Designing an intensive English pronunciation remediation module for first-year philology students

Abstract

Increased mobility and digitally mediated interaction have intensified the everyday use of English, sharpening expectations for intelligible spoken performance in philology programmes. Pronunciation is framed as an intelligibility-oriented competence: it combines reliable segmental contrasts with prosodic control, reduces listener effort, and supports higher-level listening and speaking. This article argues that first-semester pronunciation remediation should be treated as a protected curricular component rather than as an incidental correction practice, because early non-target articulatory and prosodic routines tend to stabilise and are costly to restructure later (Levis, 2005). Drawing on classroom experience with Ukrainian first-year students and typical L1-related difficulties in vowel quantity, diphthongs, and prosody (Poliakova et al., 2024), the paper analyses why pronunciation work is often displaced by grammar-heavy syllabi and why ad hoc feedback in general practice classes rarely yields durable change. As a methodological response, it proposes an intensive corrective–introductory module during the first month to six weeks, combining operational articulatory guidance, perception-supported imitation, and structured “phonetic reading” from words to short intonation groups and sentence-level patterns (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). The sequence is practice-intensive. The model foregrounds authentic audio, student self-recording for analytic listening, and clear criteria for summative credit after the corrective block. It also discusses class organisation, including a temporary limitation on spontaneous speaking in the earliest sessions to prevent the reinforcement of unstable routines. Subsequent development is envisaged in the second semester through drama-based practice targeting prosody and pragmatic expressiveness, provided that a corrective baseline has been established. Where resources allow, laboratory practice and digital tools are considered supports for guided feedback rather than substitutes for instructor-led correction.