1. I write very explicitly, so it's best not to infer stuff that simply isn't being implied. I was only attempting to add to what was said about that point with the quote. If I said I disagreed with this or that person, I would say I disagree with this or that person (that is, I don't necessarily quote them just to disagree with them) . If the most generous readings were given on discussion lists and bbs, most misunderstandings can be avoided. However, I'm aware that there are very different styles out there--it seems some of these styles pervade a lot of discussion areas on the internet. In this case, if you read the whole discussion, the assertion was made that phonics would be useful for something (though I'm not sure what a native-speaker thread would be doing under pronunciation for ESL/EFL).fluffyhamster wrote:CEJ, I know it's not what you meant, but your starting phrase in your last post ('And I highly doubt that phonics approaches are useful at all in most EFL situations') does make one wonder at first glance whether you are countering someone's previous opinion or simply introducing your own (new and "unrelated") point (that is, you've kind of made it sound like Superhal said phonics is useful for EFL, even though he - and I! - are aware that the thread was originally about phonics in native education). (I won't charge you this time for the tip on style :wink: :D ).
I'd imagine that frequency statistics are useful to learners precisely because they don't have native-speaker intuitions about the usefulness of a term (note how every learner dictionary has gradually adopted frequency symbols for headwords over the past decade, until now even the OALD7 has included them), but I'll grant you that this is on a strictly item-by-item basis and of little help in the thick of communication (though I think we would agree that such communication will probably use the more frequent items more frequently LOL).
Hmm, OK, we don't talk phonemically, but a narrow phonetic transcription would be of "limited" use to most; and having no phonemic transcription at all would obviously be of no help to anybody. :twisted: What exactly do you use to help your EFL students? Nothing (no indications of pronunciation), ever? :o
2. I go back to my point about frequency stats. When they get to a certain level of almost miniscule significance, they are not a good guide as to what to study at all. Specific purposes and the needs of the material at hand would be better guides. And another of my points was: unless students get an immersion environment, most WFs mean absolutely nothing. They are not going to be exposed to enough material in an English-use environment where those rates of occurrence actually take on a reality.
3. A phonemic transcription is too generalized to make much sense to EFL beginners. Moreover, it just adds to the orthographic complexity they are already boggled by. A narrow phonetic transcription would be based on the idea that they already are familiar with not only the major sound categories of English but the variations as well.
Now, it could be the case that some sort of transcription acts as a memory aid for older learners, but I've not seen anyone produce any evidence of this.
I think learning pronunciation requires hearing and repeating the oral language. That is, face to face practice with a fluent speaker. Especially, if there no immersion environment available. Transcriptions are more or less a linguistic aid to help linguists communicate through text consistently when referring to dynamic, complex spoken language.
Realistically, students need to learn word pronunciations and spellings and they need to learn how to produce acceptable connected speech. I wish I could somehow explain in a bb post how this could be done, but even if someone gave me a book contract and a promotional tour with lots and lots of money, it would take more space than this. That is because it is very difficult to turn complex, dynamic teacher, teacher-student, student-student classroom phenomena into academic discourse/ discourse about teaching. It is also very difficult to give an understandable discussion of what is connected speech. So there is the complexity of real pedagogy and classroom learning, and there is also the complexity of real language.
Most in this profession at a level where they get paid to be a 'name' have long ago stopped trying; those who still bother most likely get ignored (and little or no access to publish in any outlet that would influence the field).