Second Language Study

where neurons that are not provided with stimulation are expelled from the brain in a massive physiological change. It may also be due to lateralization, in which the linguistic centres of the brain have undergone the last pubic changes and become set (Yin & Zhang, 2009). Essentially, after both neural pruning and lateralization, an adult would have to spend considerable energy intentionally trying to create new neural pathways to learn pronunciation, whereas a child doesn’t have to spend that same amount of energy on learning. Some argue, however, that adults who are capable of spending time and energy studying a second language may possibly be able to do so with a larger degree of mastery. Understanding one’s own metacognition is something

It could be used first to show how sounds in Chinese languages work, to build up their confidence in the IPA before using it to learn sounds in English. Most specifically, Caine suggests three areas of trouble for many ESL students that the IPA helps to teach and learn: Place of articulation, manner of articulation, and voicing. Introducing more IPA and pronunciation into Chinese schools from early levels will certainly raise the overall understanding of English pronunciation of Chinese speakers, and increase the proficiency with which these students can speak and communicate in

In fact, music may be an effective way to teach language and pronunciation. Phonology, syntax, and semantics are present in both music and language according to Sloboda (1990). Both language and music contain very small sounds which are built upon to create something more meaningful. Notes are these sounds in music, and phonemes are these sounds in language. Moreno (2009) has even found similarities between musical and linguistic processing in the brain, particularly with pitch processing.

Wu (2013) studied a number of Chinese students and their pronunciation of English. The focus group in this study was found to have improved more than the control group when compared to pretest results by a factor of two. That is, the average improvement made by the focus group over the course of the study was measured to be a 6.60% increase in pronunciation, whereas the average improvement by the control group was 2.99%. Exactly just what the commonly mispronounced words used in the study happened to be were not disclosed. In addition, the particular improvements made within each group from the pretest were also not present. Interestingly, within the focus group, those who identified themselves to have more musical intelligence had larger improvements than those who identified to possess lower musical intelligence. Finally, it is worth noting that 83.4% of