Abstract

The study was conducted to 'investigate ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle and to explore the effects of ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle'. This research utilizes the mixed method approach and for the proper execution of this work, the researcher collected data through a questionnaire. Research data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Responding to eight statements the respondents showed complete disagreement and replied that difficult words create no difficulty in pronouncing them, they feel no confusion about silent letters like a knife, difficult spellings are less problematic to speak, variation in pronunciation due to complex spelling creates no problem, pronunciation does not depend on only spellings, pronunciation of words matches with their spellings does not become the cause of trouble for them, and lengthy words are less difficult to pronounce them correctly.

Key Words

Communicative Hurdle, English Pronunciation, External Communicative Barrier, Foreign Language Learners

Introduction

External barriers are a set of linguistic and social factors including pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, grammar rules, classroom environment and teachers' role. Latha (2012) is confident that grammatical competence will assist learners in correctly relating and recognizing the configuration of L2, and that will lead learners to fluency and accuracy. It has also been found that L2 learners have trouble communicating proper grammar to their speaking abilities. Larsen-Freeman (2001) shifts this emphasis 

to pronunciation, considering that it plays an imperative role in a speaking activity. Mispronouncing a single sound, or word, or the incorrect use of stresses and intonations can lead to serious misunderstandings between speakers. Similarly, according to Nation (2001), adequate exposure to a wide range of words or vocabulary is important for improving speaking skills. Non-native students often face a variety of challenges when looking for a suitable word that suits the meaning or circumstance. If students' receptive vocabulary is limited, they may find it difficult to put it to use in productive ways.

Pronunciation as Linguistic/External Communicative Barrier

English is the prime source of communication for foreign language speakers. For the fulfilment of the present-day phenomenon, trainers and mentors of the English language have to work hard to ameliorate learners' communication skills and ponder on essential and long-lasting techniques of articulation in language teaching classrooms. Apart from this fact, in Pakistan, conventional methods of English language teaching, such as the Grammar Translation Method, are still used. The demand of the hour is that English language teachers in target language classrooms must not confine themselves to just books recitation or handouts, but rather teach a second language from their best knowledge and assist students in gaining more language proficiency with full potential. (Ahsan M., Ghani M. & Khaliq A., 2016). In this regard, Harmer (2001) believes that interpersonal communication would be ineffective if learners are unable to communicate in their second language with others, and that incorrect pronunciation often creates misunderstanding, resulting in communication barriers. As learning proper pronunciation is categorically necessary for effective interpersonal communication, the correct pronunciation is commonly believed to be one of the most neglected aspects of English language learning and teaching. Moreover, Harmer (2001) elaborated on this point, stating that virtually all Educators encourage learners to attend grammar, vocabulary, and practical dialogues in-depth, as well as participate in creative ability exercises and improve the most competent listening and reading skills. Morley (1991) makes an interesting point on behalf of this phenomenon of L2 learning, stating that concise transcription of words is a vital part of language proficiency. Anxiety is described as a state of panic, reluctance, and paranoia that is ultimately linked to a specific thing (Horwitz, 2001). It is solely a psychological state, which psychologists differentiate the three types of anxiety: trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety. a) Trait anxiety is a relatively healthy character trait, marked by an inexorable tendency to feel anxious (Horwitz, 2001).  State anxiety, on the other hand, is a brief and transient anxiety that occurs in response to a particular anxiety-urging stimulus, such as an important exam (Spielberger, 1983). The final type is c) Situation-specific anxiety, which relates to certain anxieties' persistent and multifaceted existence (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991). A specific circumstance, like speaking in public, tests, or class involvement, may cause this form of anxiety (Ellis, 1994). The role of influencing variables can even be tracked back to the 1950s as one of the most significant and critical factors of learning, but it took another few decades for the anxiety model to be studied more extensively in the realm of desired language learning. Horwitz and Cope proposed the first distinct and unambiguous definition of language anxiety and a device to quantify it in 1986, after first attempting to describe anxiety with regard to L2 learning by transmitting other forms of anxiety into the target language learning context. These two described it as a diverse range of self-perceptions, beliefs, viewpoints, and aspects linked to English as a foreign language classroom learning that resulted from the uniqueness of the language learning process (Horwitz, 1999). A variety of language-related fears have been reported, including a) listening or comprehension anxiety (Kim, 2000; Vogely, 1999); b) writing or apprehension anxiety (Cheng, 1999; Hilleson, 1996;  Anxiety from reading (Argaman & Abu-Rabia, 2002; Saito, Y., T.J. Garza & Horwitz, 1999); d) anxiety about communicating (Woodrow, 2006); and e) anxiety about grammar (Woodrow, 2006; VanPatten, 1999). In comparison, no techniques have been proposed to directly observe the essence of pronunciation anxiety, which might resolve the state of mind evoked by the way one looks or sounds while speaking in the target language, or the uncertainties experienced when learning L2 pronunciation. A variety of studies have been conducted in the field of language anxiety in order to identify its bases. Young (2004) proposes six prospect foundations for language anxiety: personal/individual and interpersonal/interactive anxieties, learners' perceptions of L2 learning, teachers' perceptions of L2 teaching, teachers/student collaborations, classroom activities and procedures, and L2 testing and evaluation. Personal and interpersonal anxieties, including target language learners' self-perceptions, have been consistently recorded among all of these Bailey 1983 & Abu?Rabia, 2004 agree in believing that self-esteem and self-perception are the most important elements in L2 learning and have a greater impact on learning ability, especially in pronunciation.




Defining Pronunciation and how it differs from phonology of the English language

Pronunciation has many definitions, but Dalton and Seidlhofer (1994) note that it is the proper development and interpretation of speech sounds. To further understand this viewpoint, it is important to note that there is a major distinction between phonology and pronunciation. According to Burgess and Spencer (2000), phonology in the English language consists of theory and information about how the sound system of L2 works, which includes both segmental and supra-segmental features. The practice and meaningful use of the target language phonological features in speaking, on the other hand, is preserved by practice in recognizing such phonological structures in a target language communication that one perceives. According to Yates and Zielinski (2009), pronunciation refers to the method of producing speech sounds to deduce meanings as we speak. This pronunciation scheme includes the English language's specific consonants and vowels, which are referred to as segments of language, as well as features of speech above the level of the separable segments, referred to as suprasegmental aspects of the English language, such as stress, rhythm, timing, intonation, phrasing, and voice quality. Though we talk about these parts separately often, when we speak, they all work together to solve challenges in the same place, and it is the combined effect that decides whether someone's pronunciation is easy or difficult to understand. Fraser (2001) declared emphatically that pronunciation encompasses all aspects of speech that contribute to a clearly understandable flow of speech, including segmental articulation, rhythm, intonation, and phrasing, as well as, more superficially, body language, gestures, and eye. Elocution is a basic part of the verbal correspondence, which likewise comprises syntax, jargon decisions, social reflections etc.

Foreign Language and the Importance of its Pronunciation

Morley (1991) viewed clear articulation as a fundamental constituent of informative skill. Celce-Murcia (1996) endorsed the thought and concurred with her record requesting that conceivable elocution is perhaps the most required constituent of oral correspondence. Similarly, Yates (2002) explains that learners with honourable articulation in English are all the more expectedly to be seen regardless of whether they make blunders in different parts, on the other hand, learners whose elocution is difficult to measure won't be seen, regardless of whether the language of the learners is great. Correspondingly, Burns (2001) affirms that ideal articulation is significant in spoken correspondence. Indeed, even where learners produce inconsequential imprecisions in jargon and sentence structure. They are additionally expected to convey proficiently when they have fair elocution. In association with this point of view Hewings (2004) has correspondingly featured the meaning of articulation in a powerful proclamation. He thinks that hindrances with elocution may imply that students neglect to comprehend their message, in any event, when the exact words are being utilized, or they may neglect to fathom what is said to them.




Impact of Pakistani Local Dialects on the Way to Express English Language

Urdu is the public language of Pakistan and individuals of Pakistan communicate in more than 70 unique dialects like Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushto, Balochi and Saraiki, and so forth it is straightforward that learners learn articulation of foreign language by amalgamating the target language with their first language, local or provincial dialects. Language transmission portrays the intercession of the first language in L2 language learning. Learners apply information from their local dialects to become familiar with an unknown dialect in the EFL study hall. This point of view can be upheld in appreciating and utilizing the objective language somewhat, however, this can likewise turn into an obstruction to the appropriate accomplishment of the L2 rules, sentence design, jargon, and elocution. In a similar line of activity Krashen (1981) has referenced that sentence mistakes in grown-up execution happen because of the utilization of the first language in the existence of the understudies and this impact stays for a significant stretch in the brain of the learners. 




Research Design

The objective of the study is to explore the role of internal and external target language barriers in effective communication at the graduation level. To fulfil the preceding aim structured L2 learners’ questionnaire was 

used as the key research instrument.  The authenticity of the research methodology is vindicated by Strydom and Venter (2002) as these two are of the view that research methodology had better contain an account of research respondents, research sites, the plan regarding sampling technique used for the study, and research instruments deployed for collecting research data. This study was conducted while utilizing the mixed-method approach. For the proper execution of this work, the researcher collected data through a questionnaire for the study face to face along with online due to COVID-19 restrictions so that a huge junk of data can be gathered. With a view to fixing the topics' findings regarding the role of internal and external target language barriers to effective communication. The researcher constructed the L2 learners' questionnaire while taking assistance from the studies accomplished by Belegdair, A. (2015), Al Hosni, Samira (2014), Bourezzane, Nadia (2014), Al Othman, Fadel & Shuqair, Khaled (2013), Nombre, Segura Alonso & de Junio (2012), Ali Al-ma’shy (2011), Ahsan,  Ali, & Hussain (2021), Ahsan, Ashger, & Zafar (2020), Ahsan, Seemab, & Nawaz (2021), Ahsan, Asif, & Hussain (2021), Ahsan, Younus, & Husain (2020), Ahsan, Asif, Kaukab, Zafar, & Naeem (2020), Ahsan, Asgher, & Hussain (2020), Younus, Nawaz, & Ahsan, (2021), and Ahsan, Nawaz, & Seemab (2021) as models for this research with trivial modification on the basis of scholar's own five years of teaching/learning experience at public sector college and university level. The questionnaire used in this research has two fragments i.e. research question 1-5 is comprised of demographic information and the remaining 74 statements are based on the format of a five-point Likert scale.




Objectives of the Study

i. To investigate ESL students' attitudes

 about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level. 

ii. To explore the effects of ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level. 




Research Questions

i. What are ESL students’ opinions about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level?

ii. What are the effects of ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level? 

Research Instrument of the Research

The researcher collected data with the help of an L2 learners' questionnaire. The research sample included in this work was limited to the 17-22 years learners' age group. Above one thousand L2 learners' close-ended questionnaires were circulated among the participants. The participants for the present study were from the BS English program continued in Public Sector University i.e. Ghazi University, affiliated public and private sector colleges to the said university and sub-campuses of Bahaudin Zakariya University Multan and Govt. College University Faisal Abad is situated in Dera Ghazi Khan Division. Close-ended, well-structured research questionnaire comprised of a 5-Point Likert scale was projected to accumulate researchable data. The researcher reviewed a huge bulk of relevant research to find out a suitable research tool that might be easily managed and administered to the respondents of the current study. The researcher constructed the L2 learners' questionnaire while taking assistance from the studies accomplished by Belegdair, A. (2015), Al Hosni, Samira (2014), Bourezzane, Nadia (2014), Al Othman, Fadel & Shuqair, Khaled (2013), Nombre, Segura Alonso & de Junio (2012), Ali Al-ma’shy (2011), Ahsan,  Ali, & Hussain (2021), Ahsan, Ashger, & Zafar (2020), Ahsan, Seemab, & Nawaz (2021), Ahsan, Asif, & Hussain (2021), Ahsan, Younus, & Husain (2020), Ahsan, Asif, Kaukab, Zafar, & Naeem (2020), Ahsan, Asgher, & Hussain (2020), Younus, Nawaz, & Ahsan, (2021), and Ahsan, Nawaz, & Seemab (2021) as models for this research with trivial modification on the basis of scholar's own five years of teaching/learning experience at public sector college and university level. The questionnaire used in this research has two fragments i.e. research question 1-5 is comprised of demographic information and the remaining 74 statements are based on the format of a five-point Likert scale.

i. Completely Agree

ii. Agree

iii. Neutral

iv. Completely Disagree

v. Disagree




Context of this Research Work

The pure focus of this research is adult L2 learners enrolled in BS English programs continued in public sector universities i.e. Ghazi University, affiliated public and private sector colleges to the said university and sub-campuses of Bahaudin Zakariya University Multan and Govt. College University Faisal Abad is situated in Dera Ghazi Khan Division. These are those L2 learners who want to achieve better L2 skills so that they can do excellent in their L2 classrooms, jobs or in academics. In this study, adult L2 learners are those students who have completed their intermediate studies and they are of above 17 years of age.




Significance of the Study

Since this research work will attempt to disclose the role of internal and external target language barriers to effective communication at public sector universities i.e. Ghazi University, affiliated public and private sector colleges to the said university and sub-campuses of Bahaudin Zakariya University Multan and Govt. College University Faisal Abad situated in Dera Ghazi Khan Division, it’s worth is restricted to the following considerations:

1. This research work is significant as it fixes whether L2 learners are willing to accept the role of internal and external target language barriers to effective communication in L2 classrooms.

2. Statistics from this work regarding L2 learners’ attitudes towards the role of internal and external target language barriers to effective communication encourage and persuade students in L2 settings.

3. The present study is noteworthy as it will exalt the level of L2 learners' speaking skills by overcoming internal and external barriers by adopting appropriate methods, techniques and procedures for proficiency, aptitude, and accuracy of speaking skills. 

4. This research project will highlight the reasons and causes of such barriers and challenges and will try to discover a suitable solution for the same. 

5. This work would facilitate curriculum developers in developing and designing apposite curricula to make L2 learning more advantageous in the context of Pakistan.




Delimitation of the Study

This research work was demarcated to explore the role of internal and external target language barriers to effective communication at the graduation level. The current study was conducted at Public Sector University i.e. Ghazi University, affiliated public and private sector colleges to the said university and sub-campuses of Bahaudin Zakariya University Multan and Govt. College University Faisal Abad is situated in Dera Ghazi Khan Division, where BS in English is in progress.  

Data Analysis

Table 1. Statistical Description of the Psychological Factors i.e. Pronunciation Category of the Scale

Cronbach's Alpha	0.73077521
Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation	0.813647352
Split-Half with Spearman-Brown Adjustment	0.897249789
Mean for Test	14.11437908
Standard Deviation for Test	2.824378428
KR21 (use only 0 and 1 to enter data for this)	1.919979383
KR20 (use only 0 and 1 to enter data for this)	2.016224607

 

Table 2. Screening Frequency of Students Testified on Pronunciation Category of the Scale

Scale Category	Sum of Students	Mean	Standard Deviation	Frequency of Category
Pronunciation	307	14.1143	2.8243	0.7307

Table 3. Frequency, Mean and Standard Deviation regarding L2 Learners’ Opinion about English Pronunciation as Communicative Hurdle

Sr. No	Statements	Mean	SD	Frequency categories
01	I do not speak English ………… words well	1.6992	0.4603	Low
02	My wrong pronunciation……….embarrassment for me	2.0842	0.8282	Medium
03	I am much confused about ………… knife, subtle etc.	1.6541	4774	Low
04	Students laugh………….. I utter a wrong word	1.5940	0.5778	Low
05	Difficult spellings cause……..problem to speaking the words	1.1654	0.5102	Low
06	Spelling system………………….wrong pronunciation	2.005	0.3753	Medium
07	Variation in pronunciation……… is always problematic	1.3008	0.5639	Low
08	Pronunciation…………………….. depend on spellings	1.3383	0.4749	Low
09	Pronunciation of words……….is the cause of trouble for me	1.3158	0.4666	Low
10	Lengthy words……….difficult to pronounce correctly	1.1053	0.3018	Low

 




The descriptive indicators in table 3 determine that the target language learners responded on the subject of 'L2 learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' from high to medium and medium to low degree values. It is the third cataloguing among the eight sub-categories of the core scale and this group is also like the previous category accompanying parted into 10 sub-statements of the main account and the most superlative statement communicated by the L2 learners was Item # 25: (M= 2.0842 & SD=0.8282), Item #29: (M=2.005 & SD=0.3753), Item #24 : (M=1.6992 & SD=0.4603), Item #26: (M=1.6541 & SD=0.4774), Item #27: (M=1.5940 & SD=0.5778), Item #31: (M=1.3383 & SD=0.4749), Item #32: (M=1.3158 & SD=0.4666), Item #30: (M=1.3008 & SD=0.5639), Item #28: (M=1.1654 & SD=0.5102), Item #33: (M=1.1053& SD=0.3018).




 

Table 4. Age Group T-test Showing Relation of Age Group on Eight Scale Categories

Sr. No	Variables	Age group	N	Mean	SD	F	P
1	Pronunciation	17-19 years	109	1.7248	0.4882	0.10	0.751
		20-22 years	198	1.7071	0.4563	0.431	0.679

(0.05) level of mean shows a significant difference.

 




Table 4 shows that the data of 307 male and female L2 learners were divided into two major categories of age groups i.e. 17-19 years and 20-22 years age groups. In the first category of the age group of age groups i.e. 17-19, there were 109 male and female respondents who were 35% of the total participants. In the second category of age group i.e. 20-22 years, there were 198 respondents who were 65% of 307 male and female foreign language learners. The collaboration of the age group category with the 'ESL learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' with F=0.010; 0.030 and P=0.905; 0.861 respectively showed a non-significant relationship.




 

Table 5. Gender T-test Showing Relation of Gender on Pronunciation Scale Category

Sr. No	Variables	Gender	N	Mean	SD	F	P
1	Pronunciation	Female	133	1.6992	0.4603	0.214	0.644
		Male	174	1.7241	0.4733	0.236	0.346

(0.05) level of mean shows a significant difference.

 




In table 5 the acknowledged data was alienated into male and female categories of the participant in the female gender category there were 133 respondents who were 43% of the total 307 accomplices and in the male category, 174 L2 learners were included who were 57% of the overall numbers who contributed in this research project. The interaction of the gender group with the 'ESL learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' with F=0.01; 0.03 and P=0.924; 0.861 respectively showed a non-significant correlation with the main scale category.




 

Table 6. Current Semester of Enrolment T-test Showing relation of Current Semester of Enrolment on Pronunciation Scale Category

Sr. No	Variables	Current Semester	N	Mean	SD	F	P
1	Pronunciation	2nd	56	1.8036	0.4832	21.19	0.000
		4th	55	1.6545	0.4799	21.13	0.000
		6th	105	1.9238	0.2666	21.11	0.000
		8th	91	1.4505	0.5003	21.09	0.000

(0.05) level of mean shows a significant difference.

 




Data for the current study exhibited in table 6 were collected from the four semesters of the Spring 2021 session i.e. 2^nd, 4^th, 6^th, and 8^th. In the first category, i.e. from the 2^nd semester, 56 foreign language learners participated and it was 18.24104% of the total population. In the second category i.e. from the 4^th semester 55 male and female students contributed and it was 17.91531% of the total numbers. In the third category i.e. from the 6^th semester, 105 participants were included that indicating 34.20195% of 307. In the last category i.e. from the 8^th semester, 91 L2 learners participated and this was 29.64169% of the total population. The collaboration of the current semester of enrolment category with 'ESL learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' with F=21.19; 21.13; 21.11; 21.09 and P=0.000; 0.000; 0.000; 0.000 disclose statistically most significant correlation.




 

Table 7. Populations’ Institution Wise T-test Showing Relation of Populations’ Institution Wise on Eight Pronunciation Scale Category

Sr. No.	Variables	Gender	N	Mean	SD	F	P
1	Pronunciation	Public	260	1.6790	0.4766	6.41	0.012
		Private	47	1.8438	0.4070	6.62	0.009

(0.05) level of mean shows a significant difference.

 




In table 7, firstly, the established information was distributed to public and private teaching institutes and it was recounted that 260 respondents were enrolled in the public sector institutes which were 84.6905% of the total 307. The second category signified that 47 learners who participated in this research were from private affiliated colleges and degree awarding institutes and they were 15.3095 per cent of the selected sample of the current study. The relationship of learners' institution-wise category with 'ESL learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' category indicates statistically most significant correlation with F=6.41; 6.62 and P=0.012; 0.009 values respectively.




 

Table 8. Living Background T-test Showing relation of Living Background on Pronunciation Scale Category

Sr. No	Variables	Gender	N	Mean	SD	F	P
1	Pronunciation	Rural	134	1.7801	0.4347	24.64	0.000
		Urban	173	1.4697	0.5029	24.72	0.000

(0.05) level of mean shows a significant difference.

 




In table 8, the first category was about the rural background of the selected population and it showed that 134 male and female students were from countryside areas, this was 43.6482% of the whole figure. The second category indicated the 173 male and female students who were 56.3518% of the total number of the sample were from urban areas who contributed to the current study.  The collaboration of the living background category with 'ESL learners' opinion about English pronunciation as communicative hurdle' with F=24.64; 24.72 and P=0.000; 0.000 postulated statistically most significant correlation. 

Findings and Discussions of the Research Questions

Research Question 1

What are ESL students’ opinions about

English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level?

The results of the analyzed data revealed that the learners' opinion regarding English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle' fall from medium to low degree values and in two statements this is in medium degree and in eight statements this value remains in low degree. This situation indicates and proves the null hypothesis significantly signifies that there is no difference of opinion among students about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle. Responding to eight statements the respondents showed complete disagreement and replied that difficult words create no difficulty in pronouncing them, they feel no confusion about silent letters like a knife, difficult spellings are less problematic to speak, variation in pronunciation due to complex spelling creates no problem, pronunciation does not depend on only spellings, pronunciation of words matches with their spellings does not become the cause of trouble for them, and lengthy words are less difficult to pronounce them correctly. Behind all this favourable situation for L2 learners can be the positively increasing role of electronic and social media which is full of audio and video stuff that is sufficient to improve learners' communicative ability. To further clarify and strengthen this viewpoint, the study conducted by Efrizal (2012) and Gilakjani (2016) is correlated with the existing research as they also believed that proper pronunciation is important for learners' interactions since they talk everywhere, anything, and every day as the spoken exchange of ideas and information is known as communicative contact. If only instructors are motivated and want to encourage and urge their learners to communicate in English both inside and outside of the classroom, instructors must also utilize the language with good pronunciation in real-life communicative situations and ask their learners to do the same.




Research Question 2

What are the effects of ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle at the BS level? 

ESL students' attitudes about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle fall from medium to low degree values and in two statements this is in medium degree and in eight statements this value remains in low degree. This situation indicates and proves the null hypothesis significantly signifies that there is no difference of opinion among students' about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle. Responding to eight statements the respondents showed complete disagreement and replied that difficult words create no difficulty in pronouncing them, they feel no confusion about silent letters like a knife, difficult spellings are less problematic to speak, variation in pronunciation due to complex spelling creates no problem, pronunciation does not depend on only spellings, pronunciation of words matches with their spellings does not become the cause of trouble for them, and lengthy words are less difficult to pronounce them correctly. Behind all this favourable situation for L2 learners can be the positively increasing role of electronic and social media which is full of audio and video stuff that is sufficient to improve learners' communicative ability. Similarly, the leading part of the teacher cannot be falsified completely because he is the guardian of the classroom in almost all third-world countries.

Conclusion

This study proves the null hypothesis significantly signifies that there is no difference of opinion among students' about English pronunciation as a communicative hurdle. In responding to eight statements the respondents showed complete disagreement and replied that difficult words create no difficulty in pronouncing them. Similarly, they feel no confusion about silent letters like a knife. Likewise, fellow students do not laugh at them when they utter a wrong word or mispronounce the words, difficult spellings are less problematic to speak, variation in pronunciation due to complex spelling creates no problem, pronunciation does not depend on only spellings, pronunciation of words matches with their spellings does not become the cause of trouble for them, and lengthy words are less difficult to pronounce them correctly. Behind all this favourable situation for L2 learners can be the positively increasing role of electronic and social media which is full of audio and video stuff that is sufficient to improve learners' communicative ability.

References

• Abu-Rabia, S. (2004). Teachers' role, learners' gender differences, and FL anxiety among seventh-grade students studying English as an FL. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 711-721.
• Ahsan, M., Ghani, M., & Khaliq, A. (2016). Teachers’ Perceptions toward the Use of Urdu Language in Teaching/Learning English as a Foreign Language. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7(8), 61-72.
• Ahsan, M., Asgher, T., & Hussain, Z. (2020). The Effects of Shyness and Lack of Confidence as Psychological Barriers on EFL Learners’ Speaking Skills: A Case Study of South Punjab. Global Regional Review, 2, 109-119.
• Ahsan, M., Asif, M., Kaukab, A., Zafar M., & Naeem, M. (2020). Anxiety as an English pronunciation barrier in multilingual classroom: A case study of southern Punjab (Pakistan). International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(4),305314.
• Ahsan, M., Younus, N., & Hussain, Z. (2020). Exploring the Role of Classroom Environment in Hampering L2 Communicative Interaction: A Case Study of the South Punjab. Sir Syed Journal of Education in Social Research (SJESR), 3(3), 354-363.
• Ahsan, M., Younus, N., & Hussain, Z. (2020). Exploring the Difficulties in Learning English Grammar Rules in Functional English/ESP Classrooms, a Study into the Context of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review, 1(3), 285-293.
• Ahsan, M., Ashger, T., & Zafar, M. (2020). Barriers in Teaching Speaking English to the Adults: A University Level Scenario. International Review of Social Sciences, 8(12), 321-330.
• Ahsan, M., Ali, S., & Hussain, Z. (2021). Fear and Lack of Motivation as an Interactive Barriers in EFL Classroom at University Level. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(6), 616-628.
• Ahsan, M., Seemab, S. W. A., & Nawaz, S. (2021). Investigating Learners’ Perceptions about the Role of English Language Curriculum Set in Boosting Communicative Competence of the Students: The South Punjab Scenario. Global Regional Review, VI(I), 112-123.
• Ahsan, M., Asif, M., & Hussain, Z. (2021). L1 Use in English Courses ‘a Facilitating Tool or a Language Barrier’ in L2 Teaching/Learning at Graduation Level. Global Language Review, VI(I), 70-83.
• Ahsan, M., Nawaz, S., & Seemab, S. W. A. (2021). Vocabulary Barriers Experienced by University Students in the Process of Learning English as a Foreign Language. Global Social Sciences Review, VI(I), 173- 182.
• Al Hosni, S. (2014). Speaking difficulties encountered by young EFL learners. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2(6), 22-30.
• Al Othman, F. H., & Shuqair, K. M. (2013). The Impact of Motivation on English Language Learning in the Gulf States. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 123-130.
• Ali Al-ma’shy, A. (2011). Causes of EFL speaking weakness in Saudi secondary schools in Al-Gunfuthah City (Doctoral dissertation, King Saud University).
• Argaman, O., & Abu-Rabia, S. (2002). The influence of language anxiety on English reading and writing tasks among native Hebrew speakers. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 143-160.
• Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger and M.H. Long(eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Belegdair, A. (2015). The Main Psychological factors affecting Learners’ Oral Performance Case study: Second Year LMD Students of English at University of Biskra.
• Bourezzane, N. (2014). Some Psychological Factors that Hinder Students’ Participation in Learner-Centered EFL Oral Classroom Activities. Case Study: First Year LMD Students of English. Mohamed Kheider University of Birska.
• Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and teacher education. System, 28(2), 191-215.
• Burns, A. (2001). Analysing Spoken Discourse: Implications for TESOL. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader. 123-148. London: Routledge.
• Celce-Murcia, M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language learning, 49(3), 417-446.
• Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, N. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages.
• Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours: editor’s introduction, 1–5.
• Hewings, M. (2004). Pronunciation practice activities. Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Hilleson, M. (1996). I want to talk with them, but I don’t want them to hear”: An introspective study of second language anxiety in an English-medium school. Voices from the language classroom, 248-282.
• Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557-576.
• Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 112-126.
• Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students learning English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.
• Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, 51-79.
• Latha, B. Madhavi. (2012). Teaching English as a Second Language: Factors Affecting Learning Speaking Skills. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 1 (7), 1-6.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship toother anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language learning, 41(4), 513-534.
• Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.
• Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
• Nombre, A. Y., Segura Alonso, R., & de Junio, C. (2012). The importance of teaching listening and speaking skills. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Spain: Facultad de Educacion UCM [Universitas Complytensis Matritensis].Saito, Y., Garza, T. J., & Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The modern language journal, 83(2), 202-218.
• Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-trait anxiety inventory for adults.
• Strydom, H., & Venter, L. (2002). Sampling and sampling methods. In: AS De Vos (ed.). Research at grass roots for the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
• Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian modern language review, 50(1), 158-164.
• VanPatten. (1999). "What Is Second Language Acquisition and What Is It Doing in this Department?" ADFL Bulletin 30.3 (1999): 49-53.
• Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere, 106-123.
• Woodrow, L. (2006). Academic success of international postgraduate education students and the role of English proficiency. University of Sydney papers in TESOL, 1(1), 51-70.
• Yates, L. (2002). Setting goals for teaching pronunciation, AMEP Fact Sheet, Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre.
• Yates, L., & Zielinski, B. (2009). Give it a go: Teaching pronunciation to adults. Macquarie University.
• Younus, N., Nawaz, S., & Ahsan, M. (2021). Investigating the Role of Reading While Listening (RWL) Strategy to Improve Second Language Listening Skill. Ilkogretim Online, 20(5), 4690- 4695.
• Young, H. P. (2004). Strategic learning and its limits. Oxford University Press.