Analysis of Audio Lingual Method

AN ANALYSIS OF THE AUDIO-LINGUAL APPROACH
AS APPLIED TO METHODS OF TEACHING RUSSIAN
by
John Alan W o o d s w o r t h
B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1945
A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
i n the D e p a r t m e n t
of
M o d e r n Languages
@ JOHN ALAN WOODSWORTH 1967
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
N o v e m b e r , 1967

EXAMINING COMMITTEE APPROVAL
- b L . * . * . . L , Y , -
--
Senior supervisor
,- . a,, -c ,-- - . - w -- -
V
Examining Committee

PARTTAL COPYRIGIIT LICENSE
I hereby g r a n t t o Simon F r a s e r University t h e r i g h t t o lend
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 below) t o u s e r s
of t h e Simon F r a s e r University L i b r a r y , and t o make p a r t i a l o r s i n g l e
copies only f o r such u s e r s o r i n response t o a request 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 other 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
behalf o r f o r one of i t s u s e r s . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r
m u l t i p l e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted
by me or the Dean of Graduate Sttldies. It is understood t h a t copying
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 allowed
without my w r i t t e n permission.
T i t l e of T h e s i s / ~ i s s e r t a t i o n:
A u t h o r :
( s i g n a t u r e )
(name )
( d a t e )

ABSTRACT
Problem: i
The term audio-lingual approach &used to denote a specific peda-
._ . - - -_-- --- I
__ __ - --- -------- -- _ _ __ -- ---
gogical orientstion which grew out2f.-lamage-teaching programmes for-.--- - - ------ _. --
United S t c i t e s military personnel during the Second World War. Its basic
distinction f ~ o mthe 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
rhe actual assimilation sf language-material by the learner i n the class-
room situation. The aim in each case is to de~erminewhat 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-
versational 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 SKILLS
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. ASSIMILATION 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 . 2 1 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 . CONCLUSI ON!) .
i .1 ~:O~v1I'I~I:lI~NSIVESUMMARY OF TEACHING-METHODS.
7 .11 Presentatlon.

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 divided i n t o two p a r t s :
a) an extensive examination of t h e audio-lingual1 approach t o t h e
teaching of t h e a c t i v e and passive audial s k i l l s 2 of a second language
with regard t o establishing objective c r i t e r i a f o r t h e evaluation of
audio-lingual methods ;
b) an example of such evaluation embodied i n a c r i t i c a l analysis of
t h e presentation and assimilation of audial skills-including individ-
ual d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n t h e mastery of these skills--as t r e a t e d
i n four methods of teaching Russian which a r e zcknowledged t o be based
on t h e audio-lingual approach.
''The terms audio-lingual and aural-oral r e f e r t o any approach based
primarily on t h e audial aspects of language ( i . e . a s it is heard
and spoken), with only secondary emphasis on t h e graphic aspects,
o r w r i t t e n representation of language. An e s s e n t i a l component of
t h e audio-lingual approach is t h e imitation of t h e spontaneous,
everyday speech of native speakers, r a t h e r than memorization of
w r 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 concentrates on t h e graphic aspects alone.
*'The a u d i a l and graphic aspects of a language each involve an "active"
and a "passive" s k i l l . Graphic s k i l l s a r e writing and reading res-
pectively. Speaking i s t h e a c t i v e audial s k i l l ; f o r i t s passive
counterpart I s h a l l use t h e recent term auding ( c f . Mueller 185),
t o i n d i c a t e not j u s t l i s t e n i n g , but auditory discrimination and
comprehension.
3 ~ h eterm method i s used i n t h i s t h e s i s t o denote t h e organization of
teaching materials i n t o a u n i f i e d programme of presentation, i . e . ,
an audio-lingual method c o n s i s t s of t h e embodiment of t h e p r i n c i p l e s
of t h e audio-lingual approach i n t o teaching materiaZs (textbook,
tape-recordings, teaching 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 audio-lingual methods f o r teaching Russian
a r e analysed i n t h e 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 h e following textbooks 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 it i s mainly during the past
two decades t h a t audio-lingual methods, so-called, have become popu-
l a r i n North American schools, t h e roots of an aural-oral b a s i s f o r
language-instruction reach f a r back i n t o European h i s t o r y . As early
as 1632 t h e Czech educator Jan KomenskT (Comenius) published h i s Di-
dactica magna, a work which attacked the t r a d i t i o n a l seading-trans-
l a t i o n methods based on grammatical studies of c l a s s i c a l Latin and
Greek ( c f . Mackey 142, Brooks 138). "Instead of r u l e s , Comenius used
imitation, r e p e t i t i o n and plenty of p r a c t i c e i n both reading and
speaking" (Mackey 142).
Somewhat more recently (1899), t h e B r i t i s h l i n g u i s t Henry Sweet
decreed t h a t " a l l study 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 years
l a t e r h i s colleague Harold Palmer adopted a s t h e f i r s t of h i s nine
language-teaching p r i n c i p l e s : "The i n i t i a l preparation of t h e s t u -
dent by t h e t r a i n i n g of h i s spontaneous c a p a c i t i e s f o r assimilating
t h e spoken language" (Palmer 1922,131) .

The f i r s t language-teachers i n t h e United States t o adopt an aural-
-oral approach were Gottlieb Heness, a German emigrant, and D r . Lambert
Sauveur, a colleague from France. The use of t h e spoken language was
popularized a f t e r 1911 when D r . Max Walter introduced the methods of
t h e German philologist ViEtor ( c f . Meras 35-44). The Coleman report4
of 1929 marked a gradual s h i f t of emphasis back t o t h e reading approach,
which was checked t o some degree during the Second World War when
trained speakers of foreign languages were i n great demand. From t h i s
s i t u a t i o n grew the audio-lingual approach as it i s known today i n one
form o r another i n t h e United States and other countries: an approach
t h a t includes t h e teaching of reading and writing, but gives primary
emphasis t o the language as i t is heard and spoken. I t i s t h i s ap-
proach, as d i s t i n c t from the t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis on the graphic s k i l l s
alone, t h a t i s subject t o our examination i n t h i s t h e s i s .
' p r o f . Algernon Coleman, The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages i n
the United States--see M6ras 46-47.

2. AUDIAL AND GRAPHIC SKILLS
2.1 AUDIO-LINGUAL ASSUMPTIONS.
2.11 Primacy of the spoken language. Dr. Herman Rapper of the Univer-
sity of Halle once summarized ViEtor's principles in part as follows:
" ~ a n ~ u a ~ econsists 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 thought t h a t we can read and w r i t e i n comple-,e
s i l e n c e , without any speech taking place. ...but nevertheless,
i n s i d e t h e b r a i n , t h e impulses f o r speech a r e s t i l l being sent
f o r t h through t h e nerves, and only t h e a c t u a l i z a t i o n of these
impulses i s being i n h i b i 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 the written 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 [graphic-material] band has, a s
everyone knows, completely transformed 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 audio-lingual
band must never be disregarded.
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 s18. A Russian teacher i n one of t h e ethnic republics of t h e So-
v i e t Union offers proof of t h i s dependence (zavisimost') a s follows:
"ECJM CpaBHMTb 0m6m, ICOTOPbIe YyaUMeCR AOl7yCIcaroT B IIHCbMe, TO 3 T a
3aBMCMMOCTb [ I D I c ~ ~ E H H o ~ ~pew OT YCTHO);'?] C T a H e T O ~ I ~ S M A H O ~ ~ "( ~ i k o l a e v a
2 5 ) . Cf. a l s o Fisher 42.

2.13 Significance for teaching. The primacy of the spoken word has
long been recognized a s s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e teaching of foreign langua-
ges. In 1942 Leonard Bloomfield wrote:
...t h e acquisition of a 'reading knowledge' i s g r e a t l y delayed
and ...t h e r e a d e r ' s understanding remains very imperfect unless
he has some command of a c t u a l speech.
I n contrast with t h i s , it i s always possible t o speak a lan-
guage without reading conventional p r i n t e d matter.
This l a s t statement is borne out by t h e large number of languages t h a t
have no "conventional printed matter", a s mentioned i n 2.11. But why
should speech f a c i l i t a t e t h e learning of reading more than t h e opposite
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 o n s h i p . The f i r s t i s
t h e physiological influence of speech i n the form of sub-vocalization
while reading o r writing (see H a l l ' s quotation i n 2.11). The second is
t o be found i n t h e psychological influence of t h e writing-system i t s e l f :
Le p r e s t i g e qu'a acquis l a page & r i t e e t l e f a i t que notre en-
seignement s'appuie sur des t e x t e s , nous masqiue l a r 6 a l i t 6 ,
.... La langue, surtout c e l l e que nous voulons enseigner aux
dgbutants, s e prgsente d'abord comme un moyen de communication
o r a l e . O r , on ne peut pas d g c 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 points out s t i l l another danger i n writing-systems:
This sound-to-writing d i r e c t i o n should be i m p l i c i t throughout
t h e i n i t i a l stages of learning t o read and w r i t e . .... I f
t h i s procedure is not followed, and t h e l e a r n e r i s sudd.enly pre-
sented with a t e x t he has not already learned, he w i l l obviously
tend t o pronounce t h e w r i t t e n symbols a s he would pronounce them
i n h i s mother tongue.
5 ~ l o o m f i e l d8. C f . a l s o Eggert ' s quotat ion i n Palmer 1921,16.
7 ~ r o o k s165. This 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 case of

In view of these f a c t o r s , then--) t h a t audial s k i l l s a r e not depen-
dent on graphic s k r l l s , but vice-versa, and b) t h a t writing-systems, both
within themselves and i n contrast with each other, may give the learner
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 h e s t r i c t e s t adherents of t h e audio-lingual approach t h a t
"written work should if possible be excluded from the earlier stages of
language-study" (Palmer l921,3O) .
2.14 Swnmary. The basic t e n e t s of t h e audio-lingual approach t r e a t e d
thus f a r a r e as follows
2.141 Language consists primarily of communication by sound; words a r e
but a graphic representation of sound. This conclusion is based on t h e
following f a c t o r s : a) children learn t h e i r mother tongue by hearing and
speaking; b) writing i s a comparatively recent phenomenon with very l i m -
i t e d scope u n t i l t h e invention of t h e printing-press; c) t h e r e a r e many
languages today without a written form; d) speech remains the dominant
f a c t o r In t h e individual independent of h i s graphic a b i l i t i e s ; e) no
reading o r writing occurs without sub-vocalization.
2.142 Although it plays an important r o l e i n society, t h e w r i t t e n lan-
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 h e spoken
language.
2.143 Writing systems do not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y represent speech.
Russien, a s some l e t t e r s of t h e C y r i l l i c alphabet shared by t h e Latin
represent t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t sounds from those represented by t h e sane
graphs i n English. For example, C y r i l l i c rope /g6re/-1'sorrow11-might
be read a s English rope, while t h e c l a s s i c w r i t t e n example i s t h e Rus-
s i a n verb noexam6 /paj&xaf/-"to drive".

2.144 I t follows from t h e above premises t h a t only t h e audial s k i l l s
of a language should be taught 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 recent a r t i c l e on t h e audio-lin-
gual approach e n t i t l e d "The Danger of Assumption without Proof" Beverly
Bazan (337) warns us t h a t "many of t h e current a s s e r t i o n s cannot claim
any s t a t u s other than t h a t of assumptions". (We have s o been c a l l i n g
them i n t h i s t h e s l s . ) Theodore Huebener (1963,376) reports t h a t "a
more sober examination of i t s [the audio-lingual approach's] b a s i c ten-
e t s and day-to-day application of i t s procedures have revealed t h a t
c e r t a i n b a s i c assumptions were not correct1'. Most of t h e maxims dis-
cussed thus f a r i n t h i s t h e s i s 8 however--the primacy of speech over
writing, t h e d i s t o r t i o n s of writing systems-, seem t o be supported by
provable f a c t s . What assumptions, then, a r e not correct? What, i n
f a c t , i s being challenged?
I t may be well t o point out here t h a t the audio-lingual approach
developed, t o a l a r g e extent, under the watchful guidance 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 includes t h e application t o language-
-teaching methods of t h e discoveries and axioms of t h e descriptive l i n -
g u i s t s , who, although they have generally l i t t l e i n t e r e s t f o r language-
-teaching, were i n f a c t among t h e e a r l i e s t t o make f u l l application of
t h e p r i n c i p l e of audial supremacy. And Robert L. P o 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 course, nothing i n l i n g u i s t i c science 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 only v a l i d one
[ f o r language-t caching ] . It j u s t happens t h a t most linguis-
t i c s c i e n t i s t s a r e primarily concerned with language i n i t s
spoken form, o r define language a s a spoken r a t h e r than a
w r i t t e n means of communication. ...t h e language teacher who
i s being advlsed 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 merely s t a t i n g
preferences d i c t a t e d by h i s professional background.
I n other words, t h e d e s c r i p t i v e branch of l i n g u i s t i c s must not be
confused with the application of l i n g u i s t i c theory t o language-teaching
methods. The former supplies information i n t h e nature of provable
f a c t s about language i t s e l f ; the l a t t e r i n f e r s from these f a c t s c e r t a i n
assumptions about teaching students how t o use a language. Many teach-
e r s , however, especially those accustomed t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l reading ap-
proach t o language-teaching, f a i l t o recognise t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n and mis-
takenly t r y t o dispute proven f a c t s of language (such a s the primacy of
speech over writing, o r the inadequacy of writing t o give a t r u e pic-
t u r e of speech). This e r r o r i s one of t h e chief causes of misunder-
standing between t h e applied l i n g u i s t and the language-teacher.
The r e a l i s s u e under dispute by Bazan, Huebener, and others, i s
whether t h e p r i n c i p l e of audial primacy should be followed i n teaching
a language, i . e . , t h a t audial s k i l l s should be taught before graphic
ones-ot whether speech i s primary t o language i t s e l f . I t is with
t h i s i n mind, then, t h a t we s h a l l examine the individual points of d i s -
agreement i n t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e t h e s i s .
2.22 Challenge to the primacy of speech i n teaching. A s mentioned i n
2.11, a f a c t often referred t o a s evidence of t h e primacy of speech is
t h a t children learn t h e i r mother tongue e s s e n t i a l l y through t h e audial
s k i l l s . This i s undoubtedly t r u e i n t h e c h i l d ' s e a r l y years, but the

high-school o r university student who begins t o learn a second language
is i n q u i t e a different position.
F i r s t of a l l , he i s no longer a child, and he has already mastered
h i s mother tongue. But more important, a s a r e s u l t of visually orien-
ted educational processes he has come t o regard reading and writing a s
h i s primary means of learning anything he does not know ( c f . Bazan 342):
John Carroll s t a t e s t h e problem as follows:
Fear has been expressed t h a t t h e presentation of foreign lan-
guage materials i n auditory 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" being conceived of a s
e i t h e r a r e l a t i v e l y permanent c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t r a i t o r a r e s u l t
of a predominantly v i s u a l emphasis i n t h e individual's school
experiences,
In other words, we find that i n t h e audio-lingual approach t h e prin-
c i p l e of audial primacy i n language i s brought i n t o sharp c o n f l i c t with
the graphic o r visual predominance of our educational system. We have
already considered t h e basis for the former. Let us now b r i e f l y examine
what is involved i n the l a t t e r .
Two considerations are evident: ease and speed. I t takes much
l e s s time t o read a t e x t than 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 the learning 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 give reading as-
signments r a t h e r than listening ones. Especially i n the post-elementary
stage lack of time and mechanical equipment has forced education t o r e l y
heavily on graphic s k i l l s f o r teaching t h e student new material of any
kind, and even the classroom lecture is r a t h e r overshadowed by black-
boards, wall-charts, and the textbook.
9 ~ a r r o l l1078. C f . a l s o Bazan 344-345.

These a r e two of t h e reasons behind Rebecca Domar1s powerful attack
on audio-lingual methods and h e r stubborn defence of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
reading approach t o teaching Russian. Her b a s i c argument i n regard t o
ease is a s follows:
Reading i s e a s i e r than understanding t h e spoken word of equal
d i f f i c u l t y , because i n reading 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 did not
understand a t f i r s t reading, one can look up unfamiliar words.
A l l t h i s is impossible when l i s t e n i n g t o someone t a l k . For
similar reasons writing i s e a s i e r than speaking. l o
2.23 Challenge i n gradation of s k i l l s . One of t h e f a c t o r s t h a t must be
taken i n t o account i n the teaching of any subject o r s k i l l is t h a t of
g r a d a t i o n , l l which Palmer defines as "passing f ~ o mt h e known t o the un-
known by easy stages, each of which serves as a p e p a r a t i o n f o r the next"
(Palmer 1922,67) .12 In support of h e r contention f o r a reading b a s i s ,
Domar c i t e s a s a b a s i c pedagogical p r i n c i p l e t h a t "in studying anything
one should begin with t h e e a s i e s t aspect of the subject and gradually
proceed t o t h e more d i f f i c u l t ones1' (Domar 11). Palmer as a l i n g u i s t ,
however, evidently had q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t idea 0.f "easy stages1' i n mind,
'O~omar 11. ( ~ f .a l s o Sweet 51-52) . An a r t i c l e s i m i l a r i n tone t o Do-
marts i s Nathan Rosen's "All's Well That Ends Badly" which appeared
i n a 1966 i s s u e of t h e S l a v i c and East European Journal. John Kem-
p e r s ' "response" i n a l a t e r i s s u e of t h e same p e r i o d i c a l i s s t i l l
within t h e confines of t h e "reading-approach" point of view.
111 p r e f e r t h e term gradation t o grading (which i s sometimes used i n t h i s
sense) because "it avoids confusion with t h e grading of language t e s t s
...and with grading a s a grammatical term1' ( ~ a c k e ~204).
12cf. a l s o Hockett ( 1 9 5 0 , 2 6 6 ) ~who describes progressive p r a c t i c e a s be-
ginning with those items "which a r e e i t h e r most universally necessary,
o r a r e e a s i e s t , and going on t o more d i f f i c u l t matters".

f o r a few pages l a t e r (1922,70) he writes: "To learn how t o read and t o
write a language may possibly be e a s i e r than t o learn how t o speak it and
t o understand it when spoken, but t h i s has no bearing on the subject of
gradation".
Even i n t h e audio-lingual approach i t s e l f there i s no evidence t o
indicate how long t h e teaching of reading should be delayed (see Carroll
1078). Most agree there should be some audial-only period-for f e a r t h a t
"the written word, due t o the l i t e r a t e condition of the learner, might
lead irrevocably t o t h e incorrect phonological interpretation" (Bazan 343).
However, William Francis Mackey points out:
I n t h e secondary school.. .the l e a r n e r i s s o letter-bound t h a t a
long delay between speech and reading may r e s u l t i n t h e l e a r n e r ' s
forming h i s own idea of how t h e language must look i n writing and
i n devising h i s own system of s p e l l i n g . ...
Some even advocate t h e teaching of a l l four s k i l l s simultaneously from t h e
beginning. l 4 Vincenzo Cioffari (313) speaks of t h e written symbol as
" f i r s t of a l l a dependable reminder of sound" which "serves t o recreate
the conditions which produced the correct sound i n the f i r s t place". "The
written symbol is permanent, and the spoken sound is transitory!', he adds.
Sweet (10) recommended phonetic transcription as the most s u i t a b l e
"reminder", by which one could avoid the dangers of t r a d i t i o n a l orthogra-
phies ( c f . 2.13) and gain the additional advantage of correcting auditory
impressions ( c f . 4.23 on phonetic transcription). Bazan (342) goes so f a r
3 ~ a c k e y234. 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 1HaA ACbMOM M HaA TeICCTOM, MOXeT WMBeCTM K TOMY, YTO ITpM06pe-
TeHHbIe 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 point out evidence why t h e visual should precede the audial:
I n regard t o i n t e r f e r i n g sense s t i m u l i , empirical evidence
does suggest t h a t ...r e t r o a c t i v e secondary cues ( e . g . , hear-
ing word, then seeing it w r i t t e n ) seem t o have a g r e a t e r re-
t a r d a t i o n e f f e c t than proactive cues ( e . g . seeing it w r i t t e n ,
then hearing it spoken...).
We find, then, t h a t i n s p i t e of the logical reasons f o r excluding
the graphic aspects i n the i n i t i a l stages of language-teaching, there
seem t o be d e f i n i t e arguments f o r some s o r t of visual instruction as
well. This becomes even more noticeable when we take account of t h e
t
time a l l o t t e d f o r a language t o be taught, and the resultant speed o r
r a t e a t which it is expected t o be learned.
2 . 2 4 Challenge i n rate of learning. Once again a conflict a r i s e s be-
tween the t r a d i t i o n s of education and the principles of applied linguis-
t i c s . School and university curricula a r e usually divided i n t o a number
of "subjects", each subject being a l l o t t e d one o r more hours a t intervals
during t h e week. The class-time per subject being very short, reading
and writing assignments a r e used t o give the student the needed extra
contact with each subject.
The audio-lingual approach aims t o teach language f i r s t of a l l as a
s k i l l r a t h e r than as a subject; it teaches one how t o use an instrument,
not j u s t f a c t s about i t . l 5 Facts may be gleaned through reading alone,
but s k i l l i n using any instrument i s gained mainly through long and con-
s t a n t practice. Not only does t h i s mean an even greater number of con-
tact-hours than i n other studies, but, because of the nature of t h e study,
15cf. Strevens 1963,12 and Palmer 1922,140. The analogy of a musical in-
strument i s well developed i n Hockett 1950,266-267.

nearly a l l t h e contact must be with t h e teacher himself. l
But most schools and universities, even those equipped with language-
-laboratories, are reluctant t o make t h e radical time-table changes neces-
sary t o provide the numbers of teachers and hours which would be required
t o achieve any audial mastery of a second language by the learner. l 7
Compensation i s recommended i n the grade-schools by extending the
number of years of language-study. Huebener recommends a t l e a s t a six-
-year sequence i n junior- and senior-high-school. There i s even a move-
ment well underway i n t h e United States (known as FLES) t o promote the
teaching of foreign languages i n the elementary school (see Brooks 114-119).
I t was reported t h a t the long period of study, however, caused a
marked decline i n interest among t h e students of one school-system and
s o led t h e administrators t o cancel the FLES programme altogether (see
Page, 139-141). This might possibly have been due t o other factors, how-
ever, although the s i t u a t i o n was investigated with some thoroughness. In
another FLES experiment there was evidence t h a t "the introduction of read-
ing i n the upper grades [ t h i r d t o s i x t h ] , a f t e r a foundation of oral-aural
work, increases t h e efficiency of learningr1 (McRill 367-368).
16cf. Hockett (1950,267) : "The beginner a t a new language does not know
i n advance what t h e language sounds l i k e , and so t h e bulk of h i s prac-
t i c e , f o r a very long time, must be c a r r i e d on i n t h e presence of a
native speaker who can check on h i s production". O'Connor and Twadell
( 5 ) make t h e observation t h a t "a model utterance can be imitated and
repeated o r a l l y f a r oftener than i n writing" .
17cf. Gilbert (65) : "We a r e a l l agreed i n theory t h a t t h e aims of lan-
guage teaching i n t h i s country [u.K.] a r e t o t r a i n t h e c h i l d t o hear,
speak, read and write the language. I n practice, however, t h e first
two of these aims a r e often 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 university s i t u a t i o n , where t h e whole educational programme is
limited t o t h r e e o r four years, naturally it is impossible t o compensate
f o r time-table d i f f i c u l t i e s by extending the period of study. Here too
--at l e a s t i n t h e humanities, under which language-instruction i s usual-
l y classified-the emphasis i s even more predominantly on the acquisition
of scholarly knowledge r a t h e r than p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s , and many students
spend only enough time studying a language i n order t o meet administra-
t i v e requirements. Domar (12) s t a t e s the case bluntly from t h e pedagog-
i c a l point of view:
...t h e great majority of students a r e unable and/or unwilling
t o devote more than two years t o t h e study of Russian, and two
years of college [university] Russian a r e not enough t o learn
t o speak t h e language. During these two years, Russian i s one
of four, f i v e , or even s i x courses which t h e student i s carry-
ing, often along with a part-time job, and therefore he cannot
devote much time and e f f o r t t o it.
From t h i s and other reasons she concludes (13) t h a t "reading should be
the main objective of t h e f i r s t two years of t h e study of Russian" and
thus a reading approach should be adopted.
A reading-course i n a language indeed f i t s more e a s i l y i n t o the lit-
erary atmosphere of a humanities-faculty than instruction i n the "mere"
s k i l l s of hearing and speaking (which has no doubt contributed t o the
former's popularity through the years). With t h i s firm visual base, a
l i t t l e audial a c t i v i t y i s e a s i l y added without being conspicuous. Domar
a l s o i n s i s t s (13) t h a t students "should be taught correct pronunciation
from t h e very f i r s t meeting of the class, and there should be some con-
versation i n Russian t o enliven the class procedure". Such an achieve-
ment applied l i n g u i s t s regard as generally impossible without strong em-

phasis on t h e development of audial s k i l l s t o t h e v i r t u a l exclusion of
reading, especially i f "correct pronunciation" i s t o include the more com-
plex features of s t r e s s - and intonation-patterns such as one would u s e ' i n
normal conversation (cf. 3.13, 3.14). I t is a well-known f a c t t h a t r e a l
llconversation" cannot be produced merely on the basis of reading, o r lear-
ning how t o pronounce words, and "correct pronunciation" i s f a r from a t -
tainable without much repeated practice i n both auding and speaking, usu-
a l l y a t t h e temporary expense of graphic f a c i l i t y . In informal conversa-
t i o n groups conducted f o r students studying Russian by a "reading" approach,
the author noticed t h a t significant sound features not found i n English,
especially p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of consonants (cf. 4.12, 6.22), were rarely dis-
tinguished with accuracy, as there had been l i t t l e attention given t o
audial exercise i n the classroom.
2.25 Answer to chaZZenges. The best answer t o reading enthusiasts l i k e
Domar and Rosen is probably given i n Charles F. Hockettls a r t i c l e "Lear-
ning Pronunciation" (1950). The reason we read our own language with
ease, it is brought out, is t h a t reading simply involves associating the
written symbols with familiar speech sounds, which i n turn give us the
meaning intended. Naturally t h i s cannot apply i f we do not know what
sounds t h e symbols represent:
Now i f we approach a foreign language i n i t s written form,
with no advance knowledge and control of i t s spoken form,
and t r y t o t r a i n ourselves t o i n t e r p r e t t h e s t r i n g s of
graphic shapes d i r e c t l y i n t o meanings, we a r e trying some-
thing which i s completely 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 only ef-
f i c i e n t way, i n t h e long run, t o put oneself i n t h e position
t o read with maximum understanding ...material written i n

some foreign language, i s t o g e t a t l e a s t an elementary 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 only exception, according t o Hockett, i s material of a s c i e n t i f i c
o r technical nature, which lends 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
native tongue. Literature is not so e a s i l y translatable, however, and
" l i t e r a r y material must be received by the student i n the acoustic shape
i n which it was originally c a s t , o r some l i t e r a r y values w i l l be lost"
(Hockett 1950,264) .I9 This corresponds with t h e following observation by
Peter Strevens:
A reading knowledge can be taught i n t h i s way [without audial
s k i l l s ] but t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t teaching it thus i s more
rapid or e f f e c t i v e , and a strong body of opinion e x i s t s which
says t h a t even i f t h e spoken language i s quickly abandoned, it i s
highly desirable t o have passed through an 'oral-only' stage, and
then subsequently made t h e conversion from spoken t o written.
2.26 Swmnary. Challenges t o t h e audio-lingual assumptions h i t h e r t o dis-
cussed may be summarized a s follows:
2.261 The c o n f l i c t l i e s , not i n the information supplied by the descrip-
t i v e l i n g u i s t as t o t h e primacy of speech over writing, e t c . , but i n the
application of t h i s information t o language-teaching methods.
2.262 The audial emphasis of t h e audio-lingual approach conflicts with
- I
the graphic o r visual orientation of t h e school-system.
2.263 Although t h e applied l i n g u i s t advocates temporary exclusion of
graphic s k i l l s , t h e pedagogical r u l e of gradation recommends t h e i r use
a t l e a s t as a support.
'* ~ o c k e t t1950,263.
19cf. a l s o Sweet's quotation i n 2.12.

2.264 Grade-school language-programmes can supply t h e extra time needed
f o r audio-lingual teaching by increasing t h e number of years of language-
-study, 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 period of study is impossible
cannot effectively teach audial s k i l l s from a visual basis, nor can they
succeed i n teaching reading i t s e l f with t h e f u l l e s t possible benefit t o
the learner.

3. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SKILLS
3.1 AUDING APLID SPEAKING.
3.11 Differences between native and target Zanguage.' "Every year m i l -
l i o n s of people s t a r t learnlng a second language", writes Mackey (107),
"but very few succeed i n mastering it". "Why is t h i s so?" he asks.
I n 2 . 2 2 it wds shown t h a t the posltlon of t h e second-language lear-
ner cannot be equated with t h a t of t h e c h i l d learnlng h f s mother tongue.
The high-school o r university student has already learned h i s f i r s t lan-
guage, we observed, and through h i s educational experience has been rath-
e r strongly influenced by i t s visual representation; hence he finds d i f -
f i c u l t y i n learnmg a u r a l l y .
Familiarity with t h e graphic representation of one's native tongue
i s not t h e only obstacle t o one's mastery of a second, however. A s Hoc-
k e t t (1950,265) explains, "the f i r s t source of d i f f i c u l t y is the habits
we already have f o r pronouncing our own l a n g ~ a g e " . ~
From t h e discoveries of l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n t i s t s we have learned t h a t
underlying each spoken language i s a unique s e t of p a t t e r n s o r habits
(see Brooks 4 9 ) - In f a c t , t h e discovery of t h i s v i t a l problem, and pro-
posed solutions t o i t , probably c o n s t i t u t e s t h e g r e a t e s t contribution of
t h e applied l i n g u i s t s t o t h e improvement of language-teaching methods. 3
I ~ a r g e tZanguage IS a term frequently used by applied l i n g u i s t s t o indi-
c a t e t h e language being learned, a s opposed t o the l e a r n e r ' s native
tongue .
* c f . a l s o Mackey 107-108.
3 ~ o n t r a s t i v eanalysls ( see 4.22) 1s heralded by Guy Capelle ( 59) a s "une
des id6es l e s plus productives de l a l i n g u i s t i q u e moderne".

Since no two languages have identical s e t s of h a b i t s , it i s evident t h a t
t h e l e a r n e r ' s "thoroughly ingrained habits f o r h i s own language ...may
p a r t l y help, but w l l l also p a r t l y I n t e r f e r e with, t h e habits t o be ac-
quired f o r t h e new language" (Hockett 1950,266) .
"The sounds, constructions, and meanings of d i f f e r e n t languages a r e
not t h e same: t o get an easy command of a foreign language one must
learn t o ignore t h e features of any and a l l other languages, especially
of one's own", we read on the f i r s t page of Bloomfield's Outline Guide
for the PracticaZ Stud9 of Foreign Languages ( c f . a l s o Palmer 1922,43).
In practice, however, it has been found more d i f f i c u l t t o eliminate bad
habits than t o learn good ones ( c f . Benson 78), as t h e Soviet educator
A.A. Reformatski] explains:
The problem of native-language interference i s f i r s t encountered in
the training 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-
ted, " i f h i s ear-training is neglected during the elementary stage, he
w i l l replace forelgn sounds by native ones and i n s e r t intrusive sounds
m t o the words of the language he is learning". Carroll (1069-1070) l i s t s
as t h e f i r s t of four phonological problems t h a t of discrimination-I1i.e.,
hearing t h e difference between phonemes which a r e not distinguished o r
"f. a l s o Maekey 109.
5 ~ e f o r m a t s k i j6. C f . a l s o Brooks (56-57) : "What [the learner] 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 lan-
guage a r e different In nearly every d e t a i l from those In h i s mother
tongue" .

used i n one's native language". The r e a l importance of auditory discrim-
ination w i l l be discussed i n 3.12.
The eventual consequence of neglect of handling native-language in-
terference--assuming t h a t the learner continues with t h e language f o r a
number of years---will be what i s known as compound biZinguaZism, i n which
"certain features of a second language ...a r e added t o a learner's mother
tongue but are not separated from it" (Brooks 267) and "the mother tongue
...continues t o accompany--and of course t o d o m i n a t e t h e whole complex
f a b r i c of language behavior" (Brooks 49; c f . a l s o Fishman 128 and Carroll
1085-1086). This is d i s t i n c t from co-ordinate bilingualism, where the
speaker can make both languages function independently of each other. The
l a t t e r i s the only r e a l basis f o r speaking the language and is the goal of
the audio-lingual approach. Compound bilingualism, i n which "two languages
constitute simply two d i f f e r e n t ways of encoding t h e same s e t of referen-
t i a l meanings" (Carroll 1085), involves constant t r a n s l a t i o n from and i n t o
the l e a r n e r ' s native tongue and i s generally adopted as the aim of the
reading approach.
3.12 The importance of auditory comprehension. The greatest problem f o r
a t r a v e l l e r i n a foreign country, according t o Wilga M. Rivers, is not h i s
d i f f i c u l t y i n speaking the language, but rather "that he cannot understand
what is belng safd t o him and around him". "As a result", she adds, "there
is no communication and the t r a v e l l e r ' s speaking s k i l l s cannot be exercised
t o great advantage" (Rivers 196).
This i s probably a l l too t r u e . The author r e c a l l s similar complaints
from t r a v e l l e r s who had been given ample instruction i n "correct pronunci-

ation", but with 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 himself a t one time found greater d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding
native speakers than i n being understood by them.
Basic t o auditory comprehension is the capacity f o r auditory dis-
crimination, which, a s we noticed i n 3.11, plays an important l i n g u i s t i c
r o l e i n language-learning. I t is an accepted f a c t of language-use t h a t
speaking i s depe'ndent on hearing, j u s t as graphic s k i l l s depend on audial
ones. This is supported by Hockettls observation (1958,118) on "auditory
feedback", o r the hearing 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 correct-
ly. "Do not attempt t o obtain a perfect pronunciation a t the f i r s t les-
son", was Franqois Gouin's advice i n teaching the primary s k i l l s of a lan-
guage. "Address the ear then, f i r s t of a l l , and principally. .... The
ear is the prime minister of the intelligencew.7 Brooks (110) s t a t e s :
Although language sounds originate i n t h e voice-box of t h e
throat and a r e modulated i n t o recognizable 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 lear-
ning and use of speech sounds. 8
Like many prime ministers, however, the organ of the e a r has the
k f . a l s o Lemieux, who s t a t e s t h a t "the primary object of teaching 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
foreign native. I n communicating with foreign peoples our own pronun-
c i a t i o n i s a secondary matter" (~emieux135).
7 ~ u o t e di n M6ras 42. Brooks (144) j u s t i f i e s t h i s assignment of rank as
follows: "Bnphasis upon hearing should come f i r s t [of the audial
s k i l l s ] , since t h e ear i s t h e key organ i n a l l speech; it not only
permits t h e individual t o hear what is s a i d but a l s o controls what he
says when he a c t s as 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 accurate discernment of d e t a i l and is probably
the most susceptible t o f a l s e i ~ n ~ r e s s i o n . ~Palmer brought out what many
psychologists a r e recognizing today, t h a t we hear what we expect t o hear
r a t h e r than what is actually s a i d . "There i s a great difference", he
says, "between r e a l l y hearing and merely imagining t h a t one has heard a
sound o r a succession of sounds" (Palmer 1922,71).
Yet even methods based on an audial approach t o language-study, a s
Pierre Leon points out, frequently present the student with a mass of a r -
t i c u l a t o r y d e t a i l f o r "correct pronunciation" without f i r s t training h i s
e a r i n accurate d i s t i n c t i o n of significant sounds, which, we have seen,
d i r e c t l y controls the a c t of speech production (see Leon 57-62). In such
cases, according t o Huebener (1965,37), mastery of auditory comprehension
is considerably retarded. Hence Brooks specifies t h a t the audio-lingual
learner "is t o hear much more than he speaks, [and] is t o speak only on
the basis of what he has heard". l o
Rivers (204) reminds us of the need f o r continued emphasis on auding
throughout the learning programme:
...l i s t e n i n g comprehension i s not a s k i l l which can be mastered
once and f o r a l l and then ignoredwhile other s k i l l s a r e devel-
oped. There must be regular practice with increasing d i f f i c u l t
material.
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 presenting new material, 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 acquire i s probably a nativelike audio-
comprehension".
1 • ‹ ~ r o o k s52. C f . a l s o Mackey (263) : "As Epictetus put it long ago, na-
t u r e has given man one tongue and two ears t h a t he may hear twice a s
much a s he speaks".

number of teaching methods, even those audially oriented, overemphasize
the mechanics of speech-production a t the expense of needed ear-training.
The concern f o r "correct pronunciation" has long been proclaimed by lit-
erary enthusiasts a s a feature of the reading approach (e.g. Domar 13),
although probably more often than not the new sounds were merely approx-
imated i n terms of those of the mother tongue ( c f . note on t r a n s l i t e r a -
t i o n i n 4 . 2 3 ) . More recent methods have exhibited a greater degree of
accuracy i n pronunciation-teaching, thanks t o phonological descriptions
provided by l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n t i s t s , but few have taken the extra steps
necessary t o deal s a t i s f a c t o r i l y with t h e problem of auditory discrim-
ination and comprehension.
A number of l i n g u i s t s , including Leon (76), Green (86), and Belasco
( l a ) , recommend t h a t , f o r the sake of adequate t r a i n i n g i n discrimina-
t i o n , the teaching-programme should concentrate f i r s t of a l l on phonemes,
"proceeding t o the phonetic level only when a l l obstacles t o audio-lingual
comprehension have been overcomef' (Leon 76) .l 1
Others, however, point out t h a t the study of phonemes---or even of
words---alone i s not enough t o achieve a satfsfactory 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 unreliable the word i s as a
speech signal. l2 Mackey (235) further explains :
Il ~ f .also Belasco 18.
I2cf. a l s o Rivers (196): "Even i f the native speaker enunciates h i s words
slowly and d i s t i n c t l y , elements of s t r e s s , intonation and word-group-
ing, often exaggerated i n an earnest attempt a t c l a r i t y , add t o t h e
confusion of t h e inexperienced foreigner".

...t h e l e a r n e r must go beyond t h e phoneme i n order t o be able
t o understand a language. So long a s he hears only t h e indiv-
i d u a l sounds, o r even individual words and phrases, he w i l l
not understand t h e l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e s . For t h e r e l a t i o n s among
t h e components of a p a t t e r n must be known befcre i t s individual
members can be understood. .... Does t h e method t h e r e f o r e
present sounds, words, o r sentences f i r s t ? 1 3
I t would appear then t h a t , i f t h e advantages of the audio-lingual
approach a r e t o be f u l l y exploited, adequate t r a i n i n g i n t h e llpassive"
s k i l l of auding14 must be given precedence over speaking a b i l i t y . Time
and e f f o r t a r e required f o r t r a i n i n g t h e e a r not only t o assimilate t h e
supraphonemic p a t t e r n s of f l u e n t speech such a s s t r e s s , intonation, e t c . ,
/
but a l s o t o perceive s i g n i f i c a n t sound-features which i n t u r n w i l l i n f l u - ,/
ence t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own production of speech sounds. This cannot be
accomplished simply by teaching how individual phonemes o r words a r e
pronounced, but by repeated presentation of whole sentences and phrases
f o r l i s t e n i n g and understanding.
The influence apparently works i n both d i r e c t i o n s , however, accor-
ding t o Hockett, who s t a t e s a s an "undeniable fact" t h a t "one cannot even
hear a new language c o r r e c t l y u n t i l one has learned t o pronounce it reas-
onably well oneself"; hence, he proposes, "the n a t u r a l and most e f f i c i e n t
3 ~ 6 ~ nevidently r e a l i z e d t h e importance of supraphonemic considerations ,
f o r l a t e r on t h e same page (76) he recommends: "Audiocomprehension
should be taught by f i r s t t r a i n i n g students t o understand complete
sentences, o r at l e a s t groups of words, and then by using minimal
p a i r s i n order t o t r a i n t h e i r e a r s t o perceive important acoustical
cues1'.
1 4 s t r i c t l y speaking, a s Mackey brings out, "perception of speech i s not
passive. The s k i l l of l i s t e n i n g t o a foreign language and understan-
ding what i s s a i d involves (1)t h e immediate and unconscious recogni-
t i o n of i t s s i g n i f i c a n t elements, and ( 2 ) t h e comprehension of t h e
meaning which t h e combination of t h e s e elements conveys" ( ~ a c k e ~261).

way is t o develop a t one and the same time a b i l i t y t o pronounce correctly
and t o hear correctly" (Hockett 1950,264/265). This principle, i f adop-
ted, would preclude the use of an "auding-only" period similar t o the in-
i t i a l use of audial s k i l l s before the introduction of graphic ones. 15
3.14 Treatment of speech production. The second stage of language-lear-
ning is referred t o i n one a r t i c l e (Banathy e t a l . , 37) a s "learning the
production of the sound sequences of the target language s o t h a t i t s na-
t i v e speakers can comprehend them immediately and i d e n t i f y them as accep-
table". l6 In order t o do t h i s , however, one has t o do more than merely
recognize 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) explains:
I n distinguishing t h e sounds of t h e spoken language, it i s suf-
f i c i e n t t o be able t o t e l l one phoneme from another; i n speaking
t h e language, 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 completely ignore
t h i s ; others give 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 o n t h a t no time i s l e f t f o r t h e other elements of speech.
These "other element^'^, according t o a number of audio-lingual spe-
c i a l i s t s , a r e j u s t as significant t o speech production, i f not more so,
than the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the sounds themselves. Most allophones 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 nature as allophones
depend on contiguous sounds ( i . e . t h e i r distribution) f o r t h e i r existence.
15cf. Huebener 1965,37. Separation of a c t i v e and passive 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 programed language-instruc-
t i o n ( c f . F. Rand Morton's ALLP Spanish experiment a s described i n
Valdman 146) and i s recommended even i n t h e audio-lingual approach
( c f . Brooks 1 4 4 ) .
16cf. a l s o Hockett (1950,262) , who s p e c i f i e s a "good pronunciation" a s
"one which w i l l not draw t h e a t t e n t i o n of a native speaker of t h a t
language away from what we a r e saying t o t h e way i n which we a r e say-
ing 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---areimportant 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~henumerous 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, style, and tempo: significance for auding. "From the be-
ginning, sounds can be learned through hearing natural utterances given
a t the speed of normal native speech" (MBras 146). We concluded i n 3.13
t h a t one of the requirements of t h e audio-lingual approach was training
i n the comprehension of the fluent speech of native speakers. What exact-
l y constitutes "normal native speech", however, needs t o be more specif-
i c a l l y defined f o r teaching purposes.
Variations i n speech involve three major factors: d i a l e c t , s t y l e ,
and tempo. S t y l e may be influenced by d i a l e c t and tempo by both; a l l
three, however, a r e subject t o external influences, such a s the speaker's
s o c i a l background, occupation, and disposition respectively. Note the
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) defines as t h e f i r s t "linguistic" (non-cultural)
objective of language-teaching "the a b i l i t y t o comprehend the foreign
language when spoken a t normal speed and when concerned with ordinary,
nontechnical subject matter". And Rivers (202) advises t h a t "even i n
the very e a r l y stages familiar material can be understood when spoken
a t normal speed". She explains t h i s l a s t phrase a s follows:
Normal speed does not mean rapid native speech, but a speed of
delivery which would not appear t o a native speaker t o be un-
duly labored--a speed which r e t a i n s normal word groupings, e l i -
s i o n s , l i a s o n s , consonant assimilations, n a t u r a l rhythm and in-
tonation. Utterances which a r e delivered at an unnaturally slow
pace a r e inevitably d i s t o r t e d and t h e acoustic images stored by
t h e student w i l l not be immediately useful when he hears a natu-
r a l form of speech. l 8

The Russian educator V.I. Polovnikova, however, whose main concern
is preparing foreign students t o understand lectures i n Russian, believes
t h a t the tempo should be graded, "c~avaxano 35, a a ~ e ~AO 50--60 CJIOBB
MMHYTY" (Polovnikova 135) .1 9
Not unrelated t o tempo i s what one might c a l l the information-den-
sity of an utterance and i t s corresponding redundancy, which, according
t o Rivers (197), is what "helps us t o piece together the information we
hear". This i s a rather important point, since it has been an acknowl-
edged practice of t r a d i t i o n a l language-textbooks t o "overload" t h e i r ex-
ample- and drill-sentences with an abundance of semantic o r grammatical
information, and it is possible t h a t t h i s f l a i r has been carried on i n
the dialogues provided i n the more recent t e x t s . Naturalness of speech,
however, i s an accepted audio-lingual proposition.
I t i s s t i l l the natural speech of educated speakers t h a t is desired,
and generally of a standard d i a l e c t i n f a i r l y common use.20 I t i s the
s t y l e of speech they would use i n dealing with "ordinary, nontechnical
subject matter", as Huebener put i t (see above quotation). Extremes of
l i t e r a r y and colloquial s t y l e are not considered suitable f o r teaching
purposes, as Capelle i l l u s t r a t e s with French:
Pr6senter a des 612ves britanniques qui ne poss2dent pas du
fransais ...une description de Balzac ou un dialogue p r i s sur
2 0 ~ h e r emay, of course, be special reasons f o r choosing a p a r t i c u l a r dia-
l e c t or s t y l e of speech, depending upon t h e known needs of t h e lear-
ner (see Mackey 163-164).

l e v i f dans l e s couloirs du metro parisien, ne peut que semer
l a confusion dans l e u r e s p r i t ou p l u t e t , ce qui e s t encore
plus grave, l e s pousser admettre tous ces modsles cornrne va-
l a b l e s en m8me temps e t s e constituer une "variEtE nouvelle"
e t inacceptable de fransais. 21
Brooks s t r e s s e s t h e importance of maintaining " c l a r i t y of ...speech
signals" (52) and avoiding s l u r r i n g and colloquial d i s t o r t i o n s . "The
learner, and especially t h e classroom learner, is e n t i t l e d t o hear lan-
guage c l e a r l y i n focus a s he learns" (Brooks 53).
3 . 2 2 Dialect, style, and tempo: significance for speaking. The selec-
t i o n of a speech-variety f o r the learner's own use appears t o be q u i t e
another question, however. I s the learner t o make f a i t h f u l imitation of
a l l t h a t he hears i n the way of fluent native speech a t normal speed,
which might possibly include occasional departures from the established
norm of pronunciation f o r the d i a l e c t , especially when a number of pos-
s i b l e variations e x i s t f o r the same sound?
A number of those concerned favour some standardization. "Facility
i n the use of the spoken language with acceptable standards of pronunci-
ation and grammatical correctness1' i s formulated a s Huebenerls second l i n -
g u i s t i c obj ective. 22 Faced with the choice between "the uninhibited pro-
nunciation of the man i n t h e s t r e e t " and t h a t of the "overcareful diction
teacher", Leon (61) sees the f i n a l objective a s "the former f o r audiocom-
prehension and t h e l a t t e r f o r sound production".
Although few applied l i n g u i s t s would agree with the specification of
2 1 ~ a p e l l e58. C f . a l s o Sweet (40): "Vulgarisms should be avoided. ..sim-
ply because they belong t o a different dialect".
2 2 ~ u e b e n e r1965,b. C f . a l s o Weinstein 2 9 , ugakov 379, Bogorodickij 332.

32
an "overcareful diction teacher" a s a norm f o r everyday conversational
s t y l e , there does seem t o be a general concern t h a t the learner avoid
variations i n h i s own pronunciation, a t l e a s t u n t i l he knows enough o f
the language t o use them i n s t i n c t i v e l y . A s Sweet put it (42), "his
text-books should, as f a r a s possible, give a uniform pronunciation, no
matter how a r b i t r a r y the selection may be".
In f a c t , Sweet's description (40) of the "medium colloquial s t y l e
of pronunciation" a t which t h e learner should aim is probably the best
adapted t o the objectives of the audio-lingual approach:
It i s painful and incongruous t o hear t h e rapid pronunciation
of clipped speech reproduced i n a slow, solemn, o r a t o r i c a l tem-
po. On t h e other hand, it i s much more i r r a t i o n a l t o teach a
foreigner pronunciations which never occur i n the colloquial
speech of natives. The b e s t general advice i s therefore: never L
be o r a t o r i c a l ; be colloquial, but not too colloquial.
We may conclude, then, t h a t i n the audio-lingual approach material
f o r auding should be presented a t a moderate, conversational tempo, un-
d i s t o r t e d e i t h e r by excessive speed o r a r t i f i c i a l slowness, and possibly
graded i n the i n i t i a l stages. There should be a natural amount of redun-
dancy t o f a c i l i t a t e comprehension. Style should be t h a t normally used i n
conversation between educated speakers of a standard d i a l e c t , avoiding
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 vulgar speech.
Material presented f o r speaking should not depart from conversational
s t y l e o r tempo, but need not include t h e variations i n pronunciation t h a t
the learner might notice i n auding.
3.23 Choice of vehicle. In 3.1 we saw the d e s i r a b i l i t y of teaching audial
s k i l l s primarily through the use of phrases and sentences r a t h e r than iso-
l a t e d sounds o r words. We have a l s o concluded t h a t material should be pre-

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 M o q m ma.noro~",
writes Polovnikova (134), " Y A ~ ~ T C RC TIepBbIX AHeR 3aCTaBMTb CTyAeHTa r0-
BOPMTb IIO-PYCCICM, WMTOM rOBOPMTb T T ~ ~ B M J I ~ H O " .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~aldman156-157. Cf. also Anisfeld 113.
25~otivationof 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".

ing and fmftatfng, involves t h e use of questions and answers (or commands
and answers) on the p a r t of both teacher and learner. Probably the main
disadvantage i n t h i s vehicle is the extra demands it makes upon the inge-
nuity of t h e teacher, and the greater danger of lapsing i n t o a r t i f i c i a l
speech patterns i n attempts t o create various communication s i t u a t i o n s .
Singing is another vehicle t h a t has been sometimes suggested f o r use
i n the audio-lingual programme, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n teaching pronunciation.
I t i s unsuitable i n t h e case of Russian, however, not only because of its
lack of intonation patterns, but because of t h e variations i n the phono-
logfcal system which ~t involves.
The dialogue, then, is apparently the most useful vehicle f o r pres-
entation of audial material i n the audio-lingual approach, provided t h a t
it i s not allowed t o remain a t the level of a fixed passage f o r memoriza-
t i o n , but is f u l l y exploited i n terms of recombination and adaptation t o
the personal experience of the learner.
3.24 S m a r y . The audio-lingual approach t o auding and speaking and the
factors involved therein may be summarized as follows:
3.241 Differences between the s e t s of habits of the native and target
languages constitute a major hindrance t o the learning of a second lan-
guage,and are f i r s t encountered i n the problem of auditory discrimination.
3.242 Since auding has a d i r e c t influence on the other primary s k i l l s , it
should be taught f i r s t , using larger u n i t s of speech such as sentences and
phrases.
3.243 Speech production likewise should not be taught exclusively by iso-
l a t e d sounds, but i n sequences and sentences, including suprasegmental

features of s t r e s s , juncture, and intonation.
3.244 Materlal f o r auding and speaking should be presented i n the normal
conversational s t y l e and tempo of educated speakers of a standard d i a l e c t
without d i s t o r t i o n s o r extremes; pronunciation i n speaking should be stan-
dardized. The dialogue, i f properly used, i s probably the most useful ve-
h i c l e f o r presentation of audial material, but should be supplemented by
personal adaptation t o the l e a r n e r ' s experience.

4. ASSIMILATION PROCEDURES
4.1 SUB-CONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION.
4.11 Practice i n imitation. "In the teaching situation1', writes Simon
Belasco (18), " d r i l l s must be drawn up t o provide the student with enough
practice so t h a t he can acquire the correct habits necessary f o r speaking
and understandmg the target language". This audio-lingual goal i s fur-
t h e r c l a r i f i e d by Carroll (1070) as automaticity-I1i.e., making correct
production so habitual t h a t it does not need t o be attended t o i n the
process of speaking".
In 2.24 it was established t h a t i n the audio-lingual approach lan-
guage is taught as a s k i l l , and as such requires a considerable period of
time devoted t o practice i n using it. This a t t i t u d e was further endorsed
__*-
teaching p r o c e ~ ~ r ~ s ,a t l e a s t as f a r as the spoken language is concerned,
and i t s praises have long been sung by enthusiasts of the oral-aural ap-
proach. "Lfimitation, 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
.-
in 3.11, where we saw t h a t l a n g u v e , from the audio-lingual viewpoint,
consists pre-eminently of a seq of habits d i f f e r e n t from the learner's
'!
1 l ~ f .a l s o Brooks ' definition of p a t t e r n practice (146).
1
2 ~ f .Palmer (1922,47): "The term imitation i s not adequate t o express t h e
process by which [ t h e learner] should work; what we require i s absolute
mimicry".
native s e t . Thus Brooks defines language-learning (46) as "a change i n
performance t h a t occurs under the conditions of practice" (cf. also Ban-
athy e t a l . 37) .
~ e n c eimitation, o r mimicry, has become a key word i n audio-lingual

acquisition d'une langue1', wrote Paul Passy half-a-century ago i n h i s
Me'thode Directe (quoted in Palmer 1921,3). More recently a Russian spe-
c i a l i s t has concluded:
Experience has demonstrated t h e value of thorough d r i l l i n g i n
pronunciation a t the very s t a r t of a language course. Since it
i s more d i f f i c u l t t o eliminate bad habits than t o l e a r n good
ones, it appears worthwhile t o begin a course by spending some
tlme on concentrated pronunciation p r a c t i c e .
One o r two of those concerned have expressed the importance of con-
s t a n t l y reviewing material t h a t has already been practised. " I t is not
only the number of times an item i s repeated t h a t counts", writes Mackey
(311), "it is a l s o how these repetitions are distributed throughout the
course". And he adds: "An item repeated many times i n t h e f i r s t lesson
may be e n t i r e l y forgotten i f it i s never repeated again" (311-312) .4
4.12 Practice in discrimination. We saw i n 3.12, however, t h a t speak-
ing i s d i r e c t l y dependent on one's auding capacity, and t h a t the learner
must hear the sounds correctly f i r s t i n order t o be able t o reproduce them
with accuracy. Thus, even i f pronunciation exercises are introduced "at
the very s t a r t of a language course" and given continued emphasis through-
out, they w i l l not f u l f i l t h e i r purpose unless they a r e accompanied o r
preceded by corresponding d r i l l s i n auding.
A favourite exercise for both auding and speaking i s the contrastive
drill, i n which closely related---but nevertheless distinct--phonemes and
phoneme-sequences of the target language a r e juxtaposed so t h a t the con-
3 ~ e n s o n78. 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 paragraph).

trast between them becomes more perceptible to the learner. Thus Polov-
nikova (139) recommends " y r r p a x ~ e ~ ~ gH a P ~ ~ J I M Y ~ H M ~CJIOB, IcoTopbIe 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@lHe~MseCICofi
CMCTeMbI POAHOrO 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 p h ~ n e m e . ~
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 ~ ~ M MT 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 T3ByKOBOrO
CTPOR" .
5 ~ f .also L6on1s "second type of contrast" (~6on70).
6~alatalization,described by Reformatskij (9)as " c a ~ b ~ f ic y l u e c ~ s e ~ H b n 210-
MeHT 3ByICOBOrO CTPOR, ...OCHOBa PYCCICOR @ ~ H O J I O ~ M Y ~ C K O ~C M C T ~ 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.

Dictation has also been suggested as a useful exercise f o r auditory
discriminatlon. Huebener (1965,77) gives " l i s t e n m g purposefully" and
"distinguishing 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 general concensus i s evident as t o the gradation of i m -
i t a t i o n - and discrimination-exercises, some i n f e r from the significant
r o l e of auditory comprehension (see 3.12) t h a t d r i l l s i n sound-recogni-
t i o n and ear-training would come f i r s t ; others propose t h e opposite or-
der. While Brooks (53) puts "mimicry" before recognition and discrim-
ination, Palmer (1922,45) has the l a t t e r two preceded only by a form of
sub-conscious vocalization i n the ear-training process:
...t h e teacher a r t i c u l a t e s various sounds, e i t h e r s i n g l y o r
i n combination with others; we l i s t e n t o these sounds and
make unconscious e f f o r t s t o reproduce them by saying them t o
ourselves. This i s t h e most passive and most n a t u r a l form
of ear-training ....
We must then seek t o recognize o r i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n sounds
and t o distinguish them from others.
This stage is then followed by a r t i c u l a t i o n and mimicry.
Hockett (1950,265) maintains t h a t "the natural and most e f f i c i e n t
way is t o develop a t one and the same time a b i l i t y t o pronounce correct-
l y and t o hear correctly" (see also 3.13), but t h i s is a general r u l e and
in terms of i t s actual application one s k i l l would probably be taught as
dependent upon the other.
4.2 CONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION.
4.21 ExpZanation versus imitation. "That pronunciation can be learnt by
mere imitation" Sweet regards as a popular f a l l a c y , inasmuch as "the move-

ments of the tongue i n speaking a r e even quicker and more complicated
than those of the f o i l i n fencing, and a r e , besides, mostly concealed
from sight" (Sweet 5; c f . a l s o Jespersen 7-8). Leon (75) agrees, and
also notes t h a t "most adult students want t o understand what they a r e
asked t o imitate1', recommending "several types of explanation".
Not a l l audio-lingual s p e c i a l i s t s approve of other than sub-con-
scious means of assimilation, as might be gathered from 4.11. Mackey
s t a t e s the problem as follows:
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) maintains t h a t " t h i s stimulus-response view of language
stems from a formerly t r a d i t i o n a l view" and t h a t "it is a fallacious
interpretation of language learning today1'.
Palmer has suggested t h a t during the pre-reading stage of an
audially based programme t h e pupils1 homework might consist of "exer-
cises designed t o give the pupils ' r i g h t notions about the nature 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) "teaches us the difference between two or more
sounds which resemble each other, and between a given foreign sound and
i t s nearest native equivalent1'.
In 4.12 we saw the need f o r sxercises i n perception of phonemic con-
t r a s t between closely related sounds i n the t a r g e t language. But surely
8~ackey125. 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 without involving some understanding of the phonolog-
i c a l system of t h a t language. Merle L . Perkins (115) makes the following
important observation:
Early i n most [language] courses t h e student i s expected t o
learn t h e sow-ds of t h e new language, but if he has no infor-
mation about how they a r e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e first place, he
i s t o a great extent carrying out t h e assignment blindly.
Benson's c o n t r a s t - d r i l l s on Russian phonemes are t o be preceded by "a b r i e f ,
c l e a r survey of the main p e c u l i a r i t i e s of Russian sounds" (Benson 78). Wayne
Fisher (43) recommends using the f i r s t c l a s s session as an orientation
period where "the i n s t r u c t o r can point out the areas i n which English pho-
nation i s l i k e l y t o i n t e r f e r e with Russian phonation11. This, according
t o Claude P . Lemieux (135), w i l l help t h e learner r e t a i n the auding and
speaking a b i l i t i e s which he has learned. l o
On t h e other hand, one who apparently supports t h e "associative"
theory of language-learning expresses the opinion t h a t "the place of l i n -
g u i s t i c s is behind the classroom teacher. .... The classroom teacher
should know of the existence of s c i e n t i f i c l i n g u i s t i c s but without neces-
s a r i l y having t o understand it", although t h e same writer believes t h a t
"those who t r a i n teachers ...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 Perkins ( 1 1 4 ) , who recommends "a discussion of speech events a t
t h e very beginning" and "information about phonetics and phonemics be-
fore t h e first lesson about the 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 languages a r e e a s i e r t o learn by prac-
t i c e than from r u l e s . But r u l e s a s s i s t and strengthen t h e knowledge
derived from practice" (J . Comenius , The Great Didactic [ ~ i d a c t i c a
~ a ~ n a ] ,t r . M.W. Keatinge, c i t e d i n Brooks 138).

above a l l i n phonetics" (Strevens 1962a,73) . l l There does seem t o be a
greater volume of writing i n support of not only the teacher's linguistic
awareness, but t h a t of the learners a s well, 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 the phonological 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
native-language interference i n auditory discrimination of target-language
phonemes constitutes a major d i f f i c u l t y f o r the second-language learner.
Moshe Anisfeld (118) comments on the problem as follows:
Often a beginning student 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 close phoneme i n h i s native
tongue; i . e . he c l a s s i f i e s t h e stimulus input i n t o t h e wrong cat-
egory. .... It i s therefore important f o r t h e foreign language
learner t o build up phonemic categories appropriate t o t h e new
language.
In other words, the learner needs t o be aware t h a t the phonemic system of
the target language i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of h i s own. The logical way t o
achieve such awareness, according t o the applied l i n g u i s t s , i s by means of
a contrastive analysis of the two systems involved ( c f . Banathy e t a l . 55).
This process, a l s o known as "bilingual comparison" ( c f . Strevens 1962b,48)
i s extensively treated i n Lado's Linguistics Across Cultures, where he
speaks of such comparison as "a means of predicting and describing the pro-
nunciation problems of the speakers of a given language learning another"
(Lado 11) .12
'Iv .A. Bogorodickij ( 331) notes t h a t " ~ H ~ K O M C T B OC @ I ~ M o J I o ~ ~ ~ ~~OM3HOIIIeHMR
H e AOJDKHO CWITaTbCR JIMIIIHMM M AJIR HaqIaJibHOrO ~ ~ ~ M T ~ J I R "without reference
t o any impartation 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~IIJMXCR]".
12cf. a l s o Reformatskij 6, Polovnikova 133, P o l i t zer 66-67.

Capelle (59) notes t h a t "la plupart des theories linguistiques sou-
lignent l ' l n d i v i d u a l i t e e t l e s caract2res propres de chaque langue". Un-
derlying the principle of contrastive analysis i s the recognition t h a t
the comparison of any two languages w i l l reveal a s e t of differences un-
l i k e t h a t between any two other languages, and therefore t h a t "the typi-
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 learners] may well be
e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t from those of another group, depending on the mother
tongue of the pupils" (Strevens l962b ,48) .
This constitutes something of a problem In the teaching of Russian
i n North American universities, where a great number of students who
take up t h e language come from Slavonic, but not necessarily Russian,
families. Differences between closely r e l a t e d languages are no l e s s
d i f f i c u l t than those between t o t a l l y unrelated ones, sometimes even more
so, since it i s the very s i m i l a r i t i e s i n sound t h a t often cause the most
confusion ( c f . Anisfeld's quotation a t the beginning of 4.22). l 4 For
t h i s reason t h e use of cognates i n teaching sounds 1s generally frowned
upon (e.g. Lemieux 135), although a t l e a s t one person (Benson 80) sees
cognates as a useful means of contrasting sound-systems.
3~ .K. KrupskaJa (410--411) describes a Fren& -language-programme i n Geneva,
Switzerland, which she attended 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 KaXliOfi HauMOHaJIbHOCTM.... KpOMe TOrO, 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 ~ ~HamOHaJIbHOCTM. .... a J I R ICZWlTOR HaIJ4OHaJIbHOCTM 6 b m CBOM
~ Y ~ ~ H L / I I C I / I ,BbIRCHRIOuMe, B YeM p a 3 H M y a B CTPJXTYpe CJIOB, MX C O Y ~ T ~ H M M " .
1 4 ~ v e nstudents from Russian-speaking families a r e usually familiar with
only a regional d i a l e c t (other than t h e Moscow norm); t h i s g r e a t e r sim-
i l a r i t y can add f u r t h e r t o t h e interference i n mastering correct speech
p a t t e r n s . Cf. a l s o Reformatskij (12): " ~ J I ~ M ~ H T ~ ICXOACTBa-Ie TOX-
AeCTBa---COAepXaT TascMe 3JIeMeHTbI HeTOXAeCTBa, KOTOpbIe 3 a q a C T y l o T p y A H e e
l7peOAOJIeTb, q e M RBHdIe H e T O m e C T B a B3aPMH3 Y y W b I X R ~ ~ I I C O B ".

In f a c t , some l i n g u i s t s recommend considerable audial practice i n
contrasting similar phonemes I n the native and t a r g e t languages, much
l i k e the contrastive d r i l l s f o r related phonemes whithin the target
language i t s e l f (see 4.12). Sigmund S . Birkenmayer, i n an a r t i c l e on
Russian pattern d r i l l s , defines "contrastive d r i l l " as "perceiving and
imitating the difference between the elements of a foreign language and
those of our own language" (Birkenmayer 43). This type of d r i l l , a t
l e a s t as f a r as using words t o i l l u s t r a t e the contrast rather than s i m -
ply juxtaposing the phonemes i n question, is described by Leon (71) as
"an excellent teaching device but ...a poor t e s t i n g technique1' since
"the student not only has one vowel t o compare with another but also
many other acoustic cues which w i l l enable him quickly t o recognize
the English word, even i f he i s unable t o analyze the differences be-
tween the two vowels". I f t h i s be the case, however, such bilingual
c o n t r a s t - d r i l l s would be more useful i n t h e l e a r n e r ' s assimilation of
phonemic sequences and suprasegmental features ( c f . 3.13, 3.14) rather
than i n h i s learning of individual phonemes.
We may conclude, then, that contrastive analysis i s a valuable
element i n the cognitive aspect of the audio-lingual approach, i . e . ,
i n making the learner aware of the differences between the phonological
system of the t a r g e t language and t h a t of h i s own, and helping t o pre-
vent h i s native habits from interfering with the assimilation of those
of t h e new language.
4.23 The use of phonetic transcription. In 2.23 we considered a nwn-
ber of arguments--stemming chiefly from the predominantly visual 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 society t h e w r i t t e n word i s emphasized a t every t u r n .
Students consequently a r e apt t o work more efficiently---even
a t learning pronunciation-if they have something t o look at
a s they work, instead of working e n t i r e l y through imitation.
Unfortunately, most t r a d i t i o n a l writing systems a r e not suf-
f i c i e n t l y regular t o be used f o r t h i s purpose without confus-
ing t h e i s s u e . . .. 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 Jespersen were both ardent advocates of t r a n s c r i p t i o n ( c f .
Sweet's quotation i n 2.23). Cf. a l s o Mackey (265): "If...I t h e l e a r -
n e r ] has had so much experience with t h e w r i t t e n language a s t o have
t o see a word i n writing before being able t o pronounce it, phonetic
notation may become a necessity".
1 7 ~ h i si s a most f a m i l i a r s i g h t i n t r a d i t i o n a l Russian textbooks, includ-
ing some of t h e more recent ones. Cf. f o r example Fayer 2-lb, Gronicka
& Bates-Yakobson 2--6, Doherty & Markus 6-7 ( a l l of which were published
between 1958 and 1960). Lunt ( 4 ) uses transcription a s well a s trans-
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 ~ sto 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 possible" (~espersen172/173).
''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" (~espersen166).

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~nderthe heading "Hard and Soft Vowels", Fayer (15) gives the follow-
ing (mis)information: "If the tongue is raised against the palate
when a, a, 0 , or y is pronounced, the sound becomes softened or pal-
atalized. sf is thus a palatalized a; e, a paltalized 3; &, a pala-
talized 0 ; and 10, a palatalized Y".

4.243 Training i n pronunciation and discrimination may be f a c i l i t a t e d by
an explanation of the new phonological system i n contrast t o t h a t of the
native language.
4.244 The learner must be made aware---by means of contrastive analysis-
of the phonological differences between the t a r g e t language and h i s native
tongue, so t h a t he may prevent h i s native h a b i t s from interfering with h i s
assimilation of the habits of the new language.
4.245 The need f o r graphic support (see 2.23) is probably best met by a
phonemic transcription without reference t o t r a d i t i o n a l orthography (at
l e a s t i n i t i a l l y ) , although, as a temporary aid, the transcription must not
be overemphasized. In the case of Russian, extreme care must be taken i f
the C y r i l l i c orthography is used alone.

5. TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS: PRESENTATION
5.1 PRESENTATION OF AUDIAL AND GRAPHIC SKILLS.
5.11 PedagogicaZ orientation. The age-group a t which instructional ma-
t e r i a l is directed and the length of time expected t o be devoted t o it
vary somewhat from method t o method. Since these a r e factors which have
some influence on the preparation of the textbooks and other materials,
it might be well t o compare them before evaluating the methods themselves.
William Cornyn s Beginning Russian (COR) containing t h i r t y - f i v e
"lessons", was s p e c i f i c a l l y written f o r an intensive f i r s t - y e a r Russian
programme a t Yale University (see COR Introduction ix-x, also Benson 78).
Modem Russian, by Clayton Dawson, Charles Bidwell, and Assya Humesky ( D B H ) ~
i s a two-volume course of t h i r t y - s i x u n i t s intended f o r a university pro-
gramme l a s t i n g two years (see DBH/T 1 ) . Basic ConversationaZ Russian by
Gordon Fairbanks and Richard Leed (FBL) i s divided i n t o twelve "grammar-"
and twenty-four "conversation-units". I t i s aimed a t students i n e i t h e r
high-school o r university, and "may be covered i n anywhere from one semes-
t e r of a f a i r l y intensive college course t o two years of a l e s s intensive
high school course" (FBL v i i ) , depending upon the number of hours available
per week.
The Audio-Lingual Materials (ALM) course with fourteen units, prepared
l ~ h r e e - l e t t e rabbreviations a r e used i n reference t o t h e methods under dis-
cussion. The l e t t e r "T" following an abbreviation (except COR) r e f e r s
t o t h e teaching-manual provided with t h e respective textbook.
2 ~ i d w e l lis given a s an author f o r t h e f i r s t volume, and a s a consultant
f o r t h e second volume.

by the s t a f f of the Modern Language Materials Development Center, "may be
used by any beginning c l a s s i n the junior o r senior hlgh school", although
"it must be pointed out t h a t the f i r s t - l e v e l course has been prepared f o r
classes beginning foreign language study i n grades seven, eight, o r nine"
(ALM/T 5 ) . I t i s t o be completed i n e i t h e r one o r two years, according t o
the number of c l a s s sessions per week.
ALM, DBH, and FBL a r e provided with supplementary manuals f o r the
teacher o r i n s t r ~ c t o r ; ~COR 1s not. Publishers supply tapes and/or discs
f o r laboratory use with a l l books except COR.
5.12 Linguistic orientation. The primary aim of the methods presented i n
a l l four textbooks, as s t a t e d o r implied i n t h e i r respective introductions,
i s a degree of mastery of Russian as a spoken language. Hence a l l four
recognize e i t h e r openly o r implicitly the primacy of the spoken language
over the written. For example, the second paragraph of C O R ' s introduction
begins as follows:
The method of teaching implled i n t h e material of t h i s book r e s t s
on t h e proposition t h a t t h e quickest and most accurate means of
a t t a i n i n g fluency i n a language i s t o begfn by speaking it.4
And i n the f i r s t paragraph of the ALM introduction we find:
The program i s based on t h e conviction 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 primary importance.
3 ~ h eFBL Teacher's Manual was not published u n t i l 1966, two years a f t e r t h e
textbook was issued. Hence it should be borne i n mind t h a t enlightening
information i n t h i s manual a s t o t h e application of audio-lingual con-
cepts t o t h e course was not available a t f i r s t t o t h e language-teacher.
The tapes were issued i n t h e same year a s t h e textbook, however.
'COR i x .

FBL i s t h e only method which makes a s p e c i a l appeal i n i t s introduc-
t l o n t o those students whose i n t e r e s t l i e s more In reading Russlan: they
a r e advised t o " t r e a t t h i s course exactly a s do those who wish t o develop
a c t i v e control of the spoken language" f o r the following reasons:
...f i r s t , t h e most efficient method of developing thorough and
fluent reading a b i l l t y i s t o begm t h e study of a language by
l e a r n m g t o speak i t ; second, t h e 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 unless one has t h e b u i l t - i n ca-
pacity of contrasting l ~ t e r a r ys t y l e wlth t h e s t y l e of every-
day run of t h e m i l l speech ....6
This corresponds with the arguments put forward by Hockett and Strevens
i n 2 . 2 5 f o r learning 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 following statement by Nelson Brooks
appears i n the introduction t o the ALM manual:
I n t h e audio-lmgual phase language functions purely on i t s own.
The vlsual-graphic phase i s a n c i l l a r y t o language and important
t o i t , but it can e a s i l y be foregone, as it i s constantly i n t h e
d a i l y l i f e of everyone. All four s k i l l s should be taught i n a
c a r e f u l l y prescribed sequence and proportion of a l i o t t e d time.
Although the introductions t o FBL and COR do imply an "audio-lingual
phase" before any graphic activity--either reading o r writing-is under-
taken by the learner, ALM and DBH make s p e c i f i c recommendation of i t , the
former more strongly than the l a t t e r . A s DBH ( v i i ) explains:
Language learning . . . p roperiy begins with l i s t e n i n g and repeating
and only l a t e r proceeds t o peading and writing. 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 textbook i s acknowi-
edged a s being " t o l a y a foundation upon wnlch nay be developed r e a l
fluency i n a l l of t h e language s k i l l s : a u r a l comprehension, speaking,
reading and writing".

stages a r e of primary importance i f t h e student is t o gain even
a minimum control of spoken Russian; f o r t h i s reason w e recommend
strongly t h a t most material be presented and practiced with books
closed, -both i n c l a s s and i n t h e laboratory.
ALM, on t h e other hand, goes so f a r a s t o propose t h a t textbook d i s t r i b u -
t i o n be postponed f o r a period of three months s o t h a t "the f i r s t three
o r four u n i t s can be mastered audiolingually" (ALM v i i ) . Three reasons
f o r temporary exclusion of a l l graphic work a r e c i t e d : a) audial s k i l l s
involve h a b i t s , and a l l a v a i l a b l e time should be devoted t o p r a c t i s i n g
these h a b i t s ; b) written symbols i n t e r f e r e with t h e learning of audial
s k i l l s ; c) audial foundation s i m p l i f i e s the learning of graphic s k i l l s
Assimilation of h a b i t s w i l l be discussed i n Chapter 6 . Let us see
how interference from writing is t r e a t e d i n t h e other textbooks under
consideration.
5.14 The use of transcription i n presentation. In 2 . 2 3 we saw the de-
s i r a b i l i t y , from the pedagogical point of view, of having some s o r t of
v i s u a l support f o r the letter-bound second-language l e a r n e r i n high-school
o r u n i v e r s i t y . In 4 . 2 3 we concluded t h a t t h i s i s best provided by a pho-
nemic t r a n s c r i p t i o n , a s t h e d i s t o r t i o n s of t r a d i t i o n a l orthographies i n -
t e r f e r e with learning correct audial h a b i t s . A s noted i n 5.11, learners
a r e expected t o begin the ALM book before reaching high-school, when they
a r e not y e t s o "letter-bound" a s t o require e x t r a v i s u a l support. Hence
ALM can more successfully promote an "audio-lingual phase" with the com-
p l e t e exclusion of graphic a c t i v i t y a t the beginning of the course; t h i s
n a t u r a l l y obviates t h e need f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n , a s once t h e learner has a
r e l a t i v e mastery of the Russian sound-system, he is not so e a s i l y d i s -
t r a c t e d by orthographic i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .

The other three methods, designed f o r use a t the high-school and/or
university l e v e l s , do employ t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n varying degrees. Presum-
ably DBH's r u l i n g of "most material . . . pr a c t i c e d with books closed" would
s t i l l permit the student limited use of h i s eyes i n t h e i n i t i a l stages.
COR and FBL both use a phonemic t r a n s c r i p t i o n (although t h e two a r e
not i d e n t i ~ a l ) ; ~t h a t found i n DBH is p a r t i a l l y allophonic a s f a r a s the
vowels a r e concerned, giving [a] as the non-pre-tonic variant of the pho-
neme /a/.
A l l t h r e e methods introduce t h e C y r i l l i c orthography along with t h e
t r a n s c r i p t i o n from the very s t a r t . Although t h i s v i o l a t e s Jespersenls
p r i n c i p l e of a transcription-only period ( J e s p e r s e ~168-173; c f . 4.23),
there is l e s s danger of confusion i n t h e case of Russian because of the
considerable difference between Latin and C y 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 against interference during t h e "intermediate per-
iod" when graphic symbols a r e introduced: "In d i f f e r e n t ways, both t h e
unfamiliar C y r i l l i c l e t t e r shapes and those t h a t resemble t h e familiar
Roman ones w i l l cause interference. T e l l t h e students it w i l l take
time t o l e a r n t o r e a c t properly t o unfamiliar I.etters . Explain t h a t
they a r e l i k e l y t o respond i n a t y p i c a l l y English fashion t o those l e t -
t e r s which look f a m i l i a r , and caution them t o be on guard against this.
i n s l s t t h a t t h e present main objective i s s t i l l t o understand and speak,
and t h a t they must continue t o t r u s t t h e i r e a r s r a t h e r than t h e i r eyes"
(ALM v i i ) .
9 ~ h emain difference between t h e two t r a n s c r i p t ~ o n si s t h e manner i n which
paired p a l a t a l i z e d consonants a r e represented. FBL ( l i k e DBH) uses a
hook below t h e l e t t e r t o i n d i c a t e p a l a t a l i z a t i o n ( e. g . /q/i/q/) ; COB
prefers a following j instead ( e .g. l d j/lj/mj / ) . The l a t t e r , although
lending i t s e l f nicely t o a morphological analysls of Russian verbal con-
jugatlons ( s e e COR 83), 1 s a source of confusion t o t h e l e a r n e r (and,
sometimes, t h e teacher) because it might mislead one t o suppose t h a t
it represents two sounds (consonant plus jod, f o r example) r a t h e r than
a s i n g l e p a l a t a l i z e d consonant. Cf. t h e contrast of /?el/ "[he] s a t
down1' and /sjel/ "[he] ate". Hence FBL1s and DBH1s use of t h e hook i s
preferable.

cause, a s mentioned i n 4.23, the C y r i l l i c alphabet i s a t l e a s t somewhat
consistent i n ~ t sirregularities, which the learner would presumably be
able t o detect by comparison with the transcription. I t should not be
forgotten, however, t h a t the use of Russian orthography from the beginning
of the course i s merely a concession t o the gradual development of graphic
s k i l l s ; audial s k i l l s themselves would probably be more effectively taught
without the simultaneous burden of an i r r e g u l a r writing-system, however
consistent it may be.
The three methods d i f f e r as t o the length of time and the purpose
f o r which the transcription is used. DBH introduces a l l new material i n
transcription f o r the f i r s t ten u n i t s , and r e t a i n s ~t throughout f o r pro-
nunciation-drills. FBL, on the other hand, provides only the f i r s t four
conversation u n i t s i n transcription, and the pronunciation-drills i n the
appendix f o r which it is also used are expected t o be covered by the end
of the s i x t h conversation-unit. COR employs transcription f o r new senten-
ces up t o the tenth lesson ( a t which time pronunciation exercises a r e dis-
continued), and continues t o use i t f o r word-lists r i g h t t o the end of the
book.
None of the three methods requires the learner t o write the transcrip-
tion-symbols, o r t o use them f o r more than a sentence a t a time i n reading;
t h i s would follow Meras' advice i n 4.23. In each case the transcription
i s used merely as a supporting device t o f a c i l i t a t e mastery of the sound-
-system. I t does not replace C y r i l l i c orthography f o r the development of
graphic s k i l l s ( c f . DBH/T 16).

5.2 PRESENTATION OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SKILLS.
5.21 Context of presentation: choice of vehicle. Two a l t e r n a t i v e ve-
h i c l e s of presentation were discussed i n 3.23: a) unconnected sentences,
and b) t h e dialogue. The former is featured i n COR; t h e l a t t e r is adop-
ted i n t h e others. l o None of the methods advocates song a s a vehicle.
ALM and FBL provide one dialogue per u n i t , containing about f i f t e e n
t o twenty utterances each; a f t e r Lesson 4, DBH has two dialogues per unit,
with about ten utterances per dialogue.ll I n each method the dialogues
serve t o i l l u s t r a t e specific grammatical points t o be practised through
following d r i l l s , and a r e thus advised t o be taken before other items i n
the u n i t . l 2 DBH precedes a l l dialogues with a "Preparation f o r Conversa-
1•‹cf. DBH/T ( 5 ) which offers t h e following i n support of t h e use of dia-
logue: " ( 1 ) it offers the best p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r introducing and
teaching spoken language patterns i n a l l persons; ( 2 ) it i s t h e eas-
i e s t type of material t o memorize and provides t h e g r e a t e s t opportu-
n i t i e s f o r immediate application i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s ; (3) it is
a dramatic way of bringing out c u l t u r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences
between Soviet society and our own; and ( 4 ) it provides f o r t h e intro-
duction of various s t y l e s of speech t h a t could not be so e a s i l y re-
f l e c t e d i n prose passages o r basic sentences" ( c f . 3.23).
l l l t i s noted, however, t h a t i n t h e ALM method "each dialog i s divided in-
t o two r e l a t e d sections of h a l f dialogsu (ALM/T 11). This i s a move
toward t h e more stringent conditions imposed by Brooks (244), who spe-
c i f i e d t h a t "if a dialogue goes on f o r more than h a l f a dozen utteran-
ces it i s broken up i n t o p a r t s , each u n i f i e d and containing not more
than four o r f i v e utterances; t h e s e p a r t s a r e learned separatelyu.
While t h i s may be unnecessarily r e s t r i c t i v e , t h e author, along with
others who have worked with the FBL m a t e r i a l s , has concluded t h a t un-
interrupted s t r i n g s of f i f t e e n o r more sentences a r e t o o long f o r
p r a c t i c a l use, e i t h e r i n t h e classroom o r i n t h e language-laboratory.
I 2 c f , f o r example DBH/T ( 2 5 ) : "It i s important f o r t h e teacher t o r e a l i z e
t h e necessity of presenting t h e ...Conversations during t h e f i r s t two
sessions. With t h e exception of t h e Pronunciation 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 lesson vocabulary, a l l other material depends
on t h e introduction of t h e Conversations, since they contain t h e basic
l e x i c a l and s t r u c t u r a l items t o be practiced i n t h e lesson".

tion" t o introduce new vocabulary and s t r u c t u r e s , and follows them with
"Basic Sentence Patterns" which "serve a s a bridge between the Conversa-
tions and the s t r u c t u r a l d r i l l s " and "provide carefully organized s e t s
of sentences t h a t i l l u s t r a t e the grammatical material of the lesson and
t h e lexical material of current and past lessons" (DBH/T 6 ) . This i n
e f f e c t helps t o f r e e the dialogue i t s e l f from having t o incorporate a l l
the grammatical points t o be d r i l l e d , and thus allows a greater natural-
ness of s t y l e .
In addition t o the dialogues, ALM supplies several of i t s u n i t s with
"recombination narratives" (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 material previously presented is recombined t o form new u t t e r -
ances. In Units 7 and 14 a narrative replaces t h e dialogue ( c f . ALM/T
26). ALM is also the only method t h a t devotes s p e c i f i c e f f o r t t o the
subject of dialogue adaptation, the objective of which i s "to r e l a t e
the dialog sentences and s i t u a t i o n t o t h e personal experience of the
students and t o aid memorizationtt (ALM/T 14). This consists (in the ALM
method) of questions aimed a t the student, using the vocabulary and struc-
t u r e of t h e preceding dialogue. Model answers a r e given i n the book, but
the learner i s encouraged t o formulate h i s own, within the l i m i t s of vo-
cabulary and s t r u c t u r e already acquired.
In COR t h e dialogue i s replaced by a s e r i e s of twenty-five t o t h i r t y
sentences i l l u s t r a t i n g a specific grammatical point, and followed l a t e r i n
the lesson by a review s e r i e s of f o r t y t o f i f t y sentences. (These lists
I
13cf. Brooks' second quotation 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: dialect, style, 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 Instructor'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 ~ MM O C K B M Y ~ ~ ~ ,OAHafCO 6e3 MCKJ'CCTBeHHbM, 6 ~ -
BeHHbIX rIPOM3HOIIIeHMZi, B P O A e T 0 BM. lu T 0 , K 0 H e s H 0 BM.
K 0 H III H 0 M T.rI., KOTOPbIe B03HMKaK)T y I"paMOTHHKOB IIOA BJDlRHMeM
~rnrpacX1MM".

toes" and repeating t h e material a t t h e proper speed, he can
j u s t make h i s utterance i n the space provided. Thus he i s
obliged t o approach a near-native pace from t h e beginning.15
I t must be remembered, a s Rivers (201) pointed out, t h a t "normal
speed does not mean rapid native speech". l 6 The FBL tapes might have
been improved by recording t h e conversations a t a s l i g h t l y slower "nor-
mal speed", and being more careful t o avoid s l u r r i n g and other d i s t o r -
t i o n s . Brooks (53) s t r e s s e d t h a t "the learner ...is 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 learns" (see 3.21), and DBH points out
the need f o r " s l i g h t l y g r 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 than t h a t of in-
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 four methods have adopted the "col-
loquial" o r everyday speech of educated speakers of a standard d i a l e c t ,
apparently Muscovite.17 The ALM manual (11) comments on t h i s a s follows:
The language of t h e dialogs i s t h e standard, authentic, contem-
porary, informal language t h a t would be used i n equivalent c i r -
cumstances by native speakers of t h e same age ...a s t h e American
students i n t h e c l a s s . The w r i t e r s have t r i e d t o avoid obvious
regional p e c u l i a r i t i e s ....
In the case of ALM, however, the "same age" r e f e r s t o the junior-high-
1 5 ~ ~ ~ / ~31. The same i s t r u e of t h e FBL dialogue-recordings.
'%ee f u l l quotation i n 3.21. Cf. a l s o Polovnikova's suggestion of t h e
grading of tempo i n t h e i n i t i a l stages ( 3 . 2 1 ) .
1 7 ~ h e r ei s some question as t o t h e period and type of Muscovite d i a l e c t
chosen a s t h e norm for these textbooks, e s p e 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 given a s coalescing i n t o [i] i n
unstressed p o s i t i o n , when i n f a c t t h e unstressed variant of /e/ (af-
t e r p a l a t a l i z e d consonants) i s a c t u a l l y considered t o be more of an
[I] i n present-day Moscow Russian, t h e [ i ] being regarded as an older
form. ALM a t l e a s t recognizes some distinction-"unstressed e and
t h e unstressed M a r e pronounced aZmost a l i k e " (ALM/T 38; i t a l i c s J . W . )
--without specifying t h e nature of t h e difference.

-school level (12-15 years o l d ) , and thus t h e s t y l e of t h e dialogues is
not r e a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r learners of high-school and university age. l8
The s t y l e s of DBH and FBL a r e more s u i t e d t o t h e university atmo-
sphere. Dialogues i n t h e former centre mainly around university l i f e i n
Moscow; those of t h e l a t t e r around the t r a v e l s of an American t o u r i s t i n
t h e Soviet Union. DBH leans more towards t h e colloquial s i d e with ex-
pressions such a s "A B ~ IAOMO~~?"(12) instead of "A B ~ IM A E T ~AOMOY;?~~,
"Bo CKOJI~ICO?~~(198) instead of "KOTOP~IPI sac?'', while FBL generally pre-
f e r s the more p o l i t e forms, a t l e a s t on f i r s t introduction. l9 COR, which
uses sentences instead of dialogues, i s s t i l l more formal on occasion,20
although the s t y l e i s b a s i c a l l y t h a t of conversatianal speech. The d i f -
ferences i n s t y l e f o r a c t i v e and passive material w i l l be noted i n 5.23.
5.23 Presentation of auding. Although none of t h e methods discussed
recommends a s p e c i f i c "auding-only" period-in apparent agreement with
Hockett (1950,265) t h a t "the natural and most e f f i c i e n t way i s t o de-
velop a t one and t h e same time a b i l i t y t o pronounce c o r r e c t l y and t o
hear correctly" ( c f . 3.13, 4.12)-there does seem t o be a general rec-
ognition of a d i s t i n c t i o n between auding and speaking s k i l l s . For
example, t h e following quotation i s included i n t h e ALM Teacher's Manual
i n reference t o the accompanying tape-recordings:
18~hisis 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 ~ IToxe H a BOKB~JI?Kyza xe B ~ Ie n e ~ e ? -Hmyna. I'
O E . ~ . Lesson 27, COR 186: "KOHCYJI Bac ceasac rrpmeT, e c m KOHCYJI~CTBO He
3El€Qb1~0".

I n t h e presentation of language f o r learning, a d i s t i n c t i o n
i s made between language for listening and language for i m i -
tation i n order t o accomplish d i f f e r e n t objectives. ....
Excellent recorded materials a r e planned and executed with t h e
primary 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 imita-
t i o n a r e never confused, and one i s never used i n a place
where t h e other i s a p ~ r o p r i a t e . ~ ~
I t might be gathered from f u r t h e r information i n t h e manual t h a t the
"language f o r imitation" i s contained i n t h e dialogues while t h e "lan-
guage f o r listening" takes t h e form of n a r r a t i v e s , which "it is not
necessary f o r the students t o memorize", a t l e a s t not i n f u l l (ALM/T 27) .22
Another application of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n might be t h e introduction of t h e
dialogue on tape " f i r s t f o r l i s t e n i n g only, with no student response",
followed by stages f o r imitation (ALM/T 31).
This f e a t u r e i s a l s o found i n t h e FBL dialogue-recordings under the
t i t l e of "full-speed version", followed by a "spaced version" f o r r e p e t i -
t i o n by t h e learner. But s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r auditory comprehen-
sion, according t o t h e teaching manual (FBL/T 4 ) , a r e t h e "listening-in"
exercises. These consist of recorded conversations-three per conversa-
~ALM/T30, c i t e d from Criteria for the Evalua-tion of Materials t o be In-
cluded i n a SsZective List of Materials for Use by Teachers of Modem
Foreign Languages (MLA FL Program Research Center) 1961, p. 42. The
two "languagesT1a r e explained i n t h e same quotation a s follows: "Re-
corded language for listening helps t o develop a s k i l l t h a t has been
l i t t l e understood and hence very much neglected i n foreign language
teaching: t h e a b i l i t y of a non-native t o understand e a s i l y when spo-
ken t o by a native speaker of t h e language. Recorded language for
imitation, on t h e other hand, while it may help t o develop l i s t e n i n g
s k i l l s , has a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t main purpose: it serves a s a model f o r
t h e s t u d e n t ' s own production of t h e spoken language".
2 2 ~ a r r a t i v es t y l e i s n a t u r a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of conversation, and
t h e tempo somewhat slower. This i s no doubt another reason why they
a r e not intended f o r memorization ( c f . 5 . 2 2 ) .

tion-unit--between Russian speakers a t a r a t h e r rapid normal ~ p e e d . ' ~
Unless the accompanying Laboratory Manual (the function of which is mere-
l y "to provide information on the spelling of Russiantt---FBL/T 19) is used,
the learner has no opportunity of seeing these dialogues i n printed form.
His only contact with them being through h i s e a r , he i s given greater op-
portunity and incentive t o develop h i s auding a b i l i t y . (By contrast, a11
ALM narratives-including those f o r "listening"-are printed i n the stu-
dent Is textbook .)
DBH has no recombination material--either narrative o r d i a l o g u e f o r
auding purposes, but the two conversations i n each unit24 a r e given spe-
c i a l listening and imitating stages on the tapes, as with t h e ALM recor-
dings. In addition t o the f i r s t presentation f o r "listening", however,
there is a l s o a fourth stage i n which the dialogue is repeated a t normal
speed f o r "[semantic] comprehension" (see DBH/T 6/13).
5 . 2 4 Presentation o f speaking. The second stage i n the recorded dialogues
on the ALM and DBH tapes consists of the breaking-down of sentences i n t o
p a r t i a l utterances ("partials"), s t a r t i n g from t h e end of the sentence so
as t o "preserve natural intonation" (as repeatedly s t a t e d i n the DBH manual
- s e e pp. 6, 13, 14, 15-16; c f . a l s o ALM/T 9 ) . In the t h i r d stage whole
utterances a r e given f o r r e p e t i t i o n ( c f . ALM/T 31, DBH/T 6/13/14). Only
the l a t t e r stage is provided f o r the l e a r n e r ' s imitation on t h e FBL recor-
dings, although t h e FBL manual, published some two years l a t e r , recommends
2 3 ~ h e r edoes not appear t o be any significant difference i n speed or s t y l e
from t h a t of t h e unit-dialogues ( c f . 5.22).
2 4 ~ e s s o n s1-4 have only one conversation each, a s noted i n 5.21.

sentence build-up ( s t a r t i n g from the end) a s a classroom technique (see
FBL/T 11-12) .
The author has had experience using t h e FBL Russian tapes i n l a b r a -
tory-periods, and has a l s o worked with DBH-type recordings (with the four-
-stage conversation) i n another language; 2 6 thus h i s comparison may be
v a l i d t o some extent. He found t h a t where students were t o repeat com-
p l e t e utterances (sometimes a s many a s sixteen words long27) only once,
they found g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y i n retaining and imitating what they had
heard. The rapid tempo a t which t h e dialogue was spoken (see 5.22) did
not help t o ease t h i s problem. Students using t h e four-stage recordings,
however, where utterances were f i r s t broken down i n t o segments before
being given 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 , achieved a reasonable de-
gree of fluency by t h e end of the period. 2 8
In 3.1 we took note of the importance of "going beyond the phoneme"
i n t h e t r a i n i n g of both auding and speaking a b i l i t i e s , and taking i n t o
consideration such f a c t o r s a s sound-sequences, s t r e s s , and intonation.
These a r e most f u l l y exploited i n t h e FBL and DBH methods. The Instruc-
t o r ' s Manual f o r the l a t t e r (15) comments a s follows:
2 5 ~ n o t h e rreason i s offered here (FBL/T 11) f o r beginning from t h e end of
t h e sentence: "it i s e a s i e r t o repeat t h e f i r s t p a r t of what someone
e l s e has s a i d than it i s t o repeat 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 foreign language m a t e r i a l ) ' I .
2 6 ~ e c o r d i n g sf o r Modern French by Ilesberg and Kenan.
2713.~.FBL 135, Sentence #4.
2 8 ~ a t u r a l l yt h e r e were a few exceptions among those with very g r e a t and
very l i t t l e aptitude f o r language-learning, b u t t h e statements made
here r e f l e c t t h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n .

A t t h e very s t a r t of h i s language learning, t h e student must
become accustomed t o hearing Russian spoken naturally---not word
by i s o l a t e d word, but with t h e ordinary phrasing and intonation
t h a t characterize the native speaker of t h e language.
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 einfluence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n on vowel q u a l i t y i s one f e a t u r e r a t h e r
poorly t r e a t e d i n DBH ( s e e 6.23).
3 0 ~ v e ni f "pronunciation" i s i n t e r p r e t e d here i n i t s narrow sense of sound-
- a r t i c u l a t i o n , t h e claim remains u n f u l f i l l e d , since some of the more
d i f f i c u l t p a l a t a l i z a t i o n s ( e . g , /Q/$/Y/$:/ & a11 voiced consonants)
have been omitted.

I t would appear t h a t the ALM authors assume t h a t pupils of junior-
high-school age would be s u f f i c i e n t l y unlettered a s t o assimilate such
features simply from the teacher's own use of the foreign language i n the
classroom, without s p e c i f i c explanation and d r i l l s on them. This could
well be the case under favourable circumstances ( i . e . , a native speaker
able t o speak with c l e a r , well-defined intonation-patterns and/or pupils
with more than average a b i l i t y i n sound-pattern discrimination), but it
should not be expected automatically even i n a majority of classroom s i t u -
ations, f o r from about twelve years on children seem t o f i n d more d i f f i -
culty i n accurate reproduction of sounds they hear. Carroll (1091) com-
ments as follows:
The evidence seems c l e a r t h a t t h e e a r l i e r t h e c h i l d i s i n t r o -
duced to a foreign language, t h e b e t t e r h i s pronunciation w i l l
be, other things being equal; it i s probable t h a t f a c i l i t y i n
acquiring good pronunciation without s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i s a
decreasing function of age and l e v e l s o f f a t about t h e age of
puberty.
5.25 S m a r y . The analysis of the four methods (ALM, COR, DBH, FBL) i n
regard t o t h e i r presentation of audial s k i l l s i n accordance with the
audio-lingual approach may be summarized as follows:
5.251 Orientation: COR and DBH a r e both intended exclusively f o r univer-
s i t y courses, FBL f o r university o r high-school, and ALM f o r junior-high-
-school. A l l four acknowledge the primacy of speech i n language-teaching.
5.252 Audial-graphic relationship: DBH and ALM make s p e c i f i c recommenda-
t i o n of an audial-only period before graphic 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 introduce
C y r i l l i c from t h e very s t a r t along with a phonemic transcription f o r passive
use only.

5.253 Context: A l l methods except COR take account of context, and use
dialogues as t h e i r chief vehicle of presentation, although ALM is the only
one giving s p e c i f i c attention t o dialogue-adaptation. The s t y l e s of DBH
and FBL a r e more suited t o t h e university atmosphere ( c f . 5.251). FBL
recordings a r e s l i g h t l y f a s t e r than desirable.
5.254 Auding and speaking: ALM and FBL recognize the d i s t i n c t i o n between
active and passive audial s k i l l s , a s does DBH t o some extent. FBL has the
excellent feature of recombined material exclusivcly f o r auditory compre-
hension, while ALM and DBH provide "staged" conversations. These feature
sentence build-ups from the end of the sentence. FBL and DBH give consid-
erable a t t e n t i o n t o suprasegmental features, while ALM and COR concentrate
mainly on isolated sounds.

6. TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS: ASSIMILATION
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.

deals with sound-spelling correlation i n Grammar-Unit 1, while phonolog-
i c a l explanations, accompanied by appropriate d r i l l s , a r e given a l l to-
gether i n a separate chapter a t the end of the book. (The d r i l l s a r e
numbered, however, t o permit easy reference i n the t e x t . ) COR explains
the Russian sound-system i n an introductory chapter e n t i t l e d "Sounds of
Russian", and provides corresponding d r i l l s i n t h e course of the f i r s t
ten lessons.
ALM, intended f o r younger learners, prefers t o forego t h e imparta-
t i o n of any phonological information t o t h e learner, and r e l i e s solely
on h i s imitative capacity. I t does provide explanations of sound-articu-
l a t i o n i n the Teacher's ManuaZ, however, but the only instruction f o r
teaching the sounds t o the pupils i s : "Model the following words, asking
f i r s t f o r choral and then f o r individual response" (ALM/T 37-48). I t is
conceivable t h a t i n practice the teacher might find it necessary t o use
the explanations i n c l a s s as well, f o r , a s we have seen,2 it is a t the
junior-high-school age (12-15 years old) t h a t the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o
mimick by ear alone seems t o decline, and more "information about how
[sounds] a r e identified i n the f i r s t place" i s needed, o r he w i l l be "to
a great extent carrying out the assignment blindly".
6.2 ASSIMILATION OF THE RUSSIAN SOUND-SYSTEM.
6.21 PhonoZogicaZ d i f f i c u l t i e s for English-speakers. In 6.2 we s h a l l
examine the treatment by each method of four major problems confronting
2 ~ f .C a r r o l l ' s quotation i n 5.24.
3 ~ e r k i n s115; see f u l l quotation 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 e4.12, f n . 6, f o r definition.

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 Instructor'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 EnglishY5but 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): "Neither Russian hard [t] nor s o f t [ f ] (nor any other Rus-
s i a n consonant, f o r t h a t matter) ever has t h e puff of breath t h a t usu-
a l l y accompanies English t". A s i m i l a r note is given for t h e descrip-
t i o n of a l l obstruents.

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. also 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". (~otethat COR uses j to indicate a pal-
atalized consonant, not the phoneme /j/, which he transcribes as y . )

variant is d r i l l e d , followed by a contrast of the two; t h i s i s a l l done
through examples, which i n the 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 four remaining d r i l l s , however, cover only f i v e additional
consonants: /p/k/, / S / Z / , and /x/,with 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 as f a r a s palatal:
i z a t i o n of Russian consonants is concerned.
6.23 Changes in vowel q u a l i t y . Changes i n the q u a l i t y of Russian vow-
e l s , as noted i n 6.21, depend on two main f a c t o r s : a) t h e position of
the vowel i n r e l a t i o n t o word-stress, and b) whether a preceding o r f s l -
lowing consonant is palatalized or non-palatalized. The contrast of
stressed and unstressed vowels has been treated i n t r a d i t i o n a l Russian
textbooks f o r some time; t h e l a t t e r has received comparatively l i t t l e
a t t e n t i o n t o date. In f a c t , t h e influence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n on vowel
quality i s not mentioned a t a l l i n ALM, and DBH deals with it only in-
d i r e c t l y ; it i s t r e a t e d f a i r l y extensively, however, i n FBL and COR. The
e f f e c t of s t r e s s on vowel quality receives considerable a t t e n t i o n from
a l l methods except ALM.
The problem of changes i n vowel quality--especially i n regard t o un-
stressed vowels-is most f u l l y exploited by CORY where the pronunciation
sections of t h r e e lessons (4-6) a r e devoted t o i t . A good introduction
t o the subject is given i n the "Sounds of Russian" chapter (COR 3--5).
Stressed vowels a r e dealt with f i r s t , and a f t e r changes i n length a r e
noted (before f i n a l consonants o r c l u s t e r s a s opposed t o single medial
'E .g. Gronicka & Bates-Yakobson 1 4 , a l s o Fayer 22.

consonants), t h e v a r i a n t s of t h e f i v e vowel phonemes according t o preced-
ing and following p a l a t a l i z a t i o n a r e presented. l o A disadvantage i n the
presentation is too heavy a r e l i a n c e on comparison with English sounds
( c f . a l s o 6.22 on C O R f s treatment of p a l a t a l i z e d consonants) .l 1 This i s
then followed by an analysis of the unstressed vowels, c l a s s i f i e d accord-
ing t o four positions:
1. i n i t i a l , not preceded by a consonant;
2. f i n a l , not followed by a consonant;
3. immediately before t h e s t r e s s , but not i n i t i a l ;
4. elsewhere, i.e. , two o r more s y l l a b l e s before t h e s t r e s s but
not i n i t i a l , o r a f t e r t h e s t r e s s but not f i n a l . 1 2
For t h e vowel phonemes /i/ and /a/ t h e difference i n vowel q u a l i t y is
shown a f t e r p a l a t a l i z e d and non-palatalized consonants i n each position
where applicable,13 and one o r two examples a r e given f o r each v a r i e t y .
More examples a r e given when t h e subject is taken up i n Lessons 4-6. l 4
1 • ‹ ~ o w e l stend t o increase i n height and/or frontness according t o t h e
number of contiguous p a l a t a l i z e d consonants-4.g. ja/ i s r e a l i z e d a s
[a]between two non-palatalized consonants, and a s [a]between two
p a l a t a l i z e d consonants; between p a l a t a l i z e d and non-palatalized con-
sonants ( and vice-versa) t h e allophone i s approximately midway be-
tween [a]and [a]. Vowels a l s o tend t o be followed by a forward-up-
ward g l i d e before p a l a t a l i z e d consonants.
I ' E . ~ . " u : l i k e t h e vowel of English p u t , foot but with t h e l i p s s l i g h t l y
protruded, so t h a t t h e sound, though s h o r t , resembles t h e vowel of
goose, soup" (COR 4 ) . This comparison may only add t o t h e problem of
native-language interference ( s e e 3.11).
1 3 ~ sCOR points out ( 4 + ) , /o/ does not occur i n unstressed s y l l a b l e s a t
a l l ; /e/ i s found only i n p o s i t i o n 1; /u/ has approximately t h e same
q u a l i t y i n a l l unstressed positions [but does vary according t o t h e
p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of contiguous consonants]; /a/does not occur i n po-
s i t i o n 3 (and only r a r e l y i n p o s i t i o n 4 ) following p a l a t a l i z e d and
p a l a t a l consonants.
1 4 ~ o s i t i o n s1 and 2 a r e d r i l l e d i n Lesson 4, positions 3 and 4 i n Lessons
5 and 6 respectively.

FBLtstreatment 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 CORtsposition 3 is
distinguished from other possibilities.l6 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 ~ sstated 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 CORtsposition 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~hisis rather surprising for DBH, which otherwise uses the Russian sound-
-system (in transcription) as the basis of its explanations and drills.
I8~hereis 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 pronunciation of Russian consonants---both palatalized and non-pal-
atalized---will have further d i f f i c u l t y when he comes t o u t t e r words and
sentences simply because of the large number of unfamiliar clusters-
those not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of English a t a l l and those appearing i n dif-
ferent d i s t r i b u t i o n s . He has learned how t o say t h e individual conson-
ant sounds, but he has not yet learned how t o use them i n juxtaposition.
Yet with the exception of the phonemic alternation of voiced and unvoiced
consonants, the only r e a l treatment of c l u s t e r s i s t o be found i n DBH.
After individual consonant sounds a r e d r i l l e d i n Lessons 5-10 (cf.
6.22), the "Pronunciation practice" sections of t h e next twenty-four
lessons20 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 dis-
t r i b u t i o n a l positions, p a r t i c u l a r l y those c l u s t e r s and distributions
which a r e not c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e English sound-system. I n i t i a l and
f i n a l c l u s t e r s containing /r/ or /$/ a r e d r i l l e d separately i n Lessons
13 and 14; those containing /1/ o r /$/ appear i n t h e following lesson.
Lessons 18 and 19, for example, deal with c l u s t e r s beginning with /s/ and
/z/,and other two-consonant c l u s t e r s are t r e a t e d i n Lessons 21-23. The
pronunciation sections of Lessons 24-29 a r e devoted t o c l u s t e r s of three
consonants, t h a t of Lesson 30 t o four-consonant c l u s t e r s (with /st/ as
the two middle consonants). Information on cluster-simplification (where
more consonants a r e represented orthographically than a r e sounded) i s
given i n Lesson 20, and a d r i l l on double consonants is provided i n Les-
son 11. Under the heading of "special consonant clusters" i n Lesson 12
2 0 ~ x c e p tf o r Lesson 17, which deals with voicing alternation i n final
position.

are given such items a s /CS/CC/dS/tc/. The pronunciation sections of
Lessons 31-34 consist of a four-part presentation and d r i l l of " i n i t i a l
consonant c l u s t e r s with no p a r a l l e l i n the English sound system", which
includes 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
(aside from a few examples) a r e printed i n t h e teaching manual rather
than i n the student's textbook.
The feature of alternation of voiced and voiceless consonants-ot
only 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 with i n Lessons
3, 16, and 17. I t must be remembered, however, t h a t t h i s is a phonemic
variation, i n which one phoneme is replaced by another, r a t h e r than the
mere a l t e r n a t i o n of allophones i n d i ~ t r i b u t i o n . ~ ~However, since it is
a feature involved ( a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y ) with consonant clusters, and is
treated t o some extent i n a l l four methods, it deserves some discussion
here.
DBH gives the following advice f o r dealing with voicing alternation:
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~hedistinction 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 . especially Sedun's quotation i n 3.14). The
features of s t r e s s and intonation a r e given considerable 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 important 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 English) is t h e absence of secondary word-stress. 2 4 Perhaps
as a r e s u l t of t h i s , stressed vowels a r e sounded with greater intensity
than a r e English vowels with primary s t r e s s , and there i s a very s t r i k -
ing difference between stressed and unstressed vowels.25 This much, a t
l e a s t , i s brought out i n a l l four methods (cf. DBH 7, FBL 314, ALM/T 36,
COR 3). Phrase-stress, however, is treated only i n DBH and FBL; i n the
former it is even indicated i n t h e phonemic transcription by a double
acute 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 provided i n DBH, but FBL in-
cludes two d r i l l s each f o r word- and phrase-stress.
Intonation is designated by the DBH manual as "one of t h e areas most
neglected i n Russian textbooks" (DBH/T 9 ) . "Practice has shown", the
t e x t continues, "that t h e student usually focuses on the pronunciation
of individual words and, unless properly directed, f a i l s t o perceive and
imitate t h e intonation of the sentence as a whole", i n much the same way
t h a t he concentrates too much on the individual phonemes when trying t o
master c l u s t e r s . Hence DBH has seen f i t t o include special sections on
"Intonation practice" i n s i x of its early lessons (6-11) i n addition t o
the regular "Pronunciation practice" feature. Lesson 6 introduces the
2 4 ~ sexplained i n FBL (315), however, t h e r e a r e a f e w compound words
Russian with an optional 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 , those i n C O R ' s positions 1 and 3 ( c f . 6.23) tend t o
s l i g h t l y stronger than t h e others.

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 FBL1streatment 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
DBH1sclassification procedure, but is lacking in coherence and provision

of adequate d r i l l s ; ALM provides good d r i l l s only f o r a few consonant
p a i r s , but neglects a l l the others.
6.262 Vowel quality: COR presents the most extensive analysis of
changes i n vowel q u a l i t y under t h e influence of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n and
s t r e s s , but FBL provides more adequate d r i l l s and is probably b e t t e r
suited t o teaching purposes--both, however, r e l y somewhat on English
comparisons, thus adding t o the interference problem; DBH does not
t r e a t the subject i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , and ALM hardly touches it a t
a l l .
6.263 Clusters: DBH is t h e only method t o give adequate treatment of
Russian consonant c l u s t e r s , and is t h e only one which includes a suf-
f i c i e n t amount of d r i l l on voicing alternation; ALM has two short d r i l l s ,
but does make use of the contrast principle; FBL and COR explain the
phenomenon and provide examples but no d r i l l s .
6.264 Stress: Word- and phrase-stress is best t r e a t e d i n FBL, which
is t h e only method providing s p e c i f i c s t r e s s - d r i l l s ; DBH indicates
phrase-stress i n i t s transcription; ALM and COR deal with word-stress
only.
6.265 Intonation: Both DBH and FBL give considerable attention t o in-
tonation-patterns-the former o f f e r s a more thorough explanation of the
actual contours, while the l a t t e r features a contrast with English in-
tonation-patterns; the subject receives minimal a t t e n t i o n i n ALM and
none i n COR.

7.CONCLUSIONS
7.1COMPREHENSIVESUIUIMARYOFTEACHING-METHODS.
7.11Presentation.
ITEMAIMCORDBHFBL
Nwnberofunits24Conv./l2Gram.
-
ExpectedZeveZ
ofLearners
junior-high-school1styear
university
1st&2ndyearshigh-school&
universityuniversity
Primacyofspeechrecognizedrecognizedrecognizedrecognized
Provisionfor
audiaZ-onlyphase
textbookdistri--
butiondelayed
booksclosed-
insessions
Typeof
transcription
used
phonemic;digraphs
forpalatalized
consonantsE/Z/
partlyallophonic;phonemic;
nodigraphsnodigraphs
(except/&?/)(except/%/)
Lengthof
transcription
period
10unitsfornew
material;thruout
forword-lists
10unitsfornew4unitsfor
material;thruoutdialogues;
forpron.-drillsallpron.-drills
UseofCyriZZicafteraudialphasefromstartfromstartfromstart
Mainvehicleuseddialoguesentencesdialoguedialogue
No.ofutterances2setsof1015-20

Other
"uehicZe"
material
ContextuaZ
considerations
Tempo
StyZe
Contentof
utterances
Provisionfor
auding-onlyphase
Provisionfor
auding
Provisionfor
speaking
Emphasisin
audiaZskiZZs
dialogueadapta-reviewsentences
tion;recombination
narratives
recognized-
fairlyrapid-
Moscow1~oscowl
juveni1emoreformal
juveni1emiscellaneous
narratives;one-
dialoguestage
2dialoguestages:-
sentence-breakdown
+full-utterance
repetition
isolatedsoundsisolatedsounds
Conversation";
basicsentence
patterns
dialogues
(ontapeonly)
recognizedrecognized
lessrapid
morecolloquial
universitylife
fairlyrapid
Moscow
lessformal
travelogue
"Preparationforrecombination
wholeutteranceswholeutterances
twodialogue
stages
recombination
dialogues
(ontapeonly)
2dialoguestages:
sentence-breakdown
+full-utterance
repetition
onedialogue
stage:full
utteranceonly
l~f.5.22,fn.17.

ITEMALMCORDBHFBL
Languageasarecognizedrecognizedrecognizedrecognized
setofhabits
NeedforexpZanation-recognizedrecognizedrecognized
Pronunciation
driZZs
PaZataZization:
cZassification
PaZataZization:
amountofdrill
PaZataZization:
organization
ofdrills
Changesin
voweZquality:
classification
ChangesinvoweZ
quality:drills
allinmanualfirst10unitsmostlyinmanual;specialchapter;
first34unitsfirst6conv.units
4groupsasper4groupsasper-
followingphonemefollowingphoneme
15drillsonexamplesonly;drillsinUnits5drills;most
3paironly;allpairsinspe-5-10;allpairs;consonants;
mostpositionscia1chapter,allpositionsallpositions
4inLessons7--9;
mostpositions
near-minimalpairsnominimalnorminimal6near-nominimalpairs;
near-minimalpairs-minimalpairsseparatedrillson
palatalized6non-
palatalizedcons.
littleattention;mostextensivelessextensivefairlyextensive
inCyrilliconlytreatment;fourtreatment;twotreatment;onlyone
unstressedvariantsunstressedvariantsunstressedvariant
(exceptfor/a/)
2drillsexamplesonly2pagesofdrills17drills

ITEMALMCORDBHFBL
Clusters-
(exceptvoicing
aZternationl
VoicingaZternation:paired+non-paired+non-
cZassification-pairedtable-pairedtable
Voicingazternation:2shortdrills-
driZZs
Stress:word-stressonlyword-stressonly
cZassification
Stress:driZZs--
Intonation:2types;-
classificationnodiagrams
Intonation:drills1shortdrill-
Native-languagebalanceofcompar-morecomparison
contrastisonandcontrastthancontrast
extensive
treatment;
Units11-34
paired+non-
-pairedtable
2pages
ofdrills
word-E
phrase-stress
3types6review;
diagrams
Units6--11
morecontrast
thancomparison
paired+non-.
-pairedtable
word-6
phrase-stress
4drills
3types;
diagrams
7drills
balanceofcompar-
isonandcontrast

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 literacy 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 basis 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 acemate 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 active 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 Interference with similar 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~fthe 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 COfVYIENTS. 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-schoolcounterparts), 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 ARTICLES
Anisfeld, Moshe, tfPsycholinguisticPerspectives 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 Linguistics. (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 the PracticaZ Study of Foreign
Languages. (Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America) 1942.
tuxin (ed.) , M e T o ~ mrrpeI-IoAaBamRpycCIcoro Rabnm. (Moscow: ~sI-Ie,riis)
1960. Pp. 331-332.

Brooks, Nelson, Language and Language Learning. (New York: Harcourt,
Brace E World) 2nd e d i t i o n 1964.
Capelle, Guy, "Linguistique Appliqu6e e t Enseignement des Langues". ML
45 (1964) : 57--60.
Carroll, John B . , "Research on Teaching Foreign Languages". In N. Gage
(ed.), Handbook of ~ e s e a r c hon Language ~eaching. (Chicago: Rand
McNally) 1963. Pp. 1060-1100.
C i o f f a r i , Vincenzo, "The Importance of the Printed Word i n the Learning
of a Foreign Language". MLJ 46 (1962): 312-314.
Cornyn, William S . , Beginning Russian. (Newhaven: Yale University) 1961.
Dawson, Clayton L./Bidwell, Charles E./Humesky, Assya, Modern Russian
(Volumes 1/11). (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World) 1964/65.
, Instructor's Manual, Modern Russian. (New York: Harcourt, Brace
G World) 1964.
Desberg, Dan/Kenan, Lucette R . , Modern French. (New York: Harcourt,
Brace 6 World) 1964.
Dewey, Horace W . , "Personalized Exercises f o r Students of Elementary Rus-
sian". MLJ 50 (1966) : 12-15.
Doherty, Joseph C./Markus, Roberta L . , First Course i n Russian. (Boston:
D . C . Heath) 1960.
Domar, Rebecca A . , "Can Russian Courses Be Saved?" MLJ 42 (1958): 11-17.
Fairbanks, Gordon H./Leed, Richard L . , Basic Conversational Russian. (New
York: Holt, Rinehart 6 Winston) 1964.
, Teacher's Manual, Basic ConversationaZ Russian. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart 6 Winston) 1966.
, Laboratory ~ a n u a2, Basic Conversational Russian. ( ~ e wYork :
Holt, Rinehart & Winston) 1966.
Fayer, Mischa H . , Basic Russian. (New York: Pitman) 1959.
Fisher, Wayne D . , "High School Russian: No English from the F i r s t Day"
(Parts 1/11). SEEJ NS 5 (1961): 41--45, 141-145.
Fishman, Joshua A . , "The Implications of Bilingualism f o r Language Teaching
and Language Learning". In A. Valdman ( e d . ) , Trends i n Language Teach-
ing. (New York: McGraw H i l l ) 1966. Pp. 121-132.

G i l b e r t , M . , "Some Problems of Language Teaching". ML 42 (1961) : 65-71.
Green, Eugene, "On Grading Phonetic Interference". LL 13 (1963) : 8 5 4 6 .
Gronicka, A.v./Bates-Yakobson, H . , ~ s s e n t i a z sof Russian. (Englewood
C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall) 3rd e d i t i o n 1958.
Hall, Robert A . , Jr., New Ways t o Learn a Foreign Language. (New York:
Bantam Books) 1966.
Hockett, Charles F . , "Learning Pronunciation". MLJ 34 (1950): 261-269.
, A Course i n Modern Linguistics. (New York: MacMillan) 1958.
Huebener, Theodore, "The New Key is Now Off-Key!" MLJ 47 (1963): 375-377.
, How t o Teach Foreign Languages EfSectively. (New York: New York
University) 1965.
Jespersen, Otto, How t o Teach a Foreign Language. (London: Allen G Unwin)
1904 [12th impression 19611.
Kempers, ~ o h n ,"The Teaching of Russian: A Response t o Nathan Rosen".
SEEJ NS 11 (1967): 71-74.
Krupskaj a , N. K ., "0 rrpenonasamm pyccIcoro ~ 3 b n c aB Hepyccmx ru~co~rax". In
M. Lapatuxin (ed. ) , M~ToAMI~~rrpenonasamm pyccIcoro ~ 3 b m . (MOSCOW:
Y ~ n e ~ r m )1960. Pp. 410-411.
1
Lado, Robert, Linguistics Across Cultures. (Ann Arbor: University of/ /
1 Michigan) 1957.
Leed, Richard L . , "A Note on t h e Phonemic Status of Russian High Unrounded
Vowels1'. SEEJ NS 7 (1963) : 39-41.
Lemieux, Claude P . , "Improving Our Russian Textbooks". MLJ 37 (1953):
134-1 38.
~ G o n ,P i e r r e , "Teaching Pronunciation". In A. Valdman ( e d . ) , Trends i n
Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw H i l l ) 1966. Pp. 57-79.
Lunt, Horace G . , Fundamentals of Russian. (New York, Norton) 1958.
Mackey, William Francis, Language Teaching Analysis. (London: Longmans
Green) 1965.
McRill, Paul C . , "FLES i n D i 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 d i t i o n 1962.

Modern Language Materials Development Center S t 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.
Mueller, Theodore, "Auding Tests". MLJ 43 (1959): 185-187.
O'Connor,P./Twadell, W.F., "Intensive t r a i n i n g f o r an o r a l approach i n
language teaching". 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. Heffer 6 Sons) 1921 16th impression 19651.
, The Principles of Language Study. (London: George Harrap G Co.)
1922. Reprinted (London: Oxford University) 1964.
Perkins, Merle L., "General Language Study and t h e Teaching of Languages".
MLJ 40 (1956) : 113-119.
P o l i t z e r , Robert L . , I1On t h e Relation of Linguistics 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 1l70 Pa3BMTMX) P e r M
C T Y A ~ H T O B - M H O C T ~ ~ H L J ~ B " . In L. BazileviE e t a l . (eds.), PyCCKZ?i;"; R3bK
gTIR CTYAeHTOB-MHOCTpXtIqeB. (MOSCOW:B ~ I C I I I ~ RIUECoJIa) 1965. Pp. 129-147.
Reformatski], A.A., "0 HeKOTOpbK TPYAHOCTRX 0 6 y Y e H M ~IT~OMBHOU~HMX)". In
A. Reformatskij (ed.), PyCCKMfi R 3 b E AJIR CTYAeHTOB-MHOCTpameB. (Mos-
cow : B b i c m ~moxa) 1961. Pp . 5-1 2 .
Rivers, Wilga M. , llListening comprehension". ML,J 50 (1966) : 196-204.
Rosen, Nathan, "All's Well That Ends Badly". SEEJ NS 10 (1966): 4 6 4 5 .
Sedun, E . P . , "06yseme PMTMI'IYeCKOMY I$P~~oBoMYY A a p e W CpeACTBy MHTC-
HaLlMOHHOrO Y J I e H e m R B p y C C m ~ 3 b M e " . In A . Reformatskij (ed. ) , -Pye-
CK3/lpi R3bIEC AJIR CTYAeHTOB-MHOCTPXtIqeB . (MOSCOW: Bbicii~asIIJKox~) 1961.
Pp. 13-27.

Strevens, Peter D . , "Linguistics i n Language Teaching Again: a British
Point of Viewu. In The English Leaflet (Boston: New England Associ-
ation of Teachers of English) 61 (1962)a. Reprinted i n R . Mackin E
P . Strevens (eds.), Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. (Lon-
don: Oxford University) 1965. Pp. 66-73.
, "Phonetic Studies i n Language Teaching". ML 12 (1962)b. Re-
printed i n Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. Pp. 42-56.
, "Linguistic Research and Language Teaching". In New Trends i n
Linguistic Research. (Strasbourg: Council of Europe) 1963. Reprin-
ted i n Papers i n Language and Language Teaching. Pp. 1-22.
, "Phonetics, Applied Linguistics, and other Components of Lan-
guage Teaching". In Volume i n Honour of Daniel Jones. (London:
Longmans Green) 1964a. Reprinted i n Papers i n Language and Language
Teaching. Pp. 57-65.
, "The Teaching of Foreign Languages t o Adults: 'The Problem i n
Perspective". In The Teaching of Foreign Languages t o Adults. (Lon-
don: Pergamon) 1964b. Reprinted 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. Reprinted (London: Oxford University) 1964.
~ g a k o v ,D . N . , "ilperroaasame W H ~ T ~M O~I@~III/IMB m o ~ ~ e " .In M . Lapa-
tuxin (ed .) , MeToma rrpenozanamfi pycmoro s3bma. (MOSCOW: ~ u n e ~ r m )
1960. Pp. 378-381.
Valdman, Albert, "Programmed Instruction and Foreign Language Teaching".
In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends i n Language Teaching. (New York: McGraw
H i l l ) 1966. Pp. 133-158.
Weinstein, Ruth H . , "Phonetics, Phonemics, and Pronunciation: Applica-
tion". In E . Pulgram (ed.), Applied Linguistics i n Language Teaching
[Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 61. (Washington:
Georgetown University) 1954. Pp. 28-38.

Analysis of Audio Lingual Method

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Analysis of Audio Lingual Method (20)

More from Rajabul Gufron (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis of Audio Lingual Method