HOIIIeHMZi, B P OAe T 0 BM. lu T 0 , K 0 H e s H 0 BM.
K 0 H III H 0 M T. r I . , KOTOPbIe B03HMKaK)T y I"paMOTHHKOB IIOA BJDlRHMeM
~rnrpacX1MM".
t oes " and r epeat i ng t he mat er i al a t t h e proper speed, he can
j u s t make h i s ut t er ance i n t he space provi ded. Thus he i s
obl i ged t o approach a near-nat i ve pace from t h e begi nni ng. 15
I t must be remembered, a s Ri vers (201) poi nt ed out , t h a t "normal
speed does not mean r api d nat i ve speech". l 6 The FBL t apes might have
been improved by r ecor di ng t he conversat i ons a t a s l i g h t l y sl ower "nor-
mal speed", and bei ng more car ef ul t o avoi d s l u r r i n g and ot her di s t or -
t i o n s . Brooks (53) s t r e s s e d t h a t "t he l ear ner ... i s e n t i t l e d t o hear
language c l e a r l y i n focus a s he l ear ns" ( see 3. 21) , and DBH poi nt s out
t he need f o r " s l i g h t l y gr e a t e r c l a r i t y i n a r t i c u l a t i o n t han t h a t of i n-
formal speech" (DBH/T 15) .
A s t o s t y l e and d i a l e c t , a l l f our methods have adopted t he "col -
l oqui al " o r everyday speech of educat ed speakers of a st andar d d i a l e c t ,
appar ent l y Muscovite. 17 The ALM manual (11) comments on t h i s a s fol l ows:
The language of t h e di al ogs i s t h e s t andar d, aut hent i c, contem-
por ar y, i nformal language t h a t would be used i n equi val ent c i r -
cumstances by nat i ve speakers of t he same age ... a s t h e American
s t udent s i n t h e c l a s s . The wr i t e r s have t r i e d t o avoi d obvious
r egi onal p e c u l i a r i t i e s . . . .
In t he case of ALM, however, t he "same age" r e f e r s t o t he j uni or-hi gh-
1 5 ~ ~ ~ / ~ 31. The same i s t r u e of t h e FBL di al ogue-recordi ngs.
' %ee f u l l quot at i on i n 3. 21. Cf. a l s o Pol ovni kova' s suggest i on of t h e
gr adi ng of tempo i n t h e i n i t i a l s t ages ( 3. 21) .
1 7 ~ h e r e i s some quest i on as t o t h e per i od and t ype of Muscovite d i a l e c t
chosen a s t h e norm f or t hes e t ext books, e s pe c i a l l y i n DBH, FBL, and
COR, where s t r e s s e d /i/ and /e/ a r e gi ven a s coal esci ng i n t o [i] i n
uns t r es s ed pos i t i on, when i n f a c t t h e uns t r es s ed var i ant of /e/ ( af -
t e r pa l a t a l i z e d consonant s) i s a c t u a l l y consi dered t o be more of an
[I] i n present -day Moscow Russi an, t h e [ i ] bei ng regarded as an ol der
form. ALM a t l e a s t recogni zes some di st i nct i on-"unst ressed e and
t h e uns t r es s ed M a r e pronounced aZmost a l i ke " (ALM/T 38; i t a l i c s J . W . )
--wi t hout s peci f yi ng t he nat ur e of t h e di f f er ence.
-school l evel (12-15 year s ol d) , and t hus t he s t y l e of t h e di al ogues i s
not r e a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r l ear ner s of hi gh-school and uni ver s i t y age. l8
The s t y l e s of DBH and FBL a r e more s ui t e d t o t he uni ver s i t y atmo-
spher e. Dialogues i n t he former cent r e mainly around uni ver s i t y l i f e i n
Moscow; t hos e of t he l a t t e r around t he t r a v e l s of an American t o u r i s t i n
t h e Sovi et Union. DBH l eans more towards t h e col l oqui al s i d e wi t h ex-
pr es s i ons such a s "A B ~ I AOMO~~?" (12) i ns t ead of "A B ~ I MAET~ AOMOY;?~~,
"Bo CKOJ I ~I CO?~~ (198) i ns t ead of "KOTOP~IPI sac?' ' , whi l e FBL gener al l y pr e-
f e r s t he more p o l i t e forms, a t l e a s t on f i r s t i nt r oduct i on. l9 COR, which
uses sent ences i ns t ead of di al ogues, i s s t i l l more formal on occasi on, 20
al t hough t he s t y l e i s ba s i c a l l y t h a t of conver sat i anal speech. The d i f -
f er ences i n s t y l e f o r a c t i ve and pas s i ve mat er i al w i l l be not ed i n 5. 23.
5. 23 Presentation of auding. Although none of t he methods di scussed
recommends a s pe c i f i c "auding-only" period-in apparent agreement with
Hockett (1950,265) t h a t "t he nat ur al and most e f f i c i e n t way i s t o de-
vel op a t one and t he same time a b i l i t y t o pronounce c or r e c t l y and t o
hear cor r ect l y" ( c f . 3. 13, 4.12)-there does seem t o be a gener al r ec-
ogni t i on of a d i s t i n c t i o n between auding and speaki ng s k i l l s .
For
example, t he fol l owi ng quot at i on i s i ncl uded i n t he ALM Teacher's Manual
i n r ef er ence t o t he accompanying t ape- r ecor di ngs:
18~his is true of one or two dialogues in DBH as well, e.g. the Lesson 17
dialogues about children hunting mushrooms ( 391-392, 394-395 ) .
"E. g. Conversation-Unit 10, FBL 109 : "KyAa BbI M A ~ T ~ ? - 3 S f Y H a BOK3aJI.
- B ~ I Toxe H a BOKB~JI? Kyza xe B ~ I e n e ~ e ? - Hmyna. I'
O E . ~ . Lesson 27, COR 186 : "KOHCYJI Bac ceasac rrpmeT, e c m KOHCYJI~CTBO He
3ElQb1~0" .
I n t h e pr es ent at i on of l anguage f o r l ear ni ng,
a d i s t i n c t i o n
i s made between language for l i st eni ng and language for i mi -
t at i on i n or der t o accomplish di f f e r e nt obj ect i ves .
....
Excel l ent recorded mat er i al s a r e planned and execut ed wi t h t h e
pri mary aim of each passage, each d r i l l , c l e a r l y i n mind. The
r e s u l t i s t h a t language f o r l i s t e n i n g and language f o r i mi t a-
t i o n a r e never confused, and one i s never used i n a pl ace
where t h e ot her i s a p ~ r o p r i a t e . ~ ~
I t might be gat hered from f u r t h e r i nformat i on i n t he manual t ha t t he
"language f o r i mi t at i on" i s cont ai ned i n t he di al ogues whi l e t he "l an-
guage f o r l i s t eni ng" t akes t h e form of na r r a t i ve s , which "it i s not
necessary f o r t he s t udent s t o memorize", a t l e a s t not i n f u l l (ALM/T 27) .22
Another appl i cat i on of t he d i s t i n c t i o n might be t he i nt r oduct i on of t he
di al ogue on t ape " f i r s t f o r l i s t e n i n g onl y, wi t h no st udent response",
fol l owed by s t ages f o r i mi t at i on (ALM/T 31) .
Thi s f e a t ur e i s a l s o found i n t he FBL di al ogue-recordi ngs under t he
t i t l e of "f ul l - speed versi on", fol l owed by a "spaced versi on" f o r r e pe t i -
t i o n by t he l ear ner . But s p e c i f i c a l l y desi gned f o r audi t or y comprehen-
s i on, accordi ng t o t he t eachi ng manual (FBL/T 4 ) , a r e t he "l i s t eni ng- i n"
exer ci s es . These cons i s t of recorded conversations-three per conversa-
~ALM/ T 30, c i t e d from Cri t eri a for t he Evalua-tion of Materials t o be In-
cluded i n a SsZective Li s t of Materials for Use b y Teachers of Modem
Foreign Languages ( MLA FL Program Research Cent er ) 1961, p. 42. The
two "languagesT1 a r e expl ai ned i n t h e same quot at i on a s f ol l ows: "Re-
corded language for l i st eni ng hel ps t o devel op a s k i l l t h a t has been
l i t t l e underst ood and hence very much negl ect ed i n f or ei gn language
t eachi ng: t h e a b i l i t y of a non-native t o underst and e a s i l y when spo-
ken t o by a nat i ve speaker of t h e l anguage. Recorded language for
i mi t at i on, on t h e ot her hand, whi l e it may hel p t o devel op l i s t e n i n g
s k i l l s , has a qui t e di f f e r e nt main purpose: it ser ves a s a model f o r
t h e s t ude nt ' s own product i on of t h e spoken language".
2 2 ~ a r r a t i v e s t y l e i s na t ur a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of conver sat i on, and
t h e tempo somewhat sl ower. Thi s i s no doubt anot her reason why t hey
a r e not i nt ended f o r memorization ( c f . 5 . 2 2 ) .
t i on-uni t --bet ween Russian speakers a t a r a t h e r r api d normal ~ p e e d . ' ~
Unless t he accompanying Laboratory Manual ( t he f unct i on of which i s mere-
l y "t o pr ovi de i nformat i on on t he s pe l l i ng of Russiantt---FBL/T 19) i s used,
t he l e a r ne r has no oppor t uni t y of seei ng t hes e di al ogues i n pr i nt ed form.
His onl y cont act wi t h them bei ng through h i s e a r , he i s gi ven gr e a t e r op-
por t uni t y and i ncent i ve t o develop h i s auding a b i l i t y . (By c ont r a s t , a11
ALM narrat i ves-i ncl udi ng t hose f o r "l i s t eni ng"- ar e pr i nt ed i n t he s t u-
dent Is t ext book .)
DBH has no recombi nat i on mat er i al - - ei t her na r r a t i ve o r d i a l o g u e f o r
auding purposes, but t he two conver sat i ons i n each uni t 24 a r e gi ven spe-
c i a l l i s t e ni ng and i mi t at i ng s t ages on t he t apes , as wi t h t h e ALM r ecor -
di ngs. In addi t i on t o t he f i r s t pr es ent at i on f o r "l i s t eni ng", however,
t he r e i s a l s o a f our t h s t age i n which t he di al ogue i s r epeat ed a t normal
speed f o r "[semant i c] comprehension" ( s ee DBH/T 6/ 13).
5 . 2 4 Presentation o f speaking. The second s t age i n t he recorded di al ogues
on t he ALM and DBH t apes c ons i s t s of t he breaking-down of sent ences i n t o
p a r t i a l ut t er ances ( " par t i al s " ) , s t a r t i n g from t h e end of t he sent ence s o
a s t o "preserve na t ur a l i nt onat i on" ( as r epeat edl y s t a t e d i n t he DBH manual
- s e e pp. 6, 13, 14, 15-16; c f . a l s o ALM/T 9 ) . In t he t h i r d s t age whole
ut t er ances a r e gi ven f o r r e p e t i t i o n ( c f . ALM/T 31, DBH/T 6/ 13/ 14). Only
t he l a t t e r s t a ge i s provi ded f o r t he l e a r n e r ' s i mi t at i on on t h e FBL r ecor -
di ngs, al t hough t h e FBL manual, publ i shed some two year s l a t e r , recommends
2 3 ~ h e r e does not appear t o be any s i gni f i c a nt di f f er ence i n speed or s t y l e
from t h a t of t h e uni t - di al ogues ( c f . 5. 22) .
2 4 ~ e s s o n s 1-4 have onl y one conver sat i on each, a s not ed i n 5. 21.
sent ence bui l d-up ( s t a r t i n g from t he end) a s a classroom t echni que (see
FBL/T 11-12) .
The aut hor has had experi ence usi ng t h e FBL Russian t apes i n l a b r a -
t or y- per i ods, and has a l s o worked wi t h DBH-type r ecor di ngs (wi t h t he four-
- s t age conversat i on) i n anot her language; 2 6 t hus h i s comparison may be
v a l i d t o some ext ent . He found t h a t where s t udent s were t o r epeat com-
p l e t e ut t er ances (sometimes a s many a s s i xt een words l ong27) onl y once,
t hey found gr e a t d i f f i c u l t y i n r et ai ni ng and i mi t at i ng what t hey had
heard. The r api d tempo a t which t he di al ogue was spoken ( s ee 5 . 2 2 ) di d
not hel p t o ease t h i s problem. St udent s usi ng t he f our - s t age r ecor di ngs,
however, where ut t er ances were f i r s t broken down i n t o segments bef or e
bei ng gi ven f o r r e p e t i t i o n i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y , achi eved a reasonabl e de-
gr ee of f l uency by t he end of t he per i od. 2 8
In 3. 1 we took not e of t he importance of "going beyond t he phoneme"
i n t he t r a i ni ng of bot h auding and speaki ng a b i l i t i e s , and t aki ng i n t o
cons i der at i on such f a c t or s a s sound-sequences, s t r e s s , and i nt onat i on.
These a r e most f u l l y expl oi t ed i n t he FBL and DBH methods. The Instruc-
t or ' s Manual f o r t he l a t t e r (15) comments a s f ol l ows:
2 5 ~ n o t h e r reason i s of f er ed her e (FBL/T 11) f o r begi nni ng from t h e end of
t h e sent ence: "it i s e a s i e r t o r epeat t h e f i r s t p a r t of what someone
e l s e has s a i d t han it i s t o r epeat t h e l a s t p a r t ( a t l e a s t i n t h e
case of f or ei gn l anguage ma t e r i a l ) ' I .
26~e c or di ngs f o r Modern French by Ilesberg and Kenan.
2713. ~. FBL 135, Sent ence #4.
2 8 ~ a t u r a l l y t h e r e were a few except i ons among t hos e wi t h very gr e a t and
very l i t t l e apt i t ude f o r l anguage-l earni ng, but t h e st at ement s made
her e r e f l e c t t h e ove r a l l pa t t e r n.
A t t h e ver y s t a r t of h i s language l ear ni ng, t h e st udent must
become accustomed t o hear i ng Russian spoken naturally---not word
by i s ol a t e d word, but wi t h t h e or di nar y phrasi ng and i nt onat i on
t h a t char act er i ze the nat i ve speaker of t he l anguage.
This advice is well supported throughout the textbook by a considerable
amount of explanation and drill devoted to the features of speech beyond
isolated sounds, especially clusters and intonation (these will be dis-
cussed in 6.24 and 6.25 respectively). FBL pays little attention to
clusters, but includes a number of good drills on intonation, as well
as on the effect of palatalization on stressed and unstressed vowels.29
ALM and COR, on the other hand, concentrate mainly on isolated
sounds. The latter gives an excellent analysis of the allophonic var-
iants of the unstressed vowels, and some consideration to voicing assim-
ilation (see 6.24), but little or no attention to anything else. Even
though ALM prints all its pronunciation-drills in the Teacher's Manual
so that the learner cannot see them, there is a rather poor selection by
comparison with DBH and FBL. It is claimed that these drills, "while not
focusing on the whole Russian sound system, have isolated the most diffi-
cult problems in pronunciation for an English-speaking person" (ALM/T 35)
The claimants fail to recognize, however, that a problem equally diffi-
cult, if not more so, is presented by the suprasegmental features of a
language (cf. 3.13), which can hardly be described as "isolated1' in any ,
significant degree. 30
2 9 ~ h e i nf l uence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n on vowel qua l i t y i s one f e a t ur e r a t he r
poor l y t r e a t e d i n DBH ( s e e 6. 23) .
3 0 ~ v e n i f "pronunci at i on" i s i nt e r pr e t e d her e i n i t s narrow sense of sound-
- a r t i c ul a t i on, t h e cl ai m remains u n f u l f i l l e d , s i nce some of t he more
d i f f i c u l t pa l a t a l i z a t i ons ( e . g , /Q/$/Y/$:/ & a11 voi ced consonant s)
have been omi t t ed.
I t would appear t h a t t he ALM aut hor s assume t h a t pupi l s of j uni or -
hi gh-school age would be s u f f i c i e n t l y unl et t er ed a s t o as s i mi l at e such
f eat ur es simply from t he t e a c he r ' s own use of t he f or ei gn language i n t he
cl assroom, wi t hout s p e c i f i c expl anat i on and d r i l l s on them.
This coul d
wel l be t he case under f avour abl e ci rcumst ances ( i . e . , a nat i ve speaker
abl e t o speak wi t h c l e a r , wel l -defi ned i nt onat i on- pat t er ns and/ or pupi l s
wi t h more t han average a b i l i t y i n sound-pat t ern di s cr i mi nat i on) , but it
shoul d not be expect ed aut omat i cal l y even i n a maj or i t y of classroom s i t u -
a t i ons , f o r from about t wel ve year s on chi l dr en seem t o f i n d more d i f f i -
c ul t y i n accur at e r epr oduct i on of sounds t hey hear . Car r ol l (1091) com-
ments a s f ol l ows:
The evi dence seems c l e a r t h a t t he e a r l i e r t h e c hi l d i s i nt r o-
duced to a f or ei gn l anguage, t he b e t t e r h i s pr onunci at i on w i l l
be, ot her t hi ngs bei ng equal ; it i s probabl e t h a t f a c i l i t y i n
acqui r i ng good pronunci at i on wi t hout s p e c i a l i ns t r uc t i on i s a
decr easi ng f unct i on of age and l e v e l s of f a t about t h e age of
puber t y.
5. 25 S m a r y . The anal ys i s of t he f our methods (ALM, COR, DBH, FBL) i n
r egar d t o t h e i r pr es ent at i on of audi al s k i l l s i n accordance wi t h t he
audi o- l i ngual approach may be summarized a s f ol l ows:
5. 251 Or i ent at i on: COR and DBH a r e bot h i nt ended excl us i vel y f o r uni ver-
s i t y cour ses, FBL f o r uni ver s i t y o r hi gh-school , and ALM f o r j uni or-hi gh-
-school . A l l f our acknowledge t he primacy of speech i n l anguage-t eachi ng.
5.252 Audi al -graphi c r el at i ons hi p: DBH and ALM make s p e c i f i c recommenda-
t i o n of an audi al - onl y per i od bef or e gr aphi c s k i l l s a r e pursued; FBL and
COR imply t h i s but do not s t a t e i t . Except f o r ALM, a l l methods i nt r oduce
Cy r i l l i c from t h e very s t a r t al ong wi t h a phonemic t r a ns c r i pt i on f o r pas s i ve
use onl y.
5. 253 Cont ext : A l l methods except COR t ake account of cont ext , and use
di al ogues a s t h e i r chi ef vehi cl e of pr es ent at i on, al t hough ALM i s t he onl y
one gi vi ng s p e c i f i c a t t e nt i on t o di al ogue- adapt at i on. The s t y l e s of DBH
and FBL a r e more s ui t e d t o t h e uni ver s i t y atmosphere ( c f . 5. 251) . FBL
r ecor di ngs a r e s l i g h t l y f a s t e r t han des i r abl e.
5.254 Auding and speaki ng: ALM and FBL recogni ze t he d i s t i n c t i o n between
a c t i ve and pas s i ve audi al s k i l l s , a s does DBH t o some ext ent . FBL has t he
excel l ent f e a t ur e of recombined mat er i al excl us i vcl y f o r audi t or y compre-
hensi on, whi l e ALM and DBH provi de "staged" conver sat i ons. These f e a t ur e
sent ence bui l d-ups from t he end of t he sent ence. FBL and DBH gi ve consi d-
er abl e a t t e n t i o n t o suprasegmental f e a t ur e s , whi l e ALM and COR concent r at e
mainly on i s ol a t e d sounds.
6. TEXTBOOK ANALYSI S: ASSI MI LATI ON
6.1 METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION. All four methods admittedly subscribe
to the audio-lingual concept of language as a system of habits to be ac-,
quired through practice. "The fundamental principle that has guided us1',\
say the DBH authors, "is that a foreign language is learned not so much
by intellectual effort and analysis as by intensive practice" (DBH/T 2).
The FBL manual equates language-learning with "acquiring the set of pro-,
nunciation habits and grammatical habits so that the student can apply
them automatically, just as a native speaker does" [FBL/T 3). Similar
statements are found in the introductions to ALM [vii) and COR [ix).
The acknowledged emphasis on learning the language by acquiring hab-
its through practice is well borne out by the rather large number of
drills---both phonological and grammatical-included in the textbooks and
manuals, and the recording of these on the tapes provided by the publisher.
Yet only one of the methods (ALM) appears to embrace the "associative"
theory1 in its entirety. In the others steps are taken to make the lear-
ner aware of what he is learning, rather than let him respond sub-con-
sciously to a series of stimuli.
DBH begins Lesson 1 with a fairly extensive presentation of the Rus-
sian sound-system (by way of transcription), and in the first two lessons
explains its discrepancies with the writing-system (Cyrillic orthography).
Such explanations go hand-in-hand with drills, as is also the case with
the presentation of Russian consonants and clusters in Lessons 5-34. FBL
l ~ f . Mackey's quotation in 4.21.
deal s wi t h sound-spel l i ng c or r e l a t i on i n Grammar-Unit 1, whi l e phonolog-
i c a l expl anat i ons, accompanied by appr opr i at e d r i l l s , a r e gi ven a l l t o-
get her i n a s epar at e chapt er a t t he end of t he book. (The d r i l l s a r e
numbered, however, t o permi t easy r ef er ence i n t he t e x t . ) COR expl ai ns
t he Russian sound-system i n an i nt r oduct or y chapt er e n t i t l e d "Sounds of
Russian", and pr ovi des correspondi ng d r i l l s i n t h e course of t he f i r s t
t en l es s ons .
ALM, i nt ended f o r younger l ear ner s , pr e f e r s t o forego t h e i mpart a-
t i o n of any phonol ogi cal i nformat i on t o t h e l ear ner , and r e l i e s s ol e l y
on h i s i mi t a t i ve capaci t y. I t does provi de expl anat i ons of sound-art i cu-
l a t i o n i n t he Teacher' s ManuaZ, however, but t he onl y i ns t r uc t i on f o r
t eachi ng t he sounds t o t he pupi l s i s : "Model t he fol l owi ng words, aski ng
f i r s t f o r chor al and t hen f o r i ndi vi dual response" (ALM/T 37-48). I t i s
concei vabl e t h a t i n pr a c t i c e t he t eacher might f i nd it necessary t o use
t he expl anat i ons i n c l a s s as wel l , f o r , a s we have seen, 2 it i s a t t he
j uni or-hi gh-school age (12-15 year s ol d) t h a t t he c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o
mimick by e a r al one seems t o decl i ne, and more "i nformat i on about how
[sounds] a r e i de nt i f i e d i n t he f i r s t pl ace" i s needed, o r he w i l l be "t o
a gr eat ext ent car r yi ng out t he assignment bl i ndl y".
6. 2 ASSI MI LATI ON OF THE RUSSIAN SOUND-SYSTEM.
6. 21 PhonoZogicaZ d i f f i c u l t i e s f or Engl i sh-speakers. In 6. 2 we s h a l l
examine t he t r eat ment by each method of f our major problems conf r ont i ng
2 ~ f . Ca r r o l l ' s quot at i on i n 5. 24.
3 ~ e r k i n s 115; s ee f u l l quot at i on i n 4. 21.
English-speaking students in their assimilation of the Russian sound-
-system. These difficulties may be described as follows:
6.211 Russian has a distinctive feature in its consonantal system which
English does not, namely, palatalization;4 palatalized and non-palatal-
ized phonemes contrast in minimal pairs.
6.212 Russian vowels change in quality depending on a) the position of
the vowel in relation to word-stress, and b) whether a preceding or fol-
lowing consonant is palatalized or non-palatalized.
6.213 Russian has a number of consonant-clusters which are not found in
English at all or are not found in the same distribution in English.
6.214 Russian stress- and intonation-patterns are quite unfamiliar to
the English-speaking learner.
6.22 PaZataZization of consonants. Palatalization is one of the most
difficult Russian phonemic features for English-speaking learners. The
problem is most fully exploited in DBH and FBL; it is treated to a lesser
extent in COR, and rather scantily (even in practice drills) in ALM.
The "Pronunciation practice" sections of Lessons 5-10 in DBH are de-
voted to teaching the pronunciation of "hard" (non-palatalized) and "soft"
(palatalized) consonants, divided into four groups (cf. DBH 3- 4) . The
first group of twelve pair (those that contrast before any vowel) is treat-
ed in Lessons 5-8, the second group of three consonants (the palatalization
of which depends upon the following vowel) in Lesson 9, and the third and
fourth groups (three palatalized and three non-palatalized consonants) in
4 ~ e e 4.12, f n . 6, f o r def i ni t i on.
Lesson 10.
For each consonant or pair the usual Cyrillic spellings are
given along with the phonemic representation, followed by two or three
examples, a brief description of the articulation, and a contrastive sound-
-drill. Everything is clearly set forth in the student's textbook except
the sound-drills, which appear in a special appendix in the I nst ruct or' s
Manual (40-52); these generally consist of a series of a dozen or so min-
imal or near-minimal pairs contrasting the hard and soft phonemes in ini-
tial, medial, and final positions, or distributional examples of unpaired
consonants (cf. 4.12). A commendable feature is the contrastive drill of
[el with [I], since, it is explained, many students tend to confuse them
(DBH/T 51). A similar drill contrasting another close pair-[g] and " [ E] "
(which in the author's opinion would be better represented by [i:])--might
have profitably been added. (A reference to the textbook-page and tape-
-reel number is provided along with each drill in the manual,)
The articulatory explanations (see above) include some mention of
contrast with similar phonemes in EnglishY5 but there might be a slight
danger in comparing the effect of palatalization in Russian to that of
a y-glide in English, even with such a carefully-worded statement as "soft
Russian [<]...has the effect on the ear [of an English-speaker] of being
followed by a y-like glide" (DBH 68, italics J . W . ; cf. also 5.14, fn. 9 ) .
This is balanced, however, by the fairly precise description of its for-
mation "by a closure of the front part of the blade of the tongue (not the
tip) against the ridge of the gums" (DBH 68).
5 ~ . g . DBH ( 68) : "Nei t her Russi an hard [t] nor s o f t [ f ] ( nor any ot her Rus-
s i a n consonant , f o r t h a t mat t er ) ever has t h e puff of br eat h t h a t usu-
a l l y accompanies Engl i sh t". A s i mi l a r not e i s gi ven f or t h e descr i p-
t i o n of a l l obs t r uent s .
As mentioned in 6.1, FBL has assembled all its pronunciation-material
into one chapter at the end of the book (FBL 299--321). Here the drills
are set out in a slightly different manner from that of DBH: they are
organized, according to the FBL manual, "by grouping in one exercise
sounds that have some feature in common" (FBL/T 9). Thus Drill 1 is de-
voted to the voiceless obstruents / p/ t / k/ , Drill 2 to dentals /t/d/n/,
and Drill 3 to voiced consonants /b/d/g/v/z/i/. Drills 4-43 treat non-
-palatalized consonants /r/, /I/, /x/, /c/, and /S/i/ respectively, and
Drill 9 is for practice in lip-rounding for consonants before back vowels
/o/u/. Palatalized consonants are taken up in Drills 10-15, grouped ac-
cording to point of articulation (labials, velars, dentals), with /$/,
/6/, and "/S6/" treated in separate drills. Although hard and soft con-
sonants are drilled separately from each other, references in the text
itself encourage juxtaposition of drills so that the contrast may be made
clearer. Although examples are included for initial, medial, and final
distribution, there is no attempt to organize the drills so as to result
in minimal (or near-minimal) pairs when contrasted. The only use of min-
imal pairs comes, surprisingly enough, under the heading of "Reading Ex-
ercise" at the end of Grammar-Unit 1 (FBL 19-20). Further sound-drills
are provided in the exercises for Conversation-Units 1 and 2 (6/11), but
these do not include paired palatalized consonants, and are organized
primarily as an introduction to the Cyrillic alphabet, rather than to
give practice in specific Russian phonemes.
6 ~ . g . FBL 5 0 , Ex. A; cf. al so FBL/T 15.
In both the introductory "Sounds of Russian" chapter (COR 1-3) and
in the pronunciation-section of Lesson 1 ( 8- 9) , COR has Russian conson-
ants properly classified into the same four groups as has DBH (3-5). In
Lesson 1 they are listed in logical order (e.g. /b/bj/p/pj/d/dj/t/tj/
etc.) with one example each and no explanation.
The "explanation" given
in "Sounds of Russian" has some articulatory description7 but relies
rather heavily on comparison (rather than contrast) to similar phonemes
in English, sometimes with non-linguistic devices as well. Here, too,
the phonemes (in transcription) are simply listed in the order of the Eng-
lish alphabet, without any attempt to show the relationship of phonemes
to each other (except in regard to palatalization). The "explanations"
of consonants /l/lj / , /r/rj / , /t/tj /p/pj /, are repeated in Lessons 7 4
respectively with a few more examples for each, but even here there
seems to be no attempt to set up any minimal contrasts.
As mentioned above, palatalization receives even scantier attention
in ALM, despite the declaration of its significance beforehand: "In Eng-
lish this distinction does not exist, but in Russian it is essential: it
may serve as the only distinction between two words with otherwise iden-
tical phonetic forms" (ALM/T 39; cf. also Reformatskij's quotation in 4.12).
The first fifteen drills make a fair beginning: five each are devoted
the pairs /1/$/, /r/q/, and /t/f/, where first the hard, then the soft
7~ .g. "p : like English p in sport, i. e. , without the puff of breath that
accompanies English p in port" (COR 2).
8~.g. "r:
like English r in a telephone operator's pronunciation of
thr-r-ree ....
tj:
like English t in stew in that pronunciation that
has a y-glide after the t". (~ote that COR uses j to indicate a pal-
atalized consonant, not the phoneme /j/, which he transcribes as y. )
va r i a nt i s d r i l l e d , fol l owed by a cont r as t of t he two; t h i s i s a l l done
through examples, which i n t he c o n t r a s t - d r i l l s a r e a t l e a s t near-minimal
p a i r s . The f our remai ni ng d r i l l s , however, cover onl y f i v e addi t i onal
consonant s: /p/k/, / S / Z / , and /x/, wi t h no f u r t h e r mention of s o f t va-
r i e t i e s . And t h a t i s a l l t h a t is s t a t e d or d r i l l e d a s f a r a s pal at al :
i z a t i o n of Russi an consonants i s concerned.
6. 23 Changes in vowel q u a l i t y . Changes i n t he q u a l i t y of Russian vow-
e l s , a s not ed i n 6. 21, depend on two main f a c t o r s : a) t h e pos i t i on of
t he vowel i n r e l a t i o n t o wor d- st r ess, and b) whether a precedi ng o r f s l -
lowing consonant i s pa l a t a l i z e d or non- pal at al i zed. The cont r as t of
s t r e s s e d and uns t r es s ed vowels has been t r e a t e d i n t r a d i t i o n a l Russian
t ext books f o r some t i me; t h e l a t t e r has r ecei ved comparat i vel y l i t t l e
a t t e n t i o n t o dat e. I n f a c t , t h e i nf l uence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n on vowel
qua l i t y i s not mentioned a t a l l i n ALM, and DBH deal s wi t h i t onl y i n-
d i r e c t l y ; it i s t r e a t e d f a i r l y ext ens i vel y, however, i n FBL and COR. The
e f f e c t of s t r e s s on vowel qua l i t y r ecei ves consi der abl e a t t e n t i o n from
a l l methods except ALM.
The problem of changes i n vowel qual i t y- - es peci al l y i n regard t o un-
s t r e s s e d vowels-is most f u l l y expl oi t ed by CORY where t he pronunci at i on
s ect i ons of t h r e e l essons (4-6) a r e devoted t o i t . A good i nt r oduct i on
t o t he s ubj ect is gi ven i n t he "Sounds of Russian" chapt er (COR 3--5).
St r es s ed vowels a r e de a l t wi t h f i r s t , and a f t e r changes i n l engt h a r e
not ed (before f i n a l consonant s o r c l u s t e r s a s opposed t o s i ngl e medial
' E . g. Gronicka & Bates-Yakobson 1 4 , a l s o Fayer 22.
consonant s), t h e va r i a nt s of t he f i v e vowel phonemes accordi ng t o preced-
i ng and fol l owi ng pa l a t a l i z a t i on a r e pr esent ed. l o
A di sadvant age i n t he
pr es ent at i on i s t oo heavy a r e l i a nc e on comparison wi t h Engl i sh sounds
( c f . a l s o 6. 22 on C O R f s t r eat ment of pa l a t a l i z e d consonants) . l 1
Thi s i s
t hen followed by an anal ys i s of t he unst r essed vowels, c l a s s i f i e d accord-
i ng t o f our pos i t i ons :
1. i n i t i a l , not preceded by a consonant ;
2. f i n a l , not fol l owed by a consonant ;
3. immediately bef or e t h e s t r e s s , but not i n i t i a l ;
4 . el sewhere, i. e. , two or more s yl l a bl e s bef or e t h e s t r e s s but
not i n i t i a l , or a f t e r t h e s t r e s s but not f i na l . 12
For t h e vowel phonemes /i/ and /a/ t he di f f er ence i n vowel qua l i t y i s
shown a f t e r pa l a t a l i z e d and non- pal at al i zed consonants i n each pos i t i on
where appl i cabl e, 13 and one o r two examples a r e gi ven f o r each va r i e t y.
More examples a r e gi ven when t he s ubj ect i s t aken up i n Lessons 4-6. l 4
1 ~o we l s t end t o i ncr eas e i n hei ght and/ or f r ont nes s accordi ng t o t h e
number of cont i guous pa l a t a l i z e d cons onant s - 4. g. ja/ i s r e a l i z e d a s
[a] between two non- pal at al i zed consonant s, and a s [a] between two
pa l a t a l i z e d consonant s; between pa l a t a l i z e d and non-pal at al i zed con-
sonant s ( and vi ce- ver sa) t h e al l ophone i s approxi mat el y midway be-
tween [a] and [a] . Vowels a l s o t end t o be fol l owed by a forward-up-
ward g l i d e bef or e pa l a t a l i z e d consonant s.
I ' E . ~ . " u: l i k e t h e vowel of Engl i sh put , foot but wi t h t h e l i p s s l i g h t l y
pr ot r uded, s o t h a t t h e sound, though s hor t , resembl es t h e vowel of
goose, soup" ( COR 4 ) . This comparison may onl y add t o t h e problem of
nat i ve-l anguage i nt er f er ence ( s e e 3. 11) .
1 3 ~ s COR poi nt s out ( 4 + ) , / o/ does not occur i n uns t r es s ed s yl l a bl e s a t
a l l ; /e/ i s found onl y i n pos i t i on 1; /u/ has approxi mat el y t h e same
qua l i t y i n a l l uns t r es s ed pos i t i ons [ but does var y accordi ng t o t he
p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of cont i guous consonant s]; /a/ does not occur i n po-
s i t i o n 3 (and onl y r a r e l y i n pos i t i on 4 ) f ol l owi ng pa l a t a l i z e d and
p a l a t a l consonant s.
1 4 ~ o s i t i o n s 1 and 2 a r e d r i l l e d i n Lesson 4, pos i t i ons 3 and 4 i n Lessons
5 and 6 r es pect i vel y.
FBLts treatment of changes in vowel quality does not include the
same refinement or distinction as that of COR; for example, it recognizes
only the influence of preceding palatalization on the quality of stressed
vowels /i/a/o/u/, and only that of following palatalization on stressed
e . Drills 16-21 are devoted to stressed vowels in the environment of
"plain" consonants and in final position, and Drills 22-26 to those in
the company of palatalized consonants (FBL 308-311). Once again, how-
ever, text references allow for juxtaposition of drills for sharper con-
trast.15 Drills 27 to 32 treat unstressed vowels in palatalized and non-
palatalized environments, but no more than one position is recognized ex-
cept for /a/ after a non-palatalized consonant, where CORts position 3 is
distinguished from other possibilities. l 6 Like COR, FBL also makes use
of English comparisons, even though a short note appears beforehand (FBL
307) to the effect that "these . . . are only meant as approximations" and
that the learner should not take them "too seriously", since "there is a
great deal of dialect variation with respect to English vowels"; the stu-
dent "should rather depend upon the instructor or the recordings".
As mentioned at the beginning of 6.23, DBH recognizes the influence
of palatalization on vowel quality only indirectly. This is because its
15~.g. FBL 25, EX. A.
1 6 ~ s stated before Drill 28 (FBL 312), "this is the vowel for which it is
necessary to introduce the extra variable of pretonic position.
In
pretonic position the vowel /a/ is similar to the u in English but and
in other unstressed positions it is similar to the a in English soda",
If this is the only distinction to be made, it might have been more
accurate to include CORts position 1 together with position 3 (pre-
tonic), as initial /a/ is closer to pre-tonic /a/ than to other un-
stressed variants. This is in fact done in DBH (see below).
explanations (and drills) are based on the llsound-values" of the Cyrillic
vowel-letters rather than on the Russian sound-system itself. l 7 Thus in
the two pages devoted to the subject (23-25) DBH treats the variants ac-
cording to palatalization under the corresponding Cyrillic vowel-symbols
(0 and etc.); it also deals with stressed and unstressed "sound-values"
together. Within these limitations, however, at least two unstressed
variants according to position are recognized for o, e, and R (for some
reason a is not even mentioned).
ALM, the method intended for learners of a younger age, devotes only
one drill to stressed vowels and one to unstressed vowels, both using the
Cyrillic alphabet only (ALM/T 37-38). No distinctions are recognized in
the former (except for the obvious difference of M and H) .I8 The only
word of explanation in regard to unstressed vowels is that "unstressed o
and the unstressed a are pronounced alike" and that "unstressed e and the
unstressed M are pronounced almost alike" (ALM/T 38) ; l9 twelve examples
are provided in all. No variants according to either position or palatal-
ization are recognized.
6. 24 Consonant cZusters. Like the vowel allophones, there is also a need
(as was brought out in 3.14) to give some attention to consonantal variants
in what are known as cZusters. The student of Russian who masters the cor-
7~his is rather surprising for DBH, which otherwise uses the Russian sound-
-system (in transcription) as the basis of its explanations and drills.
I8~here is as yet no final consensus as to the phonemic or allophonic status
of these two sounds; for one discussion of them see Leed 39-41.
19cf. also 5.22, fn. 17.
r e c t pronunci at i on of Russian consonants---both pa l a t a l i z e d and non-pal-
at al i zed---wi l l have f ur t he r d i f f i c u l t y when he comes t o u t t e r words and
sent ences simply because of t he l ar ge number of unf ami l i ar cl ust er s-
t hos e not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Engl i sh a t a l l and t hose appeari ng i n di f -
f er ent d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
He has l earned how t o s ay t h e i ndi vi dual conson-
ant sounds, but he has not yet l earned how t o us e them i n j uxt apos i t i on.
Yet wi t h t he except i on of t he phonemic a l t e r na t i on of voi ced and unvoiced
consonant s, t he onl y r e a l t reat ment of c l u s t e r s i s t o be found i n DBH.
Af t er i ndi vi dual consonant sounds a r e d r i l l e d i n Lessons 5-10 ( c f .
6. 22) , t he "Pronunci at i on pr act i ce" s ect i ons of t h e next twenty-four
l es s ons 20 a r e devoted t o t h e problems of consonant c l u s t e r s i n a l l di s -
t r i b u t i o n a l pos i t i ons , p a r t i c u l a r l y t hos e c l u s t e r s and di s t r i but i ons
which a r e not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e Engl i sh sound-system. I n i t i a l and
f i n a l c l u s t e r s cont ai ni ng /r/ or /$/ a r e d r i l l e d s epar at el y i n Lessons
13 and 14; t hos e cont ai ni ng /1/ o r /$/ appear i n t h e fol l owi ng l es s on.
Lessons 18 and 19, f or example, deal wi t h c l u s t e r s begi nni ng wi t h / s/ and
/z/, and ot her two-consonant c l u s t e r s a r e t r e a t e d i n Lessons 21-23. The
pronunci at i on s ect i ons of Lessons 24-29 a r e devoted t o c l u s t e r s of t hr ee
consonant s, t h a t of Lesson 30 t o four-consonant c l u s t e r s (wi t h /st/ a s
t he two middle consonant s). Informat i on on c l us t e r - s i mpl i f i c a t i on (where
more consonants a r e r epr esent ed or t hogr aphi cal l y t han a r e sounded) i s
gi ven i n Lesson 20, and a d r i l l on doubl e consonant s i s provi ded i n Les-
son 11. Under t he headi ng of "speci al consonant c l us t e r s " i n Lesson 12
2 0 ~ x c e p t f o r Lesson 17, which deal s wi t h voi ci ng a l t e r na t i on i n final
pos i t i on.
a r e gi ven such i t ems a s /CS/CC/dS/tc/. The pr onunci at i on s ect i ons of
Lessons 31-34 cons i s t of a f our - par t pr es ent at i on and d r i l l of " i n i t i a l
consonant c l u s t e r s wi t h no p a r a l l e l i n t he Engl i sh sound system", which
i ncl udes c l u s t e r s l i k e /Jg/vm/gn/mr/. A s mentioned i n 6. 22, a l l d r i l l s
( as i de from a few examples) a r e pr i nt ed i n t h e t eachi ng manual r a t he r
t han i n t he s t ude nt ' s t ext book.
The f e a t ur e of a l t e r na t i on of voi ced and voi cel es s consonants-ot
onl y i n c l u s t e r s , but a l s o a t t h e end of words-is d e a l t wi t h i n Lessons
3, 16, and 17. I t must be remembered, however, t h a t t h i s i s a phonemic
va r i a t i on, i n which one phoneme i s r epl aced by anot her , r a t h e r t han t he
mere a l t e r n a t i o n of al l ophones i n d i ~ t r i b u t i o n . ~ ~ However, s i nce i t is
a f e a t ur e i nvol ved ( a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y ) wi t h consonant c l us t e r s , and is
t r e a t e d t o some ext ent i n a l l f our methods, it deserves some di scussi on
her e.
DBH gi ves t he fol l owi ng advi ce f o r deal i ng wi t h voi ci ng a l t e r na t i on:
Since the writing system does not accurately reflect the spo-
ken language, it is essential for the student to know which
consonants are voiced, which are voiceless, and, especially,
which are paired in terms of voice or absence of voice. This
*l~he distinction between Russian voiced and voiceless consonants them-
selves presents a problem for the English-speaking learner. Although
there are voiced and unvoiced consonants in English, it is the tense/
lax opposition which is the significant feature, and voicing is merely
a concomitant phenomenon. In Russian, however, voicing is distinctive;
the tense/lax contrast is minimal. Thus the learner's ear, accustomed
to the latter as the distinctive signal, may not always perceive the
voicing opposition without it; similarly a tensellax dominated con-
trast in his own speech will hinder its comprehension by native Rus-
sians: hence the need of special attention. This is given to some
extent in each method along with the introduction of palatalized and
non-palatalized consonants (cf. for example 6.22, fn.5).
is important because, in certain positions, only consonant
sounds of one or the other series are spoken, regardless of
the spelling.
Accordingly, each method gives a table showing paired and unpaired
consonants (DBH and COR use transcription and so list palatalized con-
sonants separately). COR includes among paired consonants (labelled
mutes-ee COR 5) those unvoiced consonants ( / c / e / x / %/ ) which do not
have voiced counterparts operating independently, but only under the
conditions of the voicing alternation in clusters. All four methods
point out the special status of /v/y/ in regard to voicing alternation;
all include examples of replacement of voiced consonants by voiceless
ones in clusters, and vice-versa, as well as replacement of voiced con-
sonants in word-final position.
DBH, however, is the only method that includes any specific drills
on the alternation feature: two pages of extensive practice drills are
given in Lesson 3, and further drills appear in the Instructor's Manual
to be used in Lessons 16 and 17, which are also devoted to voicing al-
ternation. Two short drills appear in the ALM manual (48)-in one of
them voiced phonemes are contrasted as to alternation before voiced and
voiceless second-members in a cluster23 but both drills include only
ten examples altogether. No drills on voicing alternation are provided
in either FBL or COR.
6.25 Stress and intonation patterns. We observed in 3.1 that stress and
intonation are most significant factors in the comprehension and produc-
2 2 ~ ~ ~ 40.
3~ similar drill is recommended by Birkenrnayer ( 48) .
t i o n of Russian speech ( c f . es peci al l y Sedun' s quot at i on i n 3. 14) . The
f eat ur es of s t r e s s and i nt onat i on a r e gi ven consi der abl e a t t e n t i o n i n DBH
and FBL, very l i t t l e i n ALM, and v i r t u a l l y none i n COR.
The most i mport ant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Russian stress ( i n comparison
t o t h a t of Engl i sh) i s t h e absence of secondary wor d- st r ess. 2 4 Perhaps
as a r e s u l t of t h i s , s t r e s s e d vowels a r e sounded wi t h gr e a t e r i nt e ns i t y
t han a r e Engl i sh vowels wi t h primary s t r e s s , and t he r e i s a very s t r i k -
i ng di f f er ence between s t r e s s e d and uns t r es s ed vowel s. 25 Thi s much, a t
l e a s t , i s brought out i n a l l f our methods ( c f . DBH 7, FBL 314, ALM/T 36,
COR 3) . Phr as e- s t r es s , however, i s t r e a t e d onl y i n DBH and FBL; i n t he
former it is even i ndi cat ed i n t h e phonemic t r a ns c r i pt i on by a double
acut e mark. No s p e c i f i c s t r e s s - d r i l l s a r e provi ded i n DBH, but FBL i n-
cl udes two d r i l l s each f o r word- and phr as e- s t r es s .
I nt onat i on i s desi gnat ed by t he DBH manual a s "one of t h e ar eas most
negl ect ed i n Russi an t ext books" (DBH/T 9 ) . "Pr act i ce has shown", t he
t e x t cont i nues, " t hat t h e st udent us ual l y focuses on t he pronunci at i on
of i ndi vi dual words and, unl ess pr oper l y di r e c t e d, f a i l s t o per cei ve and
i mi t a t e t h e i nt onat i on of t he sent ence a s a whole", i n much t he same way
t h a t he concent r at es t oo much on t he i ndi vi dual phonemes when t r yi ng t o
mast er c l u s t e r s . Hence DBH has seen f i t t o i ncl ude s pe c i a l s ect i ons on
"I nt onat i on pr act i ce" i n s i x of i t s e a r l y l essons (6-11) i n addi t i on t o
t he r egul ar "Pronunci at i on pr act i ce" f e a t ur e . Lesson 6 i nt r oduces t he
2 4 ~ s expl ai ned i n FBL (315), however, t h e r e a r e a f e w compound words
Russi an wi t h an opt i onal secondary s t r e s s , e . g. x ~ J I ~ ~ H o A o ~ ~ x H ~ I ~ ~ .
250f t h e l a t t e r , t hos e i n C O R ' s pos i t i ons 1 and 3 ( c f . 6. 23) t end t o
s l i g h t l y s t r onger t han t h e ot her s .
learner first of all to falling contours in statements and questions (with
l'question-wordsll); questions with rising and rising-falling contours (with-
out "question-words") are dealt with in Lessons 7 and 8 respectively, and
emphatic statements with the latter-type curve in Lesson 9. Lessons 10
and 11 contain a review of all contour-types.
Seven drills are allotted to intonation practice in the FBL "Pronun-
ciation of Russian" chapter (Drills 37--43, FBL 317-321). These cover
three main types of utterances: statement, questions "with interrogative
words", and questions "without interrogative words". A commendable fea-
ture of FBL1s treatment of intonation is the constant contrast with Eng-
lish intonation-patterns for the same types of utterances. Both FBL and
DBH make good use of diagrams illustrating intonation-patterns.
ALM, on the other hand, has one short drill (eight examples) con-
trasting intonation-patterns in questions and statements; however, there
is little accompanying explanation (and no diagrams), even for the teacher,
who himself might not be entirely familiar with Russian intonation-patterns.
COR makes no mention of intonation whatsoever.
6.26 Summary. The analysis of the four methods (ALM, COR, DBH, FBL) in
regard to assimilation of phonological difficulties may be summarized as
follows :
6.261 Palatalization: DBH gives the most thorough treatment, especially
with its use of contrastive drills and minimal pairs; FBL is the next rec-
ommended, as a number of drills are devoted to the subject; COR follows
DBH1s classification procedure, but is lacking in coherence and provision
of adequat e d r i l l s ; ALM pr ovi des good d r i l l s onl y f o r a few consonant
p a i r s , but negl ect s a l l t he ot her s .
6. 262 Vowel qua l i t y: COR pr es ent s t he most ext ens i ve anal ys i s of
changes i n vowel q u a l i t y under t h e i nf l uence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n and
s t r e s s , but FBL pr ovi des more adequat e d r i l l s and i s probabl y b e t t e r
s ui t e d t o t eachi ng purposes--both, however, r e l y somewhat on Engl i sh
comparisons, t hus adding t o t he i nt er f er ence problem; DBH does not
t r e a t t he s ubj ect i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , and ALM har dl y t ouches it a t
a l l .
6. 263 Cl us t er s : DBH i s t h e onl y method t o gi ve adequat e t r eat ment of
Russi an consonant c l u s t e r s , and i s t h e onl y one which i ncl udes a s uf -
f i c i e n t amount of d r i l l on voi ci ng a l t e r na t i on; ALM has two s hor t d r i l l s ,
but does make use of t he c ont r a s t pr i nc i pl e ; FBL and COR expl ai n t he
phenomenon and provi de examples but no d r i l l s .
6.264 St r e s s : Word- and phr as e- s t r es s i s be s t t r e a t e d i n FBL, which
i s t h e onl y method provi di ng s p e c i f i c s t r e s s - d r i l l s ; DBH i ndi cat es
phr as e- s t r es s i n i t s t r a ns c r i pt i on; ALM and COR deal wi t h word-st ress
onl y.
6.265 I nt onat i on: Both DBH and FBL gi ve consi der abl e a t t e nt i on t o i n-
t onat i on-pat t erns-t he former o f f e r s a more thorough expl anat i on of t he
act ual cont our s, whi l e t he l a t t e r f e a t ur e s a c ont r a s t wi t h Engl i sh i n-
t onat i on- pat t er ns ; t he s ubj ect r ecei ves minimal a t t e n t i o n i n ALM and
none i n COR.
7
.

C
O
N
C
L
U
S
I
O
N
S

7
.
1

C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E

S
U
I
U
I
M
A
R
Y

O
F

T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
-
M
E
T
H
O
D
S
.

7
.
1
1

P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.

I
T
E
M

A
I
M

C
O
R

D
B
H

F
B
L

N
w
n
b
e
r

o
f

u
n
i
t
s

2
4

C
o
n
v
.
/
l
2

G
r
a
m
.

-

E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

Z
e
v
e
Z

o
f

L
e
a
r
n
e
r
s

j
u
n
i
o
r
-
h
i
g
h
-
s
c
h
o
o
l

1
s
t

y
e
a
r

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

1
s
t

&

2
n
d

y
e
a
r
s

h
i
g
h
-
s
c
h
o
o
l

&

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

P
r
i
m
a
c
y

o
f

s
p
e
e
c
h

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

f
o
r

a
u
d
i
a
Z
-
o
n
l
y

p
h
a
s
e

t
e
x
t
b
o
o
k

d
i
s
t
r
i
-

-

b
u
t
i
o
n

d
e
l
a
y
e
d

b
o
o
k
s

c
l
o
s
e
d

-

i
n

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

T
y
p
e

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

u
s
e
d

p
h
o
n
e
m
i
c
;

d
i
g
r
a
p
h
s

f
o
r

p
a
l
a
t
a
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
n
s
o
n
a
n
t
s

E

/
Z
/

p
a
r
t
l
y

a
l
l
o
p
h
o
n
i
c
;

p
h
o
n
e
m
i
c
;

n
o

d
i
g
r
a
p
h
s

n
o

d
i
g
r
a
p
h
s

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

/
&
?
/
)

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

/
%
/
)

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d

1
0

u
n
i
t
s

f
o
r

n
e
w

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
;

t
h
r
u
o
u
t

f
o
r

w
o
r
d
-
l
i
s
t
s

1
0

u
n
i
t
s

f
o
r

n
e
w

4

u
n
i
t
s

f
o
r

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
;

t
h
r
u
o
u
t

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
s
;

f
o
r

p
r
o
n
.
-
d
r
i
l
l
s

a
l
l

p
r
o
n
.
-
d
r
i
l
l
s

U
s
e

o
f

C
y
r
i
Z
Z
i
c

a
f
t
e
r

a
u
d
i
a
l

p
h
a
s
e

f
r
o
m

s
t
a
r
t

f
r
o
m

s
t
a
r
t

f
r
o
m

s
t
a
r
t

M
a
i
n

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

u
s
e
d

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

N
o
.

o
f

u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
s

2

s
e
t
s

o
f

1
0

1
5
-
2

0

O
t
h
e
r

"
u
e
h
i
c
Z
e

"

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
Z

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

T
e
m
p
o

S
t
y
Z
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

o
f

u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
s

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

f
o
r

a
u
d
i
n
g
-
o
n
l
y

p
h
a
s
e

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

f
o
r

a
u
d
i
n
g

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

f
o
r

s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g

E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s

i
n

a
u
d
i
a

Z

s
k
i
Z
Z
s

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

a
d
a
p
t
a
-

r
e
v
i
e
w

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s

t
i
o
n
;

r
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
s

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

-

f
a
i
r
l
y

r
a
p
i
d

-

M
o
s
c
o
w
1

~
o
s
c
o
w
l

j
u
v
e
n
i
1
e

m
o
r
e

f
o
r
m
a
l

j
u
v
e
n
i
1
e

m
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
;

o
n
e

-

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
t
a
g
e

2

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
t
a
g
e
s
:

-

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
-
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

+

f
u
l
l
-
u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e

r
e
p
e
t
i
t

i
o
n

i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d

s
o
u
n
d
s

i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d

s
o
u
n
d
s

C
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
"

;

b
a
s
i
c

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
s

(
o
n

t
a
p
e

o
n
l
y
)

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

l
e
s
s

r
a
p
i
d

m
o
r
e

c
o
l
l
o
q
u
i
a
l

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

l
i
f
e

f
a
i
r
l
y

r
a
p
i
d

M
o
s
c
o
w

l
e
s
s

f
o
r
m
a
l

t
r
a
v
e
l
o
g
u
e

"
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

r
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

w
h
o
l
e

u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
s

w
h
o
l
e

u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
s

t
w
o

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
t
a
g
e
s

r
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
s

(
o
n

t
a
p
e

o
n
l
y
)

2

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
t
a
g
e
s
:

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
-
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

+

f
u
l
l
-
u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e

r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

o
n
e

d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e

s
t
a
g
e
:

f
u
l
l

u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e

o
n
l
y

l
~
f
.

5
.
2
2
,

f
n
.

1
7
.

I
T
E
M

A
L
M

C
O
R

D
B
H

F
B
L

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

a
s

a

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

s
e
t

o
f

h
a
b
i
t
s

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

e
x
p
Z
a
n
a
t
i
o
n

-

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

P
r
o
n
u
n
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

d
r
i
Z

Z
s

P
a
Z
a
t
a
Z
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:

c
Z
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

P
a

Z
a
t
a

Z
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

d
r
i
l
l

P
a
Z
a
t
a
Z
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
r
i
l
l
s

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

v
o
w
e
Z

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
:

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

v
o
w
e
Z

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
:

d
r
i
l
l
s

a
l
l

i
n

m
a
n
u
a
l

f
i
r
s
t

1
0

u
n
i
t
s

m
o
s
t
l
y

i
n

m
a
n
u
a
l
;

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

c
h
a
p
t
e
r
;

f
i
r
s
t

3
4

u
n
i
t
s

f
i
r
s
t

6

c
o
n
v
.

u
n
i
t
s

4

g
r
o
u
p
s

a
s

p
e
r

4

g
r
o
u
p
s

a
s

p
e
r

-

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

p
h
o
n
e
m
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

p
h
o
n
e
m
e

1
5

d
r
i
l
l
s

o
n

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
n
l
y
;

d
r
i
l
l
s

i
n

U
n
i
t
s

5

d
r
i
l
l
s
;

m
o
s
t

3

p
a
i
r

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

p
a
i
r
s

i
n

s
p
e
-

5
-
1
0
;

a
l
l

p
a
i
r
s
;

c
o
n
s
o
n
a
n
t
s
;

m
o
s
t

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

c
i
a
1

c
h
a
p
t
e
r
,

a
l
l

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
l
l

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

4

i
n

L
e
s
s
o
n
s

7
-
-
9
;

m
o
s
t

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s

n
e
a
r
-
m
i
n
i
m
a
l

p
a
i
r
s

n
o

m
i
n
i
m
a
l

n
o
r

m
i
n
i
m
a
l

6

n
e
a
r
-

n
o

m
i
n
i
m
a
l

p
a
i
r
s
;

n
e
a
r
-
m
i
n
i
m
a
l

p
a
i
r
s

-
m
i
n
i
m
a
l

p
a
i
r
s

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e

d
r
i
l
l
s

o
n

p
a
l
a
t
a
l
i
z
e
d

6

n
o
n
-

p
a
l
a
t
a
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
n
s
.

l
i
t
t
l
e

a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
;

m
o
s
t

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

l
e
s
s

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

f
a
i
r
l
y

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

i
n

C
y
r
i
l
l
i
c

o
n
l
y

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
;

f
o
u
r

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
;

t
w
o

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
;

o
n
l
y

o
n
e

u
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d

v
a
r
i
a
n
t
s

u
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d

v
a
r
i
a
n
t
s

u
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d

v
a
r
i
a
n
t

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

f
o
r

/
a
/
)

2

d
r
i
l
l
s

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
n
l
y

2

p
a
g
e
s

o
f

d
r
i
l
l
s

1
7

d
r
i
l
l
s

I

T
E
M

A
L
M

C
O
R

D
B
H

F
B
L

C
l
u
s
t
e
r
s

-

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

v
o
i
c
i
n
g

a
Z
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
l

V
o
i
c
i
n
g

a
Z
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
:

p
a
i
r
e
d

+

n
o
n
-

p
a
i
r
e
d

+

n
o
n
-

c
Z
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

-
p
a
i
r
e
d

t
a
b
l
e

-
p
a
i
r
e
d

t
a
b
l
e

V
o
i
c
i
n
g

a
z
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
:

2

s
h
o
r
t

d
r
i
l
l
s

-

d
r
i
Z

Z
s

S
t
r
e
s
s
:

w
o
r
d
-
s
t
r
e
s
s

o
n
l
y

w
o
r
d
-
s
t
r
e
s
s

o
n
l
y

c
Z
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
r
e
s
s
:

d
r
i
Z
Z
s

-

-

I
n
t
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
:

2

t
y
p
e
s
;

-

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

n
o

d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s

I
n
t
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
:

d
r
i
l
l
s

1

s
h
o
r
t

d
r
i
l
l

-

N
a
t
i
v
e
-
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
a
r
-

m
o
r
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

i
s
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

t
h
a
n

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
;

U
n
i
t
s

1
1
-
3
4

p
a
i
r
e
d

+

n
o
n
-

-
p
a
i
r
e
d

t
a
b
l
e

2

p
a
g
e
s

o
f

d
r
i
l
l
s

w
o
r
d
-

E

p
h
r
a
s
e
-
s
t
r
e
s
s

3

t
y
p
e
s

6

r
e
v
i
e
w
;

d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s

U
n
i
t
s

6
-
-
1
1

m
o
r
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

t
h
a
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

p
a
i
r
e
d

+

n
o
n
-

.

-
p
a
i
r
e
d

t
a
b
l
e

w
o
r
d
-

6

p
h
r
a
s
e
-
s
t
r
e
s
s

4

d
r
i
l
l
s

3

t
y
p
e
s

;

d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s

7

d
r
i
l
l
s

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
a
r
-

i
s
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

7.2 FIRST HYPOTHESIS.
The audial skills of a language are most effectively and effi-
ciently taught by audio-lingual methods which give sufficient
consideration to. . . .
7.21 Age and l i t er acy of learner. Problem: It is acknowledged that
audial skills cannot be taught without complete concentration on audial
learning alone to the exclusion of graphic skills, yet audial assimila-
tion is hindered by the predominantly visual orientation of the learner.
Conclusions:
7.211 The development of audial skills being the primary goal, the spo-
ken language must be maintained as the basi s for all audio-lingual teach-
, , \ I
ing, as well as the chief medium of presentation of the language.
--
7.212 A visual representation of the spoken language is a useful support
(but only a support) for all except very young pupils in learning the
audial skills of a language.
7.213 Any written representation so employed must be an acemat e reflec-
tion of the sound-system of the language without the distortions common
to many traditional orthographies. This purpose is best served by the
use of a phonemic transcription.
7.22 DeveZopment of act i ve and passive skiZZs. Problem: Many foreign-
-language learners have found difficulty in understanding the normal con-
versational speech of native speakers, and in correctly producing more
than isolated sounds or words. Conclusions:
7.221 Attention should be paid to training the learner's ear to recog-
nize significant sound-distinctions, which will also facilitate accurate
production.
7.222 In the development of both auding and speaking skills language
should be presented first in whole utterances with particular emphasis
on stress- and intonation-patterns.
7.223 Naturalness of context is best found, for teaching purposes, in
the average conversational style and tempo of educated speakers of a
standard dialect, and is best presented by means of a dialogue of in-
formal conversation, followed by its adaptation to the learner's own
experience.
7.23 Int erf erence wi t h si mi l ar phonemes. Problem: It is acknowledged
that the teaching of language as skills requires a considerable amount
of practice in the formation of automatic habits, yet older learners find
difficulty in making unfamiliar sound-distinctions and tend to substitute
native-language phonemes in their attempt at imitation. Conclusions:
7.231 Contrast-drills in which related phonemes are juxtaposed enable
the learner to recognize and produce phonemic distinctions more accurately.
7.232 Perception and production of phonemic contrast can be strengthened
by an awareness of the target-language sound-system.
7.233 Native-language interference should be prevented by making the
learner awarethrough contrastive analysis~f the differences in the
two phonological systems.
7.3 SECOND HYPOTHESIS.
. . . not all audio-lingual methods publicized as such are equally
successful in satisfying the criteria outlined in the first
hypothesis.
Four acknowledged audio-lingual methods for the teaching of Russian
have been examined in regard to their satisfaction of the above criteria.
Our conclusions may be set forth as follows:
7.31 Provision of visual representation.
7.311 All four methods discussed acknowledge the spoken language as the
basis for all teaching-material.
7.312 Only three of the methods provide a visual representation in the
form of transcription. The other (ALM) neglects to include any form of
transcription, and it is questionable whether the age difference (and de-
gree of literacy) between senior- and junior-high-school learners is suf-
ficient to warrant its omission.
7.313 The transcriptions used by DBH and FBL are more suitable for peda-
gogical purposes than that found in COR because of their representation
of palatalized consonants by a single symbol.
7.32 Mastery of fluent conversational utterances.
7.321 Not all methods recognize a distinction between auding and speaking
material, or the need for training in auditory discrimination. COR makes
no provision for this at all, and DBH only to a limited extent. ALM uses
narratives for training in auditory comprehension, while FBL provides re-
combined material on the tapes after each dialogue for this purpose.
7.322 Only two methods (DBH, FBL) emphasize the suprasegmental features
of stress- and intonation-patterns; the others concentrate mainly on iso-
t
lated sounds.
7.323 A standard dialect of educated speakers is adopted by all methods,
but there are varying shades of style-from more formal (COR) to less for-
mal (FBL) to more colloquial (DBH) to juvenile (ALM). Some of the mate-
rial (e.g. FBL dialogues) is recorded at slightly too fast a tempo for
teaching purposes. Only three methods use dialogue as the chief vehicle
of presentation--+OR prefers sentences---and only one (ALM) makes any pro-
vision for dialogue-adaptation.
7.33 Contrast and conscious assimilation.
7.331 Only two methods (DBH and FBL) apply the principle of phonemic
contrast to any great extent (the former's use of minimal pairs is es-
pecially effective), although ALM provides contrast-drills for isolated
items like voicing alternation in clusters and a few palatalization-paired
consonants.
7.332 One method (ALM) includes no explanation whatsoever for the learner,
and very little even for the teacher. Another (COR) gives a fine analysis
of changes in vowel quality, but little explanatory reference to anything
else. The other two present a more satisfactory explanation of the Rus-
sian sound-system along with fairly extensive drills.
7.333 Very little is brought out in any of the four methods as to the
distinctions between Russian and English phonological systems (DBH prob-
ably does more so than the others). In fact, especially in COR, there
seems to be too great a stress on the similarities of the target- and
native-language sounds rather than on the differences between them.
7.4 FURTHER COfVY\IENTS. We may further conclude that two of the methods
discussed are more successful on the whole than are the other two in meet-
ing the criteria established for the audio-lingual approach. While the
ALM method would perhaps be suitable for learners at the elementary-school
level (who are much more responsive to sound-discrimination and -imitation
than are even their junior-high-school counterparts), its practicability
in terms of high-school or university language-courses is severely limited
by its lack of explanatory material and lack of consideration for the vis-
ual needs of older learners. On the other hand, it is chiefly the absence
of sufficient drills that prevents COR from being an effective audio-lin-
gual method per se. Presumably, linguistically trained native or near-
-native speakers of Russian would be able to make compensation in the
classroom, but in the writer's opinion such material as is lacking in the
textbook would be extremely difficult for the average Russian teacher to
improvise.
The DBH and FBL methods, however, seem to be on the whole more suit-
able for high-school and university audio-lingual Russian programmes,
since, with the exceptions already brought out, they both succeed in
meeting the criteria of the audio-lingual approach. Of the two, FBL
probably gives a slightly better over-all treatment, covering more fea-
tures, while certain features (e.g., palatalization and especially clus-
ters) are presented in sharper focus by DBH. We may conclude, neverthe-
less, that these two methods--out of those discussed--are the best rep-
resentatives of the audio-lingual approach.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JOURNALS
LL Language Learning. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan).
ML Modern Languages. (London: Modern Language Association).
MLJ Modern Language JournaZ. (St. Louis: National Federation of
Modern Language Teachers Associations).
SEEJ SZavic and East European JournaZ. (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin).
BOOKS AND ARTI CLES
Anisfeld, Moshe, tfPsycholinguistic Perspectives on Language Learning".
In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends in Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw
Hill) 1966. Pp. 107-119.
Banathy, B./Trager, E.C./Waddle, C.D., "The Use of Contrastive Data in
Foreign Language Course Development". In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends i n
Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw Hill) 1966. Pp. 35-36.
Bazan, Beverly M., "The Danger of Assumption without Prooftt. MLJ 48
(1964) : 337-346.
Belasco, Simon, General Section. In Belasco (ed.), Manual and AnthoZogy
of Applied Li ngui st i cs. (Washington: U.S. Office of Education) 1960.
Pp. 1-59.
Benson, Morton, "An Introduction to Russian Pronunciation". MLJ 41
(1957) : 78-80.
Birkenmayer, Sigmund, "Pattern Drills in the Teaching of Russian: Theory
and Practice". SEEJ NS 7 (1963) : 43-50.
Bloomfield, Leonard, OutZine Guide for t he PracticaZ Study of Foreign
Languages. (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America) 1942.
tuxin (ed. ) , M e T o ~ m rrpeI-IoAaBamR pycCIcoro Rabnm. (Moscow : ~sI-Ie,riis)
1960. Pp. 331-332.
Brooks, Nelson, Language and Language Learning. (New York: Harcourt ,
Brace E World) 2nd e di t i on 1964.
Capel l e, Guy, "Li ngui st i que Appliqu6e e t Enseignement des Langues". ML
45 (1964) : 57--60.
Car r ol l , John B . , "Research on Teaching Forei gn Languages". In N. Gage
( ed. ) , Handbook of ~e s e a r c h on Language ~e ac hi ng. (Chicago: Rand
McNally) 1963. Pp. 1060-1100.
Ci of f a r i , Vincenzo, "The Importance of t he Pr i nt ed Word i n t he Learning
of a Forei gn Language". MLJ 46 (1962): 312-314.
Cornyn, William S. , Beginning Russian. (Newhaven: Yale Uni versi t y) 1961.
Dawson, Cl ayt on L. /Bidwell, Charl es E./Humesky, Assya, Modern Russian
(Volumes 1/ 11) . (New York: Harcourt , Brace & World) 1964/65.
, I nst ruct or' s Manual, Modern Russian. (New York: Harcourt , Brace
G World) 1964.
Desberg, Dan/Kenan, Lucet t e R . , Modern French. (New York: Harcourt ,
Brace 6 World) 1964.
Dewey, Horace W. , "Personal i zed Exerci ses f o r St udent s of Elementary Rus-
si an". MLJ 50 (1966) : 12-15.
Doherty, Joseph C./Markus, Roberta L . , Fi rst Course i n Russian. (Boston:
D. C . Heath) 1960.
Domar, Rebecca A . , "Can Russian Courses Be Saved?" MLJ 42 (1958): 11-17.
Fai rbanks, Gordon H./Leed, Richard L . , Basic Conversational Russian. (New
York: Hol t , Ri nehart 6 Winston) 1964.
, Teacher's Manual, Basic ConversationaZ Russian. (New York: Hol t ,
Ri nehart 6 Winston) 1966.
, Laboratory ~ a n u a 2, Basic Conversational Russian. ( ~ e w Y ork :
Hol t , Ri nehart & Winston) 1966.
Fayer, Mischa H . , Basic Russian. (New York: Pitman) 1959.
Fi s her , Wayne D . , "High School Russian: No Engl i sh from t he F i r s t Day"
( Par t s 1/ 11) . SEEJ NS 5 (1961): 41--45, 141-145.
Fishman, Joshua A. , "The I mpl i cat i ons of Bi l i ngual i sm f o r Language Teaching
and Language Learning". In A. Valdman ( e d. ) , Trends i n Language Teach-
i ng. (New York: McGraw Hi l l ) 1966. Pp. 121-132.
Gi l be r t , M. , "Some Problems of Language Teaching". ML 42 (1961) : 65-71.
Green, Eugene, "On Grading Phonet i c I nt er f er ence". LL 13 (1963) : 8 5 4 6 .
Gronicka, A.v./Bates-Yakobson, H. , ~ s s e n t i a z s of Russian. (Englewood
Cl i f f s : Pr ent i ce- Hal l ) 3rd e di t i on 1958.
Hal l , Robert A . , Jr. , New Ways t o Learn a Foreign Language. (New York:
Bantam Books) 1966.
Hocket t , Charl es F . , "Learning Pronunci at i on". MLJ 34 (1950): 261-269.
, A Course i n Modern Li ngui st i cs. (New York: MacMillan) 1958.
Huebener, Theodore, "The New Key i s Now Off-Key!" MLJ 47 (1963): 375-377.
, How t o Teach Foreign Languages Ef Sect i vel y. (New York: New York
Uni versi t y) 1965.
J es per s en, Ot t o, How t o Teach a Foreign Language. (London: Al l en G Unwin)
1904 [12t h i mpressi on 19611.
Kempers, ~ o h n , "The Teaching of Russi an: A Response t o Nathan Rosen".
SEEJ NS 11 (1967): 71-74.
Krupskaj a , N. K . , "0 rrpenonasamm pyccIcoro ~ 3 b n c a B Hepyccmx ru~co~rax" . I n
M. Lapatuxin (ed. ) , M~ToAMI~~ rrpenonasamm pyccIcoro ~ 3 b m . (MOSCOW:
Y ~ n e ~ r m ) 1960. Pp. 410-411.
1
\ Lado, Robert , Li ngui st i cs Across Cultures. (Ann Arbor: Uni ver si t y of
/ /
1 Michigan) 1957.
Leed, Richard L . , "A Note on t he Phonemic St at us of Russian High Unrounded
Vowels1'. SEEJ NS 7 (1963) : 39-41.
Lemieux, Claude P. , "Improving Our Russi an Textbooks". MLJ 37 (1953):
134-1 38.
~Go n , Pi e r r e , "Teaching Pronunci at i on". In A. Valdman ( e d. ) , Trends i n
Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw Hi l l ) 1966. Pp. 57-79.
Lunt, Horace G . , Fundamentals of Russian. (New York, Norton) 1958.
Mackey, William Fr anci s, Language Teaching Analysis. (London: Longmans
Green) 1965.
McRill, Paul C . , "FLES i n Di s t r i c t R- 1" . MLJ 45 (1961) : 366-370.
Mgras, Edmond A. , A Language Teacher' s Guide. (New York: Harper G Row)
2nd e di t i on 1962.
Modern Language Mat er i al s Development Cent er St a f f , A-LM Russian: Level
One. (New York: Harcourt , Brace World) 1961.
, T e ~ c h e r ' ~ Manual, A-LM Russian: Level One. (New York: Harcourt
Brace E World) 1961.
Muel l er, Theodore, "Auding Test s". MLJ 43 (1959): 185-187.
O' Connor,P./Twadell, W.F., "I nt ensi ve t r a i n i n g f o r an o r a l approach i n
language t eachi ng". MLJ 44 (1960) : Supplement 1- 42.
Page, Mary M. , "We Dropped FLESH. MLJ 50 (1966): 139-141.
Palmer, Harold E . , The Oral Method o f Teaching Languages. (Cambridge:
W. Hef f er 6 Sons) 1921 16th i mpressi on 19651.
, The Principles of Language Study. (London: George Harrap G Co.)
1922. Repri nt ed (London: Oxford Uni ver si t y) 1964.
Per ki ns, Merle L. , "General Language Study and t he Teaching of Languages".
MLJ 40 (1956) : 113-119.
Po l i t z e r , Robert L . , I1On t he Rel at i on of Li ngui s t i cs t o Language Teaching".
MLJ 42 (1958) : 6 5 4 8 .
Polovnikova, V. I . , " H ~ K o T o ~ ~ I ~ BOIlPOCbI MeTO.IWIU4 p a 6 0 ~ b 1 l70 Pa3BMTMX) P e r M
CTYA~ HTOB- MHOCT~ ~ HLJ ~ B" . In L. Bazi l evi E e t a l . ( eds . ) , PyCCKZ?i;"; R3bK
gTIR CTYAeHTOB-MHOCTpXtIqeB. (MOSCOW: B~ I CI I I ~ R IUECoJIa) 1965. Pp. 129-147.
Reformat ski ], A. A. , " 0 HeKOTOpbK TPYAHOCTRX 0 6 y Y e H M~ IT~OMBHOU~HMX)". In
A. Reformat ski j ( ed. ) , PyCCKMfi R3 b E AJIR CTYAeHTOB- MHOCTpameB. (Mos-
cow : B b i c m ~ moxa) 1961 . Pp . 5-1 2 .
Ri vers, Wilga M. , l l Li st eni ng comprehension". ML,J 50 (1966) : 196-204.
Rosen, Nathan, " Al l ' s Well That Ends Badly". SEEJ NS 10 (1966): 4 6 4 5 .
Sedun, E . P . , "06yseme PMTMI'IYeCKOMY I $ P ~ ~ o Bo MY Y A a p e W Cpe ACTBy MHTC-
HaLlMOHHOrO YJ I e He mR B p y C C m ~ 3 b M e " . I n A. Reformatski j (ed. ) , - Pye-
CK3/lpi R3bIEC AJIR CTYAeHTOB-MHOCTPXtIqeB . (MOSCOW : Bbi c i i ~a s IIJKox~) 1961.
Pp. 13-27.
St r evens, Pet er D . , "Li ngui s t i cs i n Language Teaching Again: a Br i t i s h
Poi nt of Viewu.
I n The English Leaf l et (Boston: New England Associ-
a t i on of Teachers of Engl i sh) 61 (1962)a. Repri nt ed i n R . Mackin E
P . St r evens ( eds . ) , Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. (Lon-
don: Oxford Uni ver si t y) 1965. Pp. 66-73.
, "Phonetic St udi es i n Language Teaching". ML 12 (1962)b. Re-
pr i nt e d i n Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. Pp. 42-56.
, "Li ngui s t i c Research and Language Teaching". I n New Trends i n
Li ngui st i c Research. (St rasbourg: Council of Europe) 1963. Repri n-
t e d i n Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. Pp. 1-22.
, "Phonet i cs, Applied Li ngui s t i cs , and ot her Components of Lan-
guage Teaching". I n Volume i n Honour of Daniel Jones. (London:
Longmans Green) 1964a. Repri nt ed i n Papers i n Language and Language
Teaching. Pp. 57-65.
, "The Teaching of Foreign Languages t o Adul t s: 'The Problem i n
Per spect i ve". I n The Teaching of Foreign Languages t o Adults. (Lon-
don: Pergamon) 1964b. Repri nt ed i n Papers i n Language and Language
Teaching. Pp. 25-41.
Sweet, Henry, The Practical Study of Languages. (London: J . M . Dent E
Sons) 1899. Repri nt ed (London: Oxford Uni ver si t y) 1964.
~ g a k o v , D . N . , "ilperroaasame W H ~ T ~ M O~I @~I I I / I M B m o ~ ~ e " . I n M. Lapa-
t uxi n (ed . ) , MeToma rrpenozanamfi pycmor o s3bma.
(MOSCOW : ~ u n e ~ r m )
1960. Pp. 378-381.
Valdman, Al ber t , "Programmed I ns t r uc t i on and Forei gn Language Teaching".
I n A. Valdman ( ed. ) , Trends i n Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw
Hi l l ) 1966. Pp. 133-158.
Wei nst ei n, Ruth H. , "Phonet i cs, Phonemics, and Pr onunci at i on: Applica-
t i on". I n E . Pulgram ( e d. ) , Applied Li ngui st i cs i n Language Teaching
[Monograph Se r i e s on Languages and Li ngui s t i cs , No. 61. (Washington:
Georgetown Uni ver si t y) 1954. Pp. 28-38.