EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES FOR CORRECTING PRONUNCIATION ERRORS IN RUSSIAN LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

ABSTRACT

The article offers an in-depth analysis of methods for correcting pronunciation among English language learners, particularly Russian speakers. It examines the root causes of pronunciation errors, such as linguistic differences between Russian and English, and discusses various correction strategies, including the imitative, analytical-imitative, and approximative approaches. The article also highlights the significance of understanding learners’ psycho-emotional states and the impact of fossilized errors on language acquisition. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to error correction, taking into account learners’ emotional well-being and the potential risks of overemphasizing pronunciation errors. This comprehensive exploration offers educators valuable insights into developing effective teaching strategies for pronunciation correction.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В статье представлен углублённый анализ методов коррекции произношения у изучающих английский язык, с особым акцентом на русскоязычных учащихся. Рассматриваются основные причины ошибок произношения, такие как лингвистические различия между русским и английским языками, а также обсуждаются различные стратегии коррекции, включая имитативный, аналитико-имитативный и аппроксимативный подходы. В статье также подчёркивается значимость понимания психоэмоционального состояния обучающихся и влияние закоренелых ошибок на процесс овладевания языком. Отдельное внимание уделяется необходимости сбалансированного подхода к исправлению ошибок с учётом эмоционального состояния учащихся и потенциальных рисков чрезмерной концентрации ошибок произношения. Данный всесторонний анализ предоставляет ценную информацию для преподавателей при разработке эффективных стратегий обучения произношению.

Keywords: pronunciation error correction, Russian EFL learners, fossilized errors, L1 interference, analytic-imitative approach, approximative approach, corrective feedback strategies, phonological errors, psycho-emotional factors

Ключевые слова: коррекция ошибок произношения, русскоязычные изучающие английский язык как иностранный, закоренелые ошибки, интерференция родного языка, аналитико-имитативный подход, аппроксимативный подход, стратегии коррекции обратной связи, фонологические ошибки, психоэмоциональные факторы

Errors in language learning can be viewed from two perspectives: negatively, as unwanted elements, and positively, as crucial to educational progress because correcting mistakes fosters skill development. Therefore, a teacher’s responsibility extends beyond merely presenting new content; they also involve addressing and correcting students’ errors. Yanovskaya and Neskreba [16, pp. 325-330] emphasize the importance of a teacher’s understanding of error types, their correction, and strategies for anticipating and preventing them. Despite the vast amount of research on teaching English as a second language, challenges in managing pronunciation and correction are still an ongoing academic debate. Zelenskaya [17, pp.142-144] echoes this sentiment, highlighting the contentious nature of errors in the broader context of educational theory and, more specifically, in English language teaching methodologies. 

Different researchers have varying perspectives on the concept of error. Some experts believe that errors should be avoided by all available means.

 A wrong statement should never be reproduced, either by the teacher or by the students themselves, since this is the only way to prevent students from fossilizing errors. Galkina [4, pp. 30-35] asserts that language is learned exclusively through errors. An error should not be forcibly expelled from the learner’s consciousness, but excessive focus on the error is also not entirely correct. Correction of errors, as noted by Bogdanova [2, pp. 66-69], is a necessary feedback mechanism that arises in the process of teaching a foreign language, enabling the educator to plan teaching methods and facilitate positive learning outcomes. Yanovskaya and Neskreba [16, pp. 325-330] also note that error correction is an essential tool for optimizing language education.

Work on phonetics generally attracts less interest among students, especially in comparison with lexical and grammatical aspects of the language. The comparatively low interest in pronunciation is mainly due to the subjective perception of phonetics. Moreover, instruction in suprasegmental features such as intonation and rhythm remains marginal in many school and university English programs.

Building on the theoretical discussion of error correction in language education, this article approaches pronunciation teaching as a multidimensional pedagogical challenge. The first section explores the necessity of a balanced approach to pronunciation correction, emphasizing the importance of instructional flexibility. The second section outlines the major methodological approaches to pronunciation teaching and evaluates their instructional effectiveness.

The third section focuses on pronunciation difficulties specific to Russian speakers, highlighting recurrent segmental and suprasegmental errors caused by cross-linguistic interference.

 Finally, the paper examines psycho-emotional factors and fossilized errors, arguing that successful pronunciation instruction depends not only on technique but also on learners’ emotional security and engagement.

1. Balancing Pronunciation Error Correction in Language Learning: Strategies and Pedagogical Considerations

To prevent, predict, and correct pronunciation errors, it is necessary to understand the reasons behind their occurrence. Perlova [11, pp. 82-93] and Kiryushina [6, pp. 1-5] discuss that students make typical errors in pronouncing English words due to (1) insufficient knowledge of articulation features, (2) inaccurate intonation, or (3) inadequate control of word and phrase stress. Minakova [9, pp. 61-66] identifies phonetic difficulties in learning English as resulting from both internal factors (reading, motivation, self-control) and external linguistic influences.

Many researchers, citing the classical works of the linguist and educator Shcherba [13, pp. 156-180], distinguish two main types of pronunciation errors: phonetic (articulation errors) and phonological (sound-meaning errors). Phonetic errors are the result of violating the pronunciation norms of the language and are usually manifested in the replacement of a phoneme with its allophones or variants. As is evident, such errors do not hinder the speech process and rarely lead to communicative failures, unlike phonological errors, which can result in semantic distortion and breakdowns in meaning.

In the practice of international English language exams, three types of errors are commonly identified: slips (momentary mistakes), errors (caused by a lack of knowledge), and attempts (errors made when trying to express a more complex idea that the speaker’s language proficiency allows). Pak [10, pp. 116-122] proposes expanding this typology to include errors resulting from native-language interference as well as developmental (growth-related) errors arising from learners’ overgeneralization of linguistic rules during language acquisition.

As mentioned earlier, contemporary pedagogical practice lacks a consensus regarding the optimal methods for correcting pronunciation errors. According to a study by Borsheva [2, pp. 66-69], most teachers (33%) correct errors after the students have completed their response, about 10% of teachers correct errors immediately, 23% of educators do not always correct errors for various reasons, and 14% strive to enable the student to identify and correct their mistake independently. For this purpose, the “echo” technique is used, wherein the educator repeats the student’s phrase containing the error. More than 40% of teachers use nonverbal communication, such as gestures and facial expressions.

Zelenskaya [17, pp. 142-144] states that attitudes toward pronunciation errors vary depending on the pragmatic conditions of foreign-language communication. For instance, in regular English classes, in everyday communication, or while traveling abroad, the presence of errors is a natural phenomenon that is unlikely to disrupt the flow of communication. In contrast, in more formal and professional settings, such as academic presentations, conference participation, or public speaking, phonetic inaccuracies become more salient and may negatively affect the speaker’s professional image. The author further emphasizes that extreme pedagogical responses to pronunciation errors are pedagogically ineffective. Neither excessive corrective interruption nor the complete absence of feedback contributes to sustainable pronunciation development. In the former case, learners may experience heightened linguistic anxiety and reduced confidence, whereas in the latter, inaccurate forms risk becoming reinforced. Consequently, effective error correction requires careful consideration of the communicative context and the adaptation of a balanced correction strategy. 

2. Exploring Approaches to Pronunciation Correction in Language Education.

Observation of the real practice of teaching English in universities and schools reveals that the primary method of correcting pronunciation errors is the intuitive-imitative approach. Celce-Murcia, Briton, and Goodwin [3, p. 375] describe the intuitive-imitative approach as relying on a learner’s capacity to listen to and replicate the target language’s rhythms and sounds without any specific instructional guidance. This method assumes that learners have access to high-quality listening examples.

The availability of such models has significantly improved with technological advancements. However, Zelenskaya [17, pp. 142-144] notes that a much more effective method is a detailed explanation of the position of articulatory organs or the specifics of a particular phoneme, and its differences from a similar phoneme in the native language. Accurate imitation of foreign sounds can only be based on an understanding of the theoretical foundation, the articulatory features, and intonational contours of a native English speaker.

The analytic-linguistic approach to correcting pronunciation errors is notably superior to the intuitive-imitative approach. This method employs various resources, including the phonetic alphabet, articulatory descriptions, vocal apparatus diagrams, and additional supports to enhance listening, imitation, and production.

It deliberately educates and directs the learner’s focus toward the sounds and rhythms of the target language. Celce-Murcia, Briton, and Goodwin [3, p. 375] point out that it was developed as a complement, not a replacement for the intuitive-imitative approach; the analytic-linguistic approach often integrates elements of the intuitive-imitative approach during the practice stages of a standard analytic-linguistic language lesson. 

In schools and universities, pronunciation errors are often explained and corrected by transcribing the mispronounced word. Inamova [5, pp. 997-1003] remarks that phonetic symbols "may be slightly off-putting due to the inclusion of oddly looking symbols".

The complexity of English transcription can undermine learners' motivation. In this context, the researcher suggests introducing the transcription method at later stages of instruction or among students who already possess a high level of oral competence. 

Discussions about techniques for correcting errors and teaching phonetics have led to the emergence of an approach that fundamentally questions the need for correction.

The central argument of this viewpoint is that the effort put into teaching foreign pronunciation often does not justify the results. In this context, educators suggest adopting an approximative approach that legitimizes relatively correct pronunciation. If a student's utterances do not lead to communication breakdowns and the phonetic inaccuracies do not distort the meaning of their spoken thoughts, it is recommended not to correct the errors in their speech.

3. Challenges and Strategies in Teaching English Pronunciation to Russian Speakers.

Two key differences between the Russian and English sound systems are the non-existence of the distinction between short and long vowels in Russian and the lack of diphthongs. Mastering English rhythm and stress patterns is a challenging aspect for Russian learners. Words that start with 'w', such as 'wonder', 'wilt', 'wage', and 'wipe', often present pronunciation difficulties. Additionally, Russian speakers tend to modify the English /æ/ sound, as in 'hat', to a closer/e/, which can cause mix-ups between words like 'mat' and 'met'. The /ɔ:/ sound in English is frequently altered to a more frontal Russian /o/ or changed into a diphthong like /oʊ/, leading to confusion between words such as 'rock' and 'roar', 'caught' and 'coat', or 'lot', 'laud', and 'loathe'. In general, Russian speakers often do not pronounce English long vowels with sufficient tension, making them sound more like short vowels. For instance, 'feel' might be pronounced like 'fill', or 'beet' like 'bit'. The variation in the length of English long vowels depending on the following consonant (as in 'pea', 'peel', and 'peat') also poses difficulties for Russian learners.

The English phonemes /θ/ and /ð/ pose significant challenges for Russian speakers, who often substitute them with /s/ and /z/, respectively. Common errors include pronouncing "think" as "sink" and "breathe" as "breeze." The /ŋ/ sound is typically replaced with the Russian /g/ or a dental /n/, leading to mispronunciations like "sing" as "sig" or "sin." Russian speakers also frequently struggle to distinguish between /w/ and /v/, which can lead to confusion between words like "vine" and "wine," or "vest" and "west." In Russian, the sounds /t/, /d/, /l/, and /n/ are articulated with the tongue touching the upper teeth, giving them a distinctively foreign sound when spoken by Russian learners in English contexts. Final voiced consonants such as /b/, /d/, and /g/ are often devoiced in Russian. This process leads to the mispronunciation of words like "robe" as "rope," "bide" as "bite," and "log" as "lock" by Russian speakers. The "dark"/l/ sound, as heard in words like "pull" or "mill," is frequently used in place of the "clear"/l/ sound found in words like "light" or "like." The sound /ʈʃ/ in Russian is slightly soft or "palatalized," causing learners to mispronounce the more complex English /ʈʃ/ sound, as in "choose," with a smoother version. Additionally, the Russian language lacks the /dʒ/ sound, though it has separate /d/ and /ʒ/ sounds. Consequently, when Russian learners encounter English words like "judge" or "bridge," they tend to pronounce the /dʒ/ sound as two distinct sounds rather than thoroughly blending it as in native English pronunciation [15, pp. 145-161].

Russian speakers often encounter difficulties with English intonation, an aspect of pronunciation that differs significantly from Russian intonation. One of the primary issues is the difference in the range and depth of pitch movements. In Russian, the low-fall intonation pattern is less pronounced than in English, often resulting in a less distinct drop in pitch. This intonation pattern can affect the clarity and perceived emotion in spoken English. For instance, a statement like "I'm going to the store," which in English would typically end with a noticeable pitch drop, might sound flat or less emphatic when spoken by a Russian speaker. Similarly, the low-rise intonation pattern in Russian does not start as low as it does in English, and it tends to rise more sharply.

This abrupt rise can make statements sound more questioning or uncertain than intended. For example, a sentence like "He's working today," meant to be a simple statement, might come across as a question or a statement of surprise.

Another notable issue is how Russian speakers handle yes/no questions in English. While native English speakers typically end such questions with a rising intonation, Russian speakers tend to end them with a falling intonation. This intonational influence can unintentionally convey a sense of impoliteness or abruptness. A question like "Are you coming with us?" might sound more like a command or a statement rather than an inquiry.

Tag questions in English also pose a challenge. In Russian, the intonation of tag questions does not vary significantly from the rest of the sentence, which can lead to confusion when Russian speakers use them in English. For example, the tag question "You're coming, aren't you?" might not have the expected rising intonation at the end, making it sound less like a question seeking confirmation.

Furthermore, when it comes to alternative questions, where native English speakers typically use rising intonation at the end, Russian speakers might use falling intonation instead. This influence from the Russian language can affect the listener's understanding of the question's nature. In cases like "Should we go by car or by bus?", the rising intonation of "bus" that is expected in English might be missing, potentially confusing the speaker's intent.

Overall, mastering English intonation patterns and phonetics poses a significant challenge for Russian speakers, but it is a crucial aspect of their language acquisition journey. Understanding and adapting to the rules and patterns of English intonation goes beyond mere pronunciation - it is about learning to convey subtleties of meaning through variations in pitch and tone.

This learning process is complex, as it involves not only mimicking sounds but also internalizing a different way of expressing speech nuances.

However, while these pronunciation and intonation errors can affect the quality of spoken language, their impact on communication effectiveness in practical scenarios, both in everyday life and professional settings, is generally limited.  It is essential to recognize that although these inaccuracies may mark the speech of a non-native speaker, they seldom obstruct the primary goal of communication: the conveyance of meaning and understanding. In most instances, despite these errors, the speaker's intended core message is successfully communicated and understood by the listener. This realization leads to an important insight: striving for perfection in pronunciation, while admirable, is not always a prerequisite for effective communication. In many real-world situations, the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, even with some linguistic imperfections, is often more crucial than achieving flawless pronunciation.

 This perspective advocates for a certain degree of tolerance towards these errors. Instead of focusing solely on eliminating every phonetic mistake, it may be more beneficial to concentrate on improving overall fluency and comprehension skills. 

In this discussion, we circle back to the pragmatic aspects of communication in a foreign language.

 Notably, non-native speakers in most contexts are not held to the standard of flawless adherence to the phonetic rules of an unfamiliar language. This standard primarily applies to professionals whose roles are closely tied to foreign language proficiency, such as translators, journalists, actors, diplomats, and others [8]. In these professions, a significant portion of training is devoted to mastering pronunciation and intonation, with clear, accent-free speech being a critical component of their professional skill set. Conversely, for professionals in fields like construction, engineering, and management, the primary requirement of English communication is understandability, rather than phonetic perfection. Their objective is to communicate effectively to accomplish professional tasks. For such individuals, an approximate approach to correcting linguistic errors is deemed most appropriate and effective.

3.1. Effective Strategies for Addressing Mistakes in Language Learning

The concept of addressing pronunciation errors in language learning is multifaceted and cannot be encapsulated by a one-size-fits-all approach. This notion aligns with Kondrashova's [7, pp. 27-47] perspective, which asserts that the teaching method, along with its objectives and the educational tools employed, significantly influences how pronunciation errors should be corrected. Different teaching methodologies dictate distinct approaches to error correction. For instance, methods that focus primarily on the structural aspects of language, such as the grammar-translation method, typically require meticulous correction of all errors. This approach is rooted in the belief that understanding and correctly applying a language's structural rules is paramount. 

In contrast, the communicative method, which prioritizes the ability and willingness to engage in communication, advocates for minimal teacher interference in the students' speech [7, pp. 27-47]. According to this method, linguistic accuracy, while important, is not the primary objective. The emphasis is placed instead on the ability to communicate effectively. Therefore, within the communicative approach, an approximative approach towards pronunciation is more appropriate. The key is not to let correcting errors hinder the learner's willingness and ability to express themselves freely in the target language.

The communicative approach also recommends differentiating errors based on their impact on speech comprehension. This categorization distinguishes between two types of errors: communicatively significant (global) errors and communicatively insignificant (local) errors.

Global errors, which substantially affect the understanding of an utterance, require immediate correction. Local errors, on the other hand, may not require immediate attention and can be addressed after the communication to avoid disrupting the flow of speech.

 This approach underscores the importance of striking a balance between fluency and striving for phonetic and intonational accuracy. It acknowledges that while phonetic precision is a desirable goal, it should not come at the cost of impeding effective communication.

The overarching aim is to foster a learning environment where students feel confident in their ability to communicate, even as they work towards improving their pronunciation.

The discussion on pronunciation error correction brings us to a crucial point: the significance of the timing of correction. There are two primary moments when pronunciation errors can be addressed: during the utterance or exercise itself or after its completion. The chosen strategy depends heavily on the exercise's context and objective. For instance, in oral practice exercises, immediate correction is often essential. This immediacy aligns with the primary purpose of these exercises: to develop accurate pronunciation skills. In such a scenario, correcting errors as they occur helps learners immediately understand their mistakes, facilitating a more effective learning process.

On the other hand, during spontaneous speech, such as when a student is answering a question, presenting results of a creative task, or engaged in free-flowing conversation, interrupting to correct pronunciation errors might not be the best approach. In these instances, it is generally more effective to wait until the student has finished speaking before addressing any errors.

This approach ensures that the flow of communication is maintained and that the student remains confident and engaged in the task at hand. Moreover, delaying correction until after an utterance allows for a more comprehensive review of errors, enabling the student to reflect on their speech. It provides learners with an opportunity to develop self-correction skills and become more aware of their pronunciation patterns, a key aspect of language acquisition.

The methods employed to highlight and correct pronunciation errors are crucial in language teaching, as outlined by Prokhorova [12, pp.798-803]. They emphasize that, in addressing sound production errors, educators can adopt various approaches, including explicit correction, recasts, clarification requests, the use of metalinguistic cues, and error emphasis through repetition.  

The author of this research further developed a structured classification that comprehensively outlines the strategies for addressing the most common pronunciation errors encountered by Russian speakers of English. This classification not only identifies these prevalent errors but also provides specific methods for effectively correcting them. This approach provides educators with a detailed guide, enabling them to tailor their teaching strategies to the phonetic challenges Russian learners of English face. By categorizing both errors and their corresponding corrective methods, the research provides a valuable framework for targeted pronunciation instruction, ensuring that instructional approaches closely align with the specific needs of Russian-speaking learners of English. The research outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Techniques for addressing and correcting pronunciation errors of Russian speakers of English

4. Psycho-Emotional Considerations and Innovative Methods in Correcting Language Errors.

In the view of Prokhorova [12, pp.798-803], the most critical aspect of the process of error correction in educational settings transcends beyond the mere type of task, the specific focus of the training, or even the methodology of teaching. Central to this process is the psycho-emotional status of the learners themselves.

 This perspective underscores the importance of understanding and addressing students' emotional and psychological states, particularly among adolescents and young learners. An unstable emotional sphere, with fluctuations in feelings and responses, often characterizes this demographic. They might exhibit a lack of confidence in their abilities and potential, leading to heightened sensitivity to criticism or correction. This sensitivity is not just a minor concern.

It can significantly impact the learning process and the way students perceive and respond to error correction.

 Prokhorova [12, pp. 798-803] advocates a teaching approach that is acutely attuned to learners' individual and age-specific characteristics. Recognizing that each student group has its unique set of psychological traits and learning requirements is crucial. The approach to error correction should be tailored to consider factors such as personality perception types, individual self-esteem levels, and students' motivational drivers. Such a comprehensive approach to error correction, which integrates an understanding of learners' psycho-emotional dimensions, aims to create a more effective and empathetic educational environment. It suggests that successful teaching and learning involve not just imparting knowledge or skills but also nurturing learners' emotional well-being and self-confidence.

Special attention should be paid to so-called fossilized errors. Those mistakes become deeply ingrained in a learner’s speech patterns, persisting over time despite regular teaching and correction efforts.

These errors are notably challenging because they repeatedly surface in the speech of individual students or groups, even after educators' continuous attempts to rectify them. Pak [10, pp. 116-122] highlights several methods for effectively tackling these fossilized errors.

One key strategy is the use of audio recordings. This involves having students record their own speech and then play it back for critical listening and analysis. This technique allows learners to hear their own errors, often making them more apparent and understandable, which is a crucial step toward correction.

Another method involves implementing a special signaling system. This could be a gesture, a sound, or a symbol that instantly flags an error. Such immediate feedback helps students recognize and remember their frequent mistakes in real time, enhancing the correction process. 

The use of “error diaries” is also a valuable strategy. In this approach, students keep a personal record of their frequent errors. This ongoing documentation serves as a reflective tool, enabling learners to track their progress over time and focus on specific areas that need improvement.

 Lastly, Pak [10, pp. 116-122] suggests a more creative method that involves exaggerating errors to the point of absurdity. By deliberately distorting the meaning of words through mispronunciation (for example, confusing “sleep” with “slip”, or “crepe” with “creep”), the absurd, humorous outcome can make the correct pronunciation more memorable. These methods collectively provide a comprehensive framework for addressing fossilized errors. They emphasize active learner participation, self-reflection, and the use of creative strategies to break persistent incorrect language patterns.

Conclusion

The research provides insightful conclusions on correcting pronunciation errors in language learning, particularly among Russian-speaking English learners. These conclusions offer a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved in the process of teaching and correcting pronunciation:

1. Necessity of error correction. Error correction is identified as an essential component of feedback in language learning. The study highlights that several challenges related to pronunciation errors and their correction persist, underscoring a continued need for research and innovative teaching strategies in this area.
2. Factors influencing phonetic difficulties. The research indicates that both internal factors, such as readiness, motivation, and self-monitoring, and external linguistic factors influence the phonetic challenges learners face. Errors often stem from a lack of understanding of articulatory specifics, improper intonation, and incorrect stress placement in words or phrases.
3. Methods of error correction. The study shows that educators widely use the imitative method. However, it notes that this approach is less effective compared to the imitation-analytical method. This more comprehensive approach involves deconstructing sounds, explaining them theoretically, and then reintegrating them into communication, thereby offering a more thorough understanding of language nuances.
4. Popularity of the approximative approach. An emerging trend is the adoption of the approximative approach, which suggests refraining from correcting errors that do not significantly alter the intended meaning. This approach prioritizes communication fluency and comprehension over phonetic perfection.
5. Diverse teaching methods. The research underscores the utility of various methods in addressing pronunciation errors. These include explicit correction, recasting, clarification requests, the use of linguistic terminology, repetition with an emphasis on errors, and signaling systems. Each method has its own merits, catering to different aspects of phonetic correction.
6. Attention to fossilized errors. The study highlights the importance of paying special attention to fossilized errors - those errors that learners repeatedly make despite correction attempts. These errors require specific strategies for effective rectification.

References:

1. Borsheva V.V., Efland E. Errors and the attitude towards them by students and teachers in the process of learning English // Pedagogy and Psychology of Education. — 2019. — № 4. — 72–81 pp.
2. Bogdanova T.G. The role of error correction in teaching a foreign language in a non-linguistic university // Scientific Bulletin of YIM. — 2014. — № 4. — 66–69 pp. [in Russian]
3. Celce-Murcia M., Brinton D.M., Goodwin J.M. Teaching Pronunciation. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. — 375 p.
4. Galkina I.A. On issues of forecasting, preventing, and correcting errors in teaching a foreign language in a technical university // Scientific Results of the Year: Achievements, Projects, Hypotheses. — 2014. — № 4. — 30–35 pp. [in Russian]
5. Inamova G.A. Effective methods in forming phonetic skills of the English language // ORENSS. — 2023. — № 5. — 997–1003 pp. [in Russian]
6. Kiryushina O.V. Specifics of control and methodological techniques for error correction in teaching a foreign language // World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology. — 2021. — № 2. — 1–5 pp. [in Russian]
7. Kondrashova N.V. Forecasting and correcting student errors in teaching foreign languages // Scientific Dialogue. — 2015. — № 7. — 27–47 pp. [in Russian]
8. Lee C. Accent and professionalism in global communication // International Journal of Language Studies. — 2021.
9. Minakova T.V. Overcoming difficulties in learning a foreign language as a condition for the development of students’ cognitive independence // Bulletin of Orenburg State University. — 2001. — № 1. — 61–66 pp. [in Russian]
10. Pak N.S. Typical errors of those learning English as a foreign language and ways to overcome them // Scythian. — 2018. — № 5. — 116–122 pp. [in Russian]
11. Perlova V.V. Principles of teaching students of foreign language faculties word stress as a component of the rhythmic structure of English speech // West-Siberian Pedagogical Bulletin. — 2014. — № 1. — 82–93 pp. [in Russian]
12. Prokhorova N.Y., Myagkova B.Y., Komarova E.Y. Technology of correcting phonetic errors in middle school students during English lessons // Pedagogy. Questions of Theory and Practice. — 2020. — № 6. — 798–803 pp. [in Russian]
13. Shcherba L.V. Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. Vol. 1. — Moscow: Nauka, 1958. — 156–180 pp. [in Russian]
14. Sokolova M.A., Tikhonova I.S., Tikhonov R.M., Freydina E.L. Theoretical phonetics of the English language. — Dubna: Feniks+, 2010. — 240 p. [in Russian]
15. Swan M., Smith B. Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. — 145-161 pp.
16. Yanovskaya E.A., Neskreba A.V. The most typical errors in learning a foreign language and some ways to overcome them // Foreign Languages in the Context of Intercultural Communication. — 2020. — Вып. XII. — 325–330 pp. [in Russian]
17. Zelenskaya M.A. Prevention of phonetic errors in teaching English as a method of conscious formation of pronunciation // Symbol of Science. — 2017. — № 4. — С. 142–144 pp. [in Russian]